Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 9

message: Party Affiliation does not belong in the introductory area unless it is of historic importance. Take a look at Clinton, Bush sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc. ; none have it there. (At least they didn't until yesterday, when someone added it to Clinton's because they objected to it being deleted from this page.) ChessPlayer 17:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, rather, that it belongs on all the Presidents, except for Washington.  Meelar 17:40, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is on all presidents....just not in the intro area, its in the box on the right. There is no need to say it in the intro, thats where the specific historic info on the president is best said. No need to say it in the box and again in the intro, that's clutter. The box gives the facts like that; the intro says in words what's historic. ChessPlayer 18:09, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually about to amend my remarks when I wandered off.  Now that I'm back, I agree. Meelar 18:28, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party Affiliation 

message: A quick sampling suggests that all the First Ladies are listed by their maiden names, so Laura Welch would be consistent. I guess one reason is to save space, since their married names are obvious. --wwoods 23:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: their married names are obvious -- not in terms of usage. Hillary Clinton preferred to continue her unmarried name of Hillary Rodham, changing usage when it appeared a political liability to her husband. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:13, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But that didn't happen during Clinton's Presidency, but when he was running for governor of Arkansas.  She never referred to  herself as Hillary Rodham once he became governor. RickK 03:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, but what I'm saying is that with modern usage, what was once obvious, isn't necessarily any more. Then we have Eleanor Roosevelt. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I agree with that. These are articles on Presidents, not family tree geneology. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:25, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First ladies' names

message: I find it a bit strange that this article has photos of Bush with Chirac and Schroeder and none with Blair although he met the latter by far more often. Altogether I think that there are too many pictures. Get-back-world-respect 14:58, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously to show that things weren't always brickbats between them. But why too many pictures? If there's anything wrong with Wikipedia, it's that there aren't enough pictures. Combined with its functional layout, I've seen Stalinist sites with more visual interest. By all means get some more Kerry pictures in there! I'd go for some with him with Jane Fonda dressed as Barbarella, even if they're doctored! ;-) -- Cecropia | Talk 20:55, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos

message: Shouldn't it be noted in the paragraph mentioning Jeb Bush being the Govenor of Florida that Jeb Bush categorically excused himself from any business regarding the presidential election count in order not to even create the appearance of impropriety ?
Txwikinger 19:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Election 2000

message: I have found an inconsistency between Clinton's and Bush's profession given in the table. Clinton's says Attorney and Governor. Shouldn't Bush's say than also Businessman and Governor, instead of just Businessman ?
Txwikinger 19:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Bush was a businessman much longer than Clinton was an attorney; hasn't Clinton pretty much been in government since the '70s? Meelar 19:48, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Profession

message: I do not agree that the "family pic" is not relevant. The family pic shows that Bush is part of a political dynasty, and that is very important to his personal life. WhisperToMe 23:28, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Family pic

message: A few changes had to be reverted just now; a vandal from 162.83.199.229 made changes such as "and worst President", "admitted [...] sleeping with men", "having an abortion", and so forth.  Meelar's most recent revert is correct; I accidentally left an extra "I" when fixing one of the vandalized quotes. - Korpios 19:12, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I agree that there are too many links to pro- and anti-sites and questionable "references". However, just because the topic is controversial we should not keep all external links out. What is the view of others? Get-back-world-respect 13:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: GBWR, I'm removing the pro- and anti-links for now because this is in conformity with the same done at the Kerry article. Either they must both go or both stay. If you disagree, please discuss with User:Kingturtle, who is the proponent of the changes. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:30, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with that, the anonymous put them back. Get-back-world-respect 14:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro- and anti-links

message: I have made a template at , but i can't use it here due to pipelinks for party and VP... anyone know a way around this?
:I don't see a template there Ilyanep 13:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Table