Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 29

message: A recent Zogby poll showed Bush's approval rating a 46% for the month of March, 2005 - the lowest Bush had ever received, and the lowest second-term rating of any President since World War II. With the exception of John F. Kennedy, however, it is still the highest career long low-point rating of any President since polls began.
I can't be the only one to find that these two sentences contradict each other. Having a "lowest second-term rating of any President since World War II" and "highest career long low-point rating" don't seem compatible. I'd like to see some clarification on this. (unsigned comment by  Randvek)
:The "second term-rating is too vague" so it should be the contradiction that goes. Also I motion for removing the NPOV sigh and putting up an ACCURACY sign instead until the statistic issues (Ok, so there are still important disputes) are resolved. Voice of All(MTG) 19:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the two statistics can be reconciled.  Some Presidents hit their career lows in their first terms.  Some of them, such as Carter and Bush 41, weren't elected to second terms.  Presidents who get re-elected tend to be those who are better at influencing public opinion, so second-term ratings tend to be higher, because the Presidents who couldn't sway the public as well have been weeded out by the election.  So, to invent some numbers for illustration purposes, suppose Carter during the hostage crisis or Bush 41 as the economy tanked got approval ratings of 39%, while the worst ever received in the first or second terms of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton was 52%.  Then Bush's 46% would meet both stated conditions. JamesMLane 19:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll Statistics 

message: I archived most of the science debate and some of the Heit/Hype debate as well. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Archiving 

message: We need to add a Foriegn Policy section in this article. Right now my first proposal looks like this(much of it is the same text as the main article). Please make any comments. Voice of All(MTG) 22:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have a compressed version of the Bush Foreign Policy article 

message: Isn't there a limit to the number of previous versions an article can have stored. What If someone with a lot of free time vandalizes an article 40 times in a row as fast as possible? Could it ever be reverted? Voice of All(MTG) 02:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
:There are lots of us who would revert that, before it could be done too many times.
besides, arent here like 500 earlier versions of tlk pages?  it seems liklythat it would hold true for  article pages,  im gnna go look.
Gabrielsimon 02:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  And the Wikimedia Foundation needs to have the hardware to store all that and make it readily available to thousands of users at once.  That's where you come in. JamesMLane 03:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice plug! Yes, it's true (AFAIK), all of the tens of thousands of past revisions of this article are stored on the Wikimedia servers. One of the keys is compression - old revisions rarely need to be used, so they are compressed to save space. Rhobite 03:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
For those interested, here is a brief comment on the subject from User:Ed Poor, who is a Developer here.  NoSeptember 14:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about vandals 

message: I cant find any links to the bulge question as to whether Bush was wired for prompting during the debate, nor, for that matter, any links on his dry drunk behavior patterns, or the debate as to whether the severity of his past alcoholism has left him with permanent brain damage, as evidenced in his aphasia, any links, please post below.
:That's because there's no proof of what the "bulge" was...this article makes a weak attempt to at least base it's text on facts, not speculations just to raise an eyebrow.--MONGO 17:43, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
:The references you seek to "Audiogate": the mystery bulge, can be found on the article relating to President Bush's re-election campaign which is at the following link... George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004.
:On a side note if you - sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) fellow users can easily know who they are responding to. BCV 17:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the references you seek to allegations that President Bush demonstrates dry drunk behavior patterns and other past sustance abuses can be found at... George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. BCV 17:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is info on the debate radio receiver bulge Bush was wearing? 

message: Would it be better to put George W. Bush's middle initial in the article instead of his FULL middle name since thats the name he uses more often? George W. Bush or George Walker Bush? -Anon
:No. The W stands for Walker. People are likely to want to know that. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 15:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Middle Initial?

message: I checked the archives of the discussions and saw no mention of it, other than someone complaining about a photo of it being there. Anyway, this stuff's incredibly well-known. And it's a historical fact: He holds the record of being the first President to have been seen giving the middle finger, both before and during office.
Everyone knows of the photo of him giving the camera guy the finger when he was governor of Texas. But also, there's an undated video on Jay Leno of President Bush flipping off the media while in office . This is relevant, because it affects the public's perception of him. So, I put it in the "Public perception and assessments," section. There was also a third report of him flipping off the media, but there was no video or photo of it, so I left it out. 69.138.24.96 07:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added info about the middle-finger incidents

message: "What if they're New Here?": Is this line meant to be in anti-vandalism header for this article?
: It was quietly added last night.  I've removed it.  If someone wants to ask the question, here on the talk page is the place for it.  Not in the comments in the article itself. TexasAndroid 18:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What if they're New Here?" 

message: We report nonneutral statements and link to nonneutral sites all the time.  If a particular aspect of opposition to Bush is notable, it should be reported in this article.  The call for impeachment has certainly gone far beyond the stage of one crackpot in his basement putting up a website, but it still hasn't become important enough to be mentioned here.  If it gains in importance, though, then it should be mentioned, even though it's not neutral. JamesMLane 17:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality is not the point

message: I apologize that I have to bring this subject here, but I believe in consistency and others a promoting something quite juvenile that it must be brought up here.  About 4 editors, 2 might be sock puppets, on Spiro Agnew insist on adding an anagram stating "grow a penis."  Responsible editors have reverted them but they insisted that it is appropriate for the article for various reasons and started a poll.  I don't think anagrams are appropriate for an article, for instance, it is noted that "George Bush = He bugs Gore."; "George W Bush = He grew bogus." and "George Herbert Walker Bush = Huge berserk rebel warthog."  If we go down that way, we will start including anagrams on all the pages (which seems quite juvenile).  If you agree that this is inappropriate, please go to that page and vote. --Noitall 14:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Also, Bob Saget doesn't have the anagram "Got Babes". Or "Full House's Bob Saget" and "He's Got Soulful Babes". Or "The Olsen Twins" and "Slow, Thin Teens". Just a thought. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does the article on Jimbo Wales present any of the many choice possibilities ... what an outstandingly anagrammatic name. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anagram

message: I just archived this talk page today, and with one little conflict over the tiniest thing, it is now soooo long again. Good thing I created the empty archive. Looks like it will be needed soon. If someone wouldn't mind doing this, it would make this page a lot more manageable. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest page ever