Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 44

message: Shouldn't the activity by John Conyers calling for the censure (and perhaps impeachment) of Bush be listed under the crticisim section? This seems significant. ADDED: sorry about the series of wonky edits. I'm a newbie and I broke some stuff on the talk page somehow which I seem to have fixed (somehow) Numskll 15:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Conyers Publications 

message: Being recognized as Person of the Year is not an honor, according to the magazine.  Therefore, this does not belong under his "perceptions," unless to show that he is influential.  I believe that it is critical to make this specific distinction by describing the title in this article.
True. Hitler was person of the year. ~~
--
Time Magazine selects its 'Person of the Year' as being the person who had the biggest effect on the year's news. This is even mentioned as such in the Wikipedia article on the magazine. Kilraven 17:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The Bush article isn't an article on Time.  If people truly want to know what the Person of the Year means, they can look at that article's entry. Squiggyfm 17:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time Magazine Recognition as 'Person of the Year'

message: This sentence is incorrect: "As of August 2, 2000, Bush had visited the ranch 49 times during his time as president, accruing 319 days away from the White House and nearly reaching Reagan’s eight-year record of 335 days in 5.5 years.[citation needed]".  George Bush was inaugurated in January 2001 so the year on this date has to be incorrect.
35.11.38.58 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vacation Days 2000

message: Where does this nickname come from, if I wiki it, I just get a redirect to this page. --Ktp72 09:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article: "Among his family, he acquired the nickname "W" (for his middle initial; later Dubya, a literal spelling of a colloquial pronunciation of the letter), which later became a common public nickname, used both affectionately and pejoratively." --Easter Monkey 10:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stands for "Worst". Gzuckier 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually it stands for Walker. I think you can verify this. ;-) --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: HA! ur gay. and uncreativeJigsaw Jimmy 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no constructive purpose in making personal attacks on Wikipedia.  If you have a point to make, find a civil way to do it.  Kasreyn 09:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubya? 

message: Excuse me, but where is the new user who may have never edited Wikipedia before told that this page is the exception and not the norm when it comes to Wikipedia? I think that the semi-protection tag should be re-inserted in the article to make it very clear that the rest of Wikipedia is open. From what I see, there isn't even a tag on the talk page and the article doesn't even belong in the semi-protection category.  Ronline ? 01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection templates have been subject to editing recently.  See the section above "Too many protect tags!" for the status of this discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to disagree - whenever an article is not subject to normal Wikipedia editing/oversight processes (ranging from semiprotection to Officezilla) we have a duty to notify readers of this - in the same way that if a TV report is coming from a restrictive country the anchorman will often say 'This report has been monitored by Government X' to tell viewers that the content might be different from what it otherwise would be. I'm all for removing the padlock icon - after all, other 'content templates' (e.g. Template:Cleanup) do not have any icons at all, they simply state the problem with the article, and provide appropriate wikilinks if a reader wants to know more. Cynical 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most readers (I'm guessing) do not realize that Wikipedia is editable by anyone. Most readers do not come in through the home page. Hence, if the main purpose of the template is to warn readers about some condition that they might otherwise not realize existed, then we should maybe have a template at the top of all articles saying something like "This article has been written and edited by volunteers. Since anyone can edit this article at any time and write anything they wish, you should not trust the factual content of this article - it might have been subject to vandalism that we haven't yet noticed."  Most readers don't care about the editability of Wikipedia - they appreciate that the articles exist and they trust them without thinking about where they come from. It's not that I'm against the anybody-can-edit philosophy of Wikipedia - far from it, I'm fully supportive of it. What I'm against is the idea that the editability is the most important thing about Wikipedia. The most important thing about Wikipedia from the point of view of almost all readers is the articles. And from the point of view of a reader, the semi-protection notice is equivalent to having a phrase like "This article is under more scrutiny than most of the rest of our articles so it is less likely to have been vandalized" appended to the above hypothetical warning. It seems as silly to warn readers about this as it would to have that other hypothetical warning on all articles. - Hayne 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Is anyone planning to add information about these two concepts into this biography. Granted, Bush was not the first to espouse this doctrine, but he is the first to take it as far as it has gone. JJ4sad6 20:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that these subjects are better placed in one of the articles surrounding the controversies of his presidency, which I believe has already been done. As it is, this article is way too long to include everything that's simply notable about him; so we have to relegate information to other related articles whenever possible. DrLeebot 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signing Statements/Unitary Executive 

message: I have found an excellent source of information about Bush's Immigration Reform. The link should be included somewheres in the Immigration section 4.5.6. This is the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/
Maybe you could add a See Also section under the Immigration section, but I'd rather a link in the text itself.
Jake 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The immigration "section" does seem like it could use some expansion, but adding a link in the article isn't how things are generally done (exceptions being references and when a word is linked wiki-like to another site). Preferably, someone should summarize what is said in this source and reference it. I'll get at it if I have a chance today. DrLeebot 13:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright, I've gone in and expanded it and included the reference you provided. It could likely use some cleaning up by someone a bit more familiar with standards here. I believe that a brief note should be made about the claims of many critics that his plan to allow immigrants to stay amounts to amnesty anyway, but I left it out because I didn't have a link off-hand. DrLeebot 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration Link 

message: Should the Treasury spot on the administration chart be changed? John Snow resigned, and Henry M. Paulson, Jr. was nominated. --Stonesour025 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Snow is still in the job, his resignation will be effective whenever his successor is confirmed: short answer = not yet. --Easter Monkey 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Treasury Section

message: When it says in the first paragraph that his term expires on the 20th, it should say 12:00 Eastern time on January 20th
:Are you sure? I thought it expires whenever the next president takes the oath of office, which could be 12:01, 12:22, or whatever. Furthermore, it could possibly end before then. We don't need to load the first paragraph down with specifics on the time his term ends. --Golbez 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The time should be included 

message: I have read that Daddy Bush told Jr. that before he would help him get a political career going he needed to go out "and make his money".  Bush started his oil company in Texas as a result (with financing from some of daddy's friends).  Contrary to popular rumor, it WAS actually able to find oil in Texas.  However, it went under because the company could not produce oil priced below $15/barrel and the market price at the time was $9/barrel and lost the investors money. Within a year he became an alcoholic and got his DUI.  I believe all of this is accurate and verifiable and should be included in the article by someone.  It really adds a backdrop to the Iraq war and the high oil prices as it points out that Bush's greatest personal failure (of making it on his own after Daddy told him to go out on his own) was because of low oil prices.
Can this be verified? I did read in the book "Parents of the Presidents" that the greatest comparison between the Bush family and the Kennedy family is that all the Bush men have had to create their own fortunes as adults before they could share in the family wealth, whereas the Kennedys got their inheritence upon becoming adults.  But we also must remember that President George W. Bush also gained a lot from selling his share in the Texas Rangers before becoming governor of Texas. Criddic 23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  $9 / Barrel Oil Caused Jr's Oil Companies Failure ... and Ultimately Alcoholism

message: I'm rather curious about the recent changes to this section and their immediate removal with the edit summary of trimming POV material...  is the Boston Globe not considered a reliable source?  What is POV about noting a sworn deposition, or the opinion of a former assistant secretary of defense?
I feel that the user who removed these remarks is unclear on what "NPOV" means.  "NPOV" does not mean "make sure you take an equal number of viewpoints from both right and left, and keep them even at all times."  Ridiculous, especially since American concepts of "right" and "left" are not globally accepted.  "NPOV" means primarily that claims must be presented in an unbiased manner, without verbiage or structuring that would deliberately frame or bias the reader.  It also means not to give undue weight to certain minority viewpoints.  Examining the sections removed, I do not see evidence of POV phrasing or verbiage, nor do I think they are being given undue weight.  Perhaps the editor who removed them felt they were not notable, or that the Boston Globe was misquoted or is unreliable.  These are all other reasons for removal of content.  But I'm just not seeing the POV here.  Surely a military officer swearing a deposition that he abused his authority is notable in the article on the man that abuse benefited?  Surely the opinion of a former assistant secretary of state is notable on the subject of alleged dereliction of duty - an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs, no less!
I must say I'm puzzled.  Kasreyn 02:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[United States National Guard|National Guard]] section changes and removals 

message: According to several experts who examined his record, no.
US News obtained and reviewed Bush's National Guard records and disputes the Bush line that he fufilled the technical requirements of his service.
A recent examination of the records by U.S. News does not appear to support Lloyd's conclusions. Among the issues identified by the magazine: 
"The White House used an inappropriate–and less stringent–Air Force standard in determining that President Bush fulfilled his National Guard duty. 
Even using this lesser standard, the president did not attend enough drills to complete his obligation to the Guard during his final year of service. 
During the final two years of his service obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. Instead, he took credit for makeup drills he participated in outside that time frame. Five months of drills missed by the President in 1972 were never made up, contrary to assertions made by the White House."http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/roane040908.htm
This contradicts the article's claim (before my edit) that Bush "fully completed his required time in service obligations." It also means the citation of the number of points Bush earned is misleading since every year he is above the quota, but it is not mentioned that more is required that simply meeting the quota of 50 points.
IworkforNASA deleted several key facts I added, including that a former Texas Speaker of the House swore under oath that he pulled strings to get Bush into his particular unit ahead of many others on the waitlist. He also slanted the article to make it appear that only "left-leaning" groups investigated or called attention to Bush's record. In fact the two investigations I cited included the Boston Globe's and US News, which is generally considered a slightly right-of-center newsmagazine. I also quoted critizism of Bush's record by a Reagan Administration official.
These should not have been deleted, and I am restoring him. If he feels more balance should be added, I invite him add additional discussion and facts, and to provide citations to these facts.
It is also misleading to simply say that Bush was honorably discharged without mentioning the fact that this does not mean that he fulfilled all of his duties, but simply that the military choose not to make a case against his honorable discharge. As the New Republic's article on the issue notes:
"John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985."
If we are going to note that Bush was honorably discharged, then the context and meaning of being discharged, especially in 1974 when the military was very eager to shed soliders due to the end of the war, needs to be explained.
Kitteneatkitten 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming your sources are correct, I would agree with this.  Kasreyn 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Bush Fulfill His Guard Duties?

message: Why is there a link at the bottom of the page to a Scientology/Remote Viewing page, when the topic is never mentioned in the body of the article?  67.127.59.112 11:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The site which hosts the document to which the link points seems to have an anti-Scientology agenda, and not be controlled by the CoS.  Too Old 01:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have little relevance to this article, though I have not read its entirety. Too Old 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the link. I suspect that the article may have covered his policy or decisions on Remote Viewing and/or Scientology in some earlier version, and this link wasn't removed when that portion of the article was. ---DrLeebot 13:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology/Remote Viewing?

message: An AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against United States presidents seems to be converging on a merge decision.  That would involve moving the information into this article.  69.181.124.51 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge  

message: The funding of $15 Billion refered to in the AIDS portion of this page fails to address the reality of AIDS funding under the Bush administration. The President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is in fact a partial redistribution of existing funds committed to AIDS relief around the globe. The actual amount of new funding is $9 billion while the rest was already earmarked for AIDS relief. However, PEPFAR has placed restrictions on the distrbution of funding to countries based on their current form of government, the types of AIDS programs currently in place and political/religious views. In short, the president has politicized AIDS relief. For instance, countries that have programs that do not advocate abstinence until marriage receive less or no funding than countries that do. This has resulted in 14 so called focus countries that will receive a majority of the funding. Also, PEPFAR limits the total amount of funding to 3 billion dollars over 5 years, with each fiscal year requiring a budget to be set by congress. This means that the entire 3 billion for each year may not be actually allocated to AIDS relief. 3 billion is merely the maximum amount which can be budgeted.
I believe the above should be included in the AIDS section of this page which in its current form fails to accurately depict the implications of PEPFAR implemented by Bush.
More emphasis should be placed on the fact that the Bush administration pushes "Abstinence Only" programs. Having spent time in Ethiopia, I can attest to the fact that refusing to include condom education leads to increased spread of the virus.72.139.184.107 14:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a source for the "abstinence only" push? Thanks Dubc0724 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Great! Feel free to add something to the article to improve that section. I can't promise it will remain unedited or even in the article (this is already a very large article about a contemporary and highly visible person), especially if your edits are not supported by a reputable, verifiable source. But we'd appreciate any help you can offer in improving this article! --ElKevbo 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS Contributions 

message: Is Bush's use of signing statements covered anywhere in Wikipedia (Boston Globe, April 30 ; or see here for a shorter comment on the issue)? Rd232 talk 10:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is, at signing statement. And there is actually a brief aside in the Bush article - maybe there should be marginally more. Rd232 talk 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently hovering around the news right now, so an aside is appropriate. If it becomes a bigger issue, then it will deserve more mention. ---DrLeebot 13:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  King George 

message: Anyone else heard about W.'s affair with Condi, and Laura staying at a hotel?  I though I saw something on the Wayne Masden Report.--wakefencer
:Wonkette blogged on it, but as of now the rumors are not substantiated enough to warrant inclusion. Any evidence thereof would have to be verified per WP:V.--Kchase02 T 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that'd be "alleged" affair.  Is this a blog or an encyclopedia? Dubc0724 17:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probally be mentioned for those that don't know wonkette is satire --mitrebox 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, then wonkette needs to mention it too... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides, everyone klnows that Rice is a lesbian.  Cripes.  Maybe we should start a page for wild-ass rumors and innuendo (viz. 'Satanist' below.) -- Charlie (Colorado) 18:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush/Rice Affair

message: Did anybody see the Larry King Live episode where Bush disses McCain's war service?
I found it to be very disheartening and disrespectful to McCain and all veterans.
I think it is a notable subject and a good display of Bush's poor character.
Therefore, I think it should be included in this wikipedia article.
The fact that you want to use Wikipedia to demonstrate the president's "poor character" indicates your proposed change is a bad idea. Read up on POV. 65.95.142.241 17:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply "Stating what was said" can still be POV. It all depends on how you weight it. ---DrLeebot 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What I find more interesting than the Larry King episode was the allegations of push polling (aka a whisper campaign) against McCain in 2000.    Are these currently mentioned in the article on the 2000 campaign?  It certainly makes me curious how McCain is going to treat a party that looked aside from such dirty infighting and may try to rehabilitate him eight years later.  I wonder if he wants the oval office so badly he's willing to forgive and forget?  Kasreyn 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 campaign against McCain 

message: This article was taken off the BBC (English, not American news) website:
America was itself to blame for the events of September 11 because the US administration was using "kid gloves" in tracking down Osama bin Laden and "other fanatics linked to Saudi Arabia", a special BBC investigation has alleged in a damning indictment of the two presidents Bush and American foreign policy. 
The report, which the BBC claimed was based on a secret FBI document, numbered 199I WF213589 and emanating out of the FBI’s Washington field office, alleged that the cynicism of the American establishment and "connections between the CIA and Saudi Arabia and the Bush men and bin Ladens" may have been the real cause of the deaths of thousands in the World Trade Centre attacks. 
The investigation, which featured in the BBC’s leading current affairs programme, Newsnight, said the FBI was told to "back off" investigating one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers, Abdullah, who was linked to "the Saudi-funded World Association of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a suspected terrorist organisation," whose accounts have still not frozen by the US treasury despite "being banned by Pakistan some weeks ago and India claiming it was linked to an organisation involved in bombing in Kashmir". 
Newsnight said there was a long history of "shadowy" American connections with Saudi Arabia, not least the two presidents Bush’s "business dealings" with the bin Ladens and another more insidious link revealed by the former head of the American visa section in Jeddah. 
The official said he had been concerned about visas issued to large numbers of "unqualified" men "with no family links or any links with America or Saudi Arabia", only to find out later that it "was not visa fraud" but part of a scheme in which young men "recruited by Osama bin Laden" were being sent for "terrorist training by the CIA" after which they were sent on to Afghanistan. 
In a reiteration of a now well-known claim by one of George W Bush’s former business partners, the BBC said he made his first million 20 years ago on the back of a company financed by Osama’s elder brother, Salem Bin Laden. But it added the more disturbing assertion that both presidents Bush had lucrative stakes along with the bin Ladens in Carlyle Corporation, a small private company which has gone on to become one of America's biggest defence contractors. The bin Ladens sold their stake in Carlyle soon after September 11, it said. 
American politicians later told the BBC programme that they rejected the accusation that the establishment had called the dogs of the intelligence agencies off the bin Ladens and the royal House of Saud because of a strategic interest in Saudi Arabia, which has the world's biggest oil reserve.
I find this a bit disturbing to include.  The Bin Ladens officially denounced Osama years ago.  Is this meant to imply a Bush connection to 9/11? There's no evidence to support such a claim. Criddic 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it mentions both Bushes but not Clinton, who was offered bin Laden at least once?  Seems a bit slanted to me... Dubc0724 12:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Bush calls off FBI Investigation into Bin Laden Family 

message: I note that this category was removed, but the reasons were unclear. If it's not a category, then fine...but Bush WAS nominated for the peace prize in 2002. Can the editor explain why he/she thinks this is "a joke"? Schrodingers Mongoose 17:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel Peace Prize Nominees

message: I created a petition to Pope Benedict that I would like to add to the George W. Bush article.  I don't think this should be deleted by administrators.  
Petition to Pope Benedict to excommunicate or deny communion to Rudy Giuliani and to withdraw the papal nuncio from Washington D.C. in protest of George W. Bush's fear-mongering and gay-bashing
Pistolpierre 22:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pistolpierre and I have had a brief discussion about this on my Talk page (he left me a message asking why I deleted the link).  I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia article about George Bush as it's inherently unencyclopediac.  But thanks for raising this on the Talk page, Pistolpierre - this is exactly where and how this issue should be raised on this very busy and politically charged article!  --ElKevbo 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, this is nowhere near a mainstream view, not mentioned in press, not going to ever amount to anything, and not worth discussing. Please do not attempt to re-insert this link into any Wikipedia article. Thank you. Harro5 01:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow.  Umm, you are aware that Bush isn't even Catholic, right?  Excommunication by the Pope of Rome means nothing to him.  Besides, it's been centuries since the Pope wielded any temporal influence over other countries, beyond the status of a sometimes-venerated spiritual advisor.  Kasreyn 21:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, he wants to excommunicate Rudy Giuliani to punish him for George Bush's actions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the big reason this doesn't fit in here is that it's original research. If it becomes big enough that someone else reports on it, then maybe (which I personally doubt will ever happen, to be honest. The Vatican is likely to dismiss it as ridiculous). ---DrLeebot 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plus, in regards to gay-bashing...why would the Pope excommunicate a third party for Bush's actions in which the Catholic church sort of agrees with?Squiggyfm 21:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petition to Pope Benedict  

message: I am still not sure why dubya insists on using the gesture of the "mano cornuta, horned hand".
It is my belief that this topic deserves more attention. Are we to believe that this is nothing more than his family/ and organizations' devotion to the University of Texas ?
:::Oh geez.  And if it was something more, would it belong in an encyclopedia? Dubc0724 18:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might. But if the questioner knew any Texans, he or she would not be asking this question. Obviously, all UT fans are Satanists.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lmao Dubc0724 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the title, I thought this section was about a Death Metal/Alternative music band. Kevin Baastalk 14:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hook em' horns / hail freemasons - order of death 

message: Should this article mention that the George Bush article holds a record on wikipedia as the most vandalised page on wikipedia? 195.93.21.137 10:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  I think that reflects more on Wikipedia than it does GWB. Dubc0724 15:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lmao, truer words have never been spoken!--Kalsermar 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides that, it would be self-referential. ---DrLeebot 18:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tone of the article currently seems (to me) so positive and deferential as to appear sanitized. Is it possible that anything perceived as negative or controversial is being deleted as vandalism? - Mark Dixon 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Deleted as POV, more likely, unless it's obvious that it is simple vandalism and not PVO-pushing. Also, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for why it might seem sanitized - Wikipedia tries to avoid too much bashing of living individuals on pages about them.---DrLeebot 14:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  It's important to keep in mind, though, that putting an unjustifiably positive spin on something is just as POV as an unjustifiably negative spin. - Mark Dixon 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be mentioned on the wikipedia article, that it is the most vandalize page. It can be used to show that despite that this is a controversial topic, wikipedia has the ability to have a fairly un-baised article. Simply even though it is an open community and anyone can write to it, the article is still realiable and accurate. It can actually make the wikipedia community look somewhat professional. --Jbaxi 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: most vandalised page

message: meine lustigen Haar tatses, etwas Käse über dem Internet schicken Sie mir bitte, bevor der Affe meine Huhnkuh tötet --152.163.100.74 21:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we send him the cheese, save his chicken-cow, and add this comment to the entry on Surrealism. -- Charlie (Colorado) 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: der Buschbaum-Betriebsaffe 

message: Since I can't edit this page being a new user, could someone please fix the "In office since" line in the infobox, right now it just says . Thanks, Newnam 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Thanks for pointing it out to us!  --ElKevbo 03:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox error 

message: I just spent some time cleaning up the external links (mostly references) in this article.  Somehow (vandalism? carelessness?) a space had been inserted between the opening bracket and the URL thus causing the links to display improperly.  Please be careful when adding or editing external links.  And please try to insert new references in a format consistent with existing references.  Feel to drop me a line on my Talk page or here on this Talk page if you have any questions or need any help!  --ElKevbo 03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link/reference issues

message: Can someone check upon the Neo-fascism#Neo-Fascism and the United States piece. I find the inclusions (starting at the Chomsky bit) all very suspect. Intangible 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you mean by "suspect"?  Do you mean that those people did not say what the article reports?  Or that you dispute what they said? Too Old 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusions as such is WP:POV. There is no rebuttal of the libelous claims that these authors make. Intangible 16:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So your intent is to say you disagree with those statements. You can put in quotations that rebut them, if you can find them.  US law does not, unlike many truly dictatorial regimes, make it criminal to criticise governmental figures.  Statements praising GWB are, of course, equally POV. Too Old 16:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but obviously one is not able to find a rebuttal from George W. Bush, the Republican Party and "conservative movement" that get criticized here. If it criticism on George W. Bush, shouldn't it be added to this article, instead of the Neo-Fascism article? Intangible 17:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You might not find a rebuttal by GWB, but I have not noticed any reticence by other "conservatives" when disputing Noam Chomsky.  I am not familiar with the other authors.  If you think the criticisms should be in this article, you could include them here, or you could put in a link to Neo-fascism#Neo-Fascism and the United States.  In either case you could put in rebuttals by anyone you like, in either article, as long as it's not your own opinion. I would not insert rebuttals to these analyses myself, since I agree with them.  Too Old 07:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Neo-fascism]]  

message: I'm seeing way too much of the former and absolutely nothing on the latter. If anything, the UN resolution(s) violations by Saddam are what the administration maintains was their basis for war with Iraq. I'm pretty upset that wiki is missing this vital info, but I don't have the required experience to update it myself.
:That's what they say now, granted, but it isn't what they said at the time. Whether they like it or not, we were all around to listen to them tell us their reasons for going in when it happened, and those reasons boiled down to the WMDs (at least to the perception of the American public. It may have been different behind-the-scenes, but that's ultimately irrelevent). I do recall a few mentions of human rights issues at the time, but they weren't the main reason. Either way, we should reference news stories from that period to see what they said at the time.
:What they now say they said is completely irrelevent (it's just spin). What the records say they said is what's important. And if you want to get into a debate about the real reasons behind it, just remember that to keep it balanced you'll also have to include liberal (conspiracy) theories that the war was waged on political and personal grounds. ---DrLeebot 12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with the liberal (conspiracy) thing? Most biased thing i've ever seen. -King Zwardo 5:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WMDs vs. UN Resolutions

message: It may be premature right now because it is still in the news, but I think that at least one line or so ought to be included regarding the rather unusually strong friendship between Junichiro Koizumi and GW Bush.  Other than the obvious controversial issues, this fact is turning out to be one of the more defining aspects of his Presidency. Perhaps in the "Foreign Policy" section.  --The Yar 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Acutally, I see the last line of the article talks about leaders with whom he has personal and working relationships.  Koizumi isn't even mentioned there, but I'd think that relationship would deserve even its own recognition, above the others listed. --The Yar 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese Prime Minister

message: i think a link to this video should be included to reinforcve the article including the section where he himself is quoted as saying he has drank too muhc in the past Qrc2006 02:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: bush video

message: Hi all - I'm sorry for the delay in making further revisions and making this article an FA. I will be able to start work tomorrow for sure. Rama's Arrow 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry for delay 

message: dubya has presenile dementia. why is this neglected in the article ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickapeadeea (talk • contribs) 
:Because it mainly manifests itself in people who don't have much concrete or substantial to offer in the way of rational arguments and thus pertains more to people who view the subject than the subject itself. Therefore it doesn't belong here but in Bush Derangement Syndrome.--Kalsermar 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, this page is so boring when it goes a day or two without trolling--64.12.117.13 22:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presenile Dementia 

message: A line in the article states "Following failed diplomatic efforts to coax Saddam Hussein into yielding to weapons inspections, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq..." Now, I'm not positive about htis, but I do believe weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq, and that their efforts actually had to be postponed when the U.S. invaded Iraq. Can someone check up on this and get back to me? I don't want to remove the line without being certain that it is, indeed, false. tmopkisn tlka 22:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before that phrase was added, the sentence read "Following failed diplomatic efforts to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Bush ordered..." I think I like this wording better, because if you're right (which I'm almost positive you are) then weapons inspectors were let in, even if they were blocked from certain sites. tmopkisn tlka 07:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before the war 

message: He is officially 60 years old now. Wow.--Chili14(Talk|Contribs) 01:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow he's 60 or wow he's officially 60? --mitrebox 05:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His birthday is the same day as 50 Cent. Maybe that's why 50 likes him so much.--Chili14(Talk|Contribs) 06:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  60 

message: Has anyone made a case for the reason that this template is on this page? I just noticed it, and considering this is an article about an American President, it makes little sense particularly when we have a section and an entire sub-article on public perception. I have made my case on the Project talk page that this templates are slapped on a little too many topics, particularly topics that are expected to be centric around a particular country. So unless there is a case for it, I say it should go. PPGMD 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While trying to remove them I found that those tags are on the WOT template, I went to that template and removed them, tags such as those shouldn't be on templates, at least in the way that they were which gives the indication that the pages that include the template are the ones that need the editing.PPGMD 13:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize/USA Template? 

message: The Liberal Party of Canada is a centrist party:  By what stretch of the imagination might Jean Chretien and especially Paul Martin (a shipping magnate and fiscal conservative) be called "left wing politicians" pace the "public perceptions" section?  Given this, a more expansive term such as "centrist and left-of-centre politicians" might be in order. Fishhead64 00:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Liberal Party of Canada is either left or more right wing depending on what votes they feel they need to receive in order to achieve power.JaysCyYoung 02:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Liberals are generally considered left-wing, in relation to Canadian conservatives. Everything is relative, though, and by American standards are probably centrist - but not by Canadian ones. Best bet is to avoid use of these terms altogether when discussing Canadian politics in US articles.Michael Dorosh 02:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the Liberals are left-wing by Canadian standards, what does that make the New Democratic Party? I agree, such labels are unhelpful and relative to the perspective of the editor. Fishhead64 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Martin and Jean Chretien

message: I put in bold face words to eliminate, and use italics to suggest substitions. Any hackers who can get past the padlock should fix this.
Faced with serious drinking issues and difficulties in his professional and personal life, Bush would abandoned his socializing lifestyle and began attending church regularly. In 1986, he would quit drinking alcohol, and following a personal meeting and exchange with Reverend Billy Graham, he would become became a born-again Christian.[4] Changing his lifestyle, Bush also began studying studied the Bible and Christian philosophy, participating also in church and community study groups. Bush would move moved his family to Washington, D.C. in 1988, to work on his father's campaign for the U.S. presidency. He would work worked with political activists Lee Atwater and Doug Wead to develop and coordinate a political strategy for courting conservative Christians and evangelical voters, which was seen as key to winning the party nomination and the election. Delivering speeches at rallies and fundraisers, Bush would also talk to spoke with representatives of conservative and religious organizations on behalf of his father.
:I don't know what you mean by a "padlock"; the article is open for editing by all registered users, which should include you.  As for your grammar and verbiage changes, they look OK to me.  Go ahead and make them.  Kasreyn 08:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1: We're not hackers. We're registerd users who have stayed for more than four days. -- Chris Ccool2ax  contrib. 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please edit this weird grammar! 

message: Bush reputedly lacked interest in foreign affairs. His major changes to U.S. foreign policy included withdrawal from the 1998 Kyoto Protocol and from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, in order to pursue national missile defense. International leaders also criticized Bush for withdrawing support for the International Criminal Court soon after he assumed the presidency. The administration voiced concern that the court could conceivably co-opt the authority of the United States' judicial system. Bush publicly condemned the 'Stalinist' regime of Kim Jong-Il in North Korea, and expressed U.S. support for the defense of Taiwan following the stand-off in March 2001 with the People's Republic of China over the crash of a Chinese air force jet and the detention of U.S. personnel. In 2003-04, Bush authorized U.S. military intervention in Haiti and Liberia to restore order and oversee a transition to democracy. Although Bush's stands were lauded by Republicans and conservatives at home, global public opinion rose against his policies, and against America's hegemonic status the world's sole superpower.  
Bush emphasized a "hands-off" approach to the conflict between Israel and Palestine in wake of rising violence and the failure of the Clinton administration's efforts to negotiate. Bush specifically disowned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for his support of the violence and militant groups, but following urgings from European leaders, became the first American president to embrace a two-state solution envisaging an independent Palestine existing side-by-side with Israel. Bush sponsored dialogue between Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas, but continued his administration's boycott of Arafat. Bush supported Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, and lauded the democratic elections held in Palestine following Arafat's death.
War on terrorism
The September 11th terrorist attacks were a major turning point in Bush's life and presidency. Bush was visiting an elementary school in Florida when chief of staff Andrew Card informed him that a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City. Later, following news of a second plane crashing, Bush left the school and flew to an air base before returning to Washington, D.C. in the late afternoon. That evening, he addressed the nation from the Oval Office, promising a strong response to the attacks but emphasizing the need for the nation to come together and comfort the families of the victims. On September 14, he visited Ground Zero, meeting with mayor Rudy Giuliani and firefighters, policemen and volunteers. In a moment captured by press and media, Bush addressed the roused gathering from atop a heap of rubble:
"I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."
In a speech to the U.S. Congress, Bush declared war on terrorist groups and nations supporting terrorism across the world, and specifically endorsing the overthrow of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, which had been harboring training camps for Al Qaeda militants. Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, which resulted in the overthrow of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance with the help of U.S. special forces and bombing campaigns. Bush also backed secret programs to gather intelligence through the monitoring of bank funds and telephone records, and signed the controversial USA Patriot Act, which gave law enforcement agencies unprecedented powers.
Iraq war
Following the successful overthrow of the Taliban, the Bush administration also promoted urgent action in Iraq, stating that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and that in the post 9-11 world it was too dangerous to allow unstable regimes to possess weapons that could "potentially fall into the hands of terrorists." Bush also argued that Saddam was a threat to U.S. security, destabilized the Middle East, inflamed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and financed terrorists. CIA reports asserted that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire nuclear material, had not properly accounted for Iraqi biological weapons and chemical weapons material in violation of U.N. sanctions, and that some Iraqi missiles had a range greater than allowed by the UN sanctions.
Bush urged the United Nations to enforce Iraqi disarmament mandates, precipitating a diplomatic crisis. On November 13 2002, under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei led UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. Lapses in Iraqi cooperation triggered intense debate over the efficacy of inspections. UN inspection teams, after reporting some progress and demanding more time were strongly advised by the U.S. to leave Iraq four days prior to full-scale hostilities.
 At the urging of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Bush administration initially sought a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of military force pursuant to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. However, upon facing vigorous opposition from several nations (primarily France and Germany, and several Security Council members who didn't appreciate the [London] Observer's revelations that their offices had been bugged by the U.S. ), the Bush administration dropped the bid for UN approval, while finalizing preparations for its invasion. The war effort was eventually joined by more than 20 other nations (most notably the United Kingdom) who were designated the "coalition of the willing".
Military hostilities commenced on March 20 2003 to pre-empt Iraqi WMD deployment and remove Saddam from power, and successfully ended on May 1, 2003, when U.S. forces took control of Baghdad. The apparent success of U.S. operations would greatly increase Bush's popularity, but the U.S. forces would be challenged by public disorder, as well as increasing insurgency led by pro-Saddam and Islamist groups. The Bush administration was assailed in subsequent months following the report of the Iraq Survey Group, which found almost no trace of the weapons that the regime was said to possess. The 9/11 Commission report speculated that Saddam's government was actively attempting to acquire technology that would allow Iraq to produce WMD as soon as U.N. sanctions were lifted. However, the Commission found no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMD. On December 14, 2005, while discussing the WMD issue, Bush stated that "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong." However, Bush would remain unwavering when asked if the war had been worth it, and whether he would have made the same decisions if he had known more. For example, challenged by European reporters on the missing WMD issue, Bush replied by changing the subject, pointing out that "there are no more torture chambers" in Iraq - but then, perhaps remembering that Abu Grahib was starting to enter the news that very day, he quickly changed the subject back again.  U.S. efforts in Iraq were supposed to be the centrepiece of Bush's grand strategic plan to discourage and defeat terrorists by removing tyrranical regimes, promoting democracy, and fostering social and economic development.  As of 2006, three years after the conquest of Baghdad, the legitimacy of Iraq's new democratic process has been confirmed by the crushing electoral defeat of the Bush Administration's preferred presidential candidate, and the election of parties that demanded a speedy end of the occupation. However, economic conditions have apparently continued to deteriorate. According to the Brookings Institute's regularly updated Iraq reports, Baghdad's electricity, which was supplied for 20-24 hours every day under Saddam's rule, has steadily been reduced, down to an average of ten or twelve hours in 2004, six or eight hours in late 2005, and about four hours a day as of mid-2006. The results so far of the War on Terror, do not seem to be particularly encouraging. The Brookings Institute reports that the number of terrorist attacks worldwide in the year 2004 was 2,800. The total for 2005 was 11,111. (The Brookings chart only covers these two years.) 
'''
:1: We're not hackers. We're registerd users who have stayed for more than four days. -- Chris Ccool2ax  contrib. 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign policy 

message: User:Dubc0724 has removed without discussion this sourced sentence from the article:
:(iraq war section)some argue that for this actions the Bush administration could be prosecuted for war crimes.
ref: <BR> 
Otherwise than this there was no citation in this article for the well know allegation of war crimes. This is clearly intended to censor disliked point of views. --BMF81 12:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It had nothing to do with "disliked" points of view.  But using an opinion column as a source is not up to Wikipedia standards. Dubc0724 15:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The column was used as evidence of the alleged criticism and was thus used appropriately.  I agree with BMF81 that your edit was in bad faith, particularly your edit summary asserting a "POV source."  Sources are allowed to be POV; their presentation in Wikipedia is not.  --ElKevbo 15:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I also want to add that I do believe the previous wording could be cleaned up and tightened and I agree that the indefinite pronoun (?) "some" should be changed to reflect the identity of those who actually hold the opinion in question.  --ElKevbo 15:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About the weasel word "some", we could better specify replacing it with "many Bush opposers".--BMF81 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be even more specific than that as we know exactly who is levelling this particular criticism: "Benjamin Ferenccz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials."  --ElKevbo 16:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Go for it.  Not sure about the edit being in "bad faith" but I'm fine with my revert being reverted.  I am glad the weasel words are being addressed however.  Thanks Dubc0724 17:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK...Reverted my revert, but corrected one of the grammar problems.  Now that I've thought about this more, I'm not sure I agree with the statements above regarding "alleged criticism".  Someone on here "allegedly criticized" Bush for being an (alleged) Satanist.  Do we need to make room for that in the article?  You can find a "source" for just about anything on the Internet.  Where do we draw the line?  Anyway, it's in your hands now...I'm not touching it.  Thanks Dubc0724 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That part probably comes down to notability of the criticism and the critic. Former chief prosecutor of Nuremberg Trials says Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes - in. Guy on Wikipedia and miscellaneous bloggers say Bush might be a satanist - not in. ---DrLeebot 12:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed source 

message: A very large part of this article is about Bush's first term. I would like to remove alot of it, as it goes into excessive detail. Any objections? Green caterpillar 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I object. Bush's 1st term: 4 years, Bush's second term: 1.5 years and running. So obviously it will have a larger share of info for now. This Fire Burns.....Always  03:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would tend to agree with Rama's Arrow.  The article does not seem overly long to me at this point.  What material in specific do you want to cut, and why?  Kasreyn 12:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article gets way too specific on Bush's first term, and there already is an article on it. In this article, we should have a smaller "summary" type thing. Green caterpillar 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  As long as 1.) a link to the main article on his first term is prominently featured, 2.) no content overall is removed, only moved, and 3.) the summary highlights most important points, I'd say it's a good idea.  Kasreyn 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of text

message: Hi, I added Bush to that category, because he played rugby union for Yale university . If you want to dispute it, please go on my talk page.--HamedogTalk|@ 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was this removed?--HamedogTalk|@ 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added bush to American rugby union footballers 

message: In the Criticism and public perception section, the article states:
:Polls conducted in early 2006 showed an average of around 40% for Bush, up slightly from the following September, but still historically low from a President coming off of his State of the Union Address, which generally provides a boost.
This is clearly a mistake (the September "following" early 2006 hasn't happened yet), but even if the word "following" should be "previous", it still doesn't match what is seen in the accompanying graph. According to it, his approval ratings in early 2006 were (perhaps) slightly higher than in October and November of 2005, but certainly not September. - dcljr (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with approval ratings