Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 36

message: I hope everyone's got this page on their watchlists - it would be really embarrassing if they started messing with the pictures again and a reader saw it. Izehar (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism resumed 

message: Regarding the back-and-forth over whether redlinks to obscure legislation should be listed, TexasAndroid has now posted those redlinks in List of United States federal legislation - which is where they should be, not necessarily here. I will contend, however, that almost any piece of legislation enacted by a vote of the Congress and signed into law by the President is encyclopedic, especially in a non-paper venue such as our own. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It there must be a link, can't there be a link to List of United States federal legislation? Izehar (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks to legislation. 

message: And now for a non-vandalism, non-POV related discussion. :) (Wow.  Can we actually have those on this page? :) )
I edited out several red links in the Legislation section.  Two of them were put back in by one user (Jengod) and then removed by Izehar.  Be nice to talk about this here before a revert war starts on such a trivial subject.  (I mean, of all the things to have a revert war about on the GWB page, red links? :) )
Jengod called my removal of them nonsense.  A bit harsh IMHO, but I've seen worse here on WP.  For those who don't want to dig through the edit histories:
:Me: "Unlinked four red links in the legislation section. If they do not have WP articles, no reason to have the red links"
:Jengod: "nonsense. redlinks exist specifically to entice people to write missing articles"
:Izehar: "yes, but it doesn't look good to the reader - they are on such obscure subjects anyway that it is not likely that an article on them will be written; the LRA 2002 isn't even finished yet"
While I agree with Jengod that he has given one reason for the existence of red links, IMHO they are equally there to warn user that the link is disfunctional.  That going there will get them nothing useful.  And also to possibly warn that the link either needs to be fixed or unlinked, because it's not a useful link as is.  And, on a high, high profile page like this, the last reason is the most important IMHO.  I think that this page should be a showcase of what WP can do for a living, breathing encyclopedia.  And as such, the page should be one of the most perfected pages we have.  It'll never be perfect, that's impossible.  But this page should be held to a higher standard than most others for appearance. (And content, but that's outside the scope of this comment)  To that end, IMHO once again, red links detract from the appearance and utility of this page. - TexasAndroid 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TexasAndroid in this case, which is particularly rare (the situation, not the agreement!) - of course, another alternative would be to start articles for those four pieces of legislation... bd2412 T 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links on this page 

message: Is the warning label necessary? Has anyone done a survey to determine if this has actually reduced vandalism significantly enough to overrule the potential that it may be discouraging useful editors from participating?--MONGO 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning Label at top of edit field 

message: It seems that WoW (or whoever he or she is) comes around between 20:00 and 22:00 EST....pattern? Deckiller 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the prage should be protected only then ;-) Izehar (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pattern? 

message: The article has been temporarily protected to deal with an influx on trolls vandalizing. Harro5 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 7 hours unprotected and how many times vandalised? The sooner that semi-protection feature is prepared the better. That way, only the dedicated trolls can vandalism, as they will have to make 50 constructive edits through each before vandalising ;-) Izehar (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we re-open for business? Harro5 05:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done so. Happy editing, everyone!--Sean|Black 05:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Could some admin change the word "averred" in the section of GW's religion to some synonym? (Not that I know what any synonym of such a ridiculous word might be--"implied", maybe?) I'd do it myself, but following Wikipedia's apparent philosophy of letting only the popular users edit popular pages, I can't. Thanks! Matt Yeager 04:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd insert a link to Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy, but it seems the proposal has passed now... Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: The protection notice is at the top of the page but the page isn't actually protected! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.123.201 (talk • contribs) .
::Yes, we know. Makes absolutely no sense. -MegamanZero|Talk 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is what happens when it is move-protected. I think there is an open bug-fix request for that. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about protection 

message: Do you all think it's time that we finally made a poll--and followed its conclusion--in an attempt to reach some sort of consensus about what we should do, protection-wise?
The reason I'm asking is because pretty much all the information is already out there, and the current situation (a perpetual flux between full protection, varied forms of semi-protection, and no protection) is intolerable for the long term. Persuant to WP:POLLS, I'm going to float the basic idea first and see if we all agree to a poll.
Here it is: we have everyone vote whether or not the page should have ANY sort of non-move protection. (Obviously, move protection has reached a consensus already that it's appropriate and should be kept.) Should the "protection" voters win, we can then have a further poll on what type of protection should be used (have a public, protected page with a secret editable one? full protection? 50-edit protection? etc). I would also suggest that a simple majority of non-sock puppet accounts should determine whether or not to keep it--ideally, there should be a clear consensus one way or another in order to do anything, and an unclear majority should result in keeping the status quo; however, there really isn't a status quo to keep here. Everything's a mess.
So, I'm soliciting opinions here--do we all want a poll on whether to offer any sort of non-move protection on the George W. Bush page? Matt Yeager 00:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need a poll?

message: I just edited out the part "and former governor of Texas" because it's touched upon in the second paragraph. Deckiller 02:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also increased one of the pic sizes just slightly; the notes were the only thing hanging (on my computer, at least...it probably makes little difference on most computers). Deckiller 02:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little edit 

message: I look up George W Bush, and what do I get? This bozo. This is Bush JR!!! Emphasis on the "Jr." This article should be placed under the appropriate heading, which would be "George W Bush Jr." Looking up "George W Bush" should bring up is father, the 41st president.  (Yes, I know now that Bush Sr. is under the article for "George H W Bush." That doesn't change the fact that this article is for Bush Jr, and should be labeled as such.) ethernaut
:You're wrong. The "Jr" suffix is not supposed to be used in cases where the son's middle name(s) or initials differ from the father's. This is why Ronald P. Reagan is not referred to as "Ronald Reagan Jr", as his father's middle initial/name was different (W for Wilson, in this case). Therefore, as George H.W. Bush has different middle initials to the current president, the Jr suffix is not used, and the current form (of expressing the middle names as single initials) becomes the formal style of naming.  — Impi 11:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is under George W Bush because that is what he is referred to and most commonly known as. Bush Sr, meanwhile, is best known as George HW Bush, and hence the article is there. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This took a couple of minutes via Google:  — Impi 10:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I the only one who's noticed? 

message: How should we praise the current NSA scandle? I think it should be included. Watsonladd 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSA 

message: Protected. The defamation vandal has struck again, thankfully only three times. android79 21:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotect this page. Jimbo's address and phone number are already public knowledge, and people are not going to trust the edit summary and believe that he (or Bush) rapes small boys or offers rimjobs to people calling his home. We can just revert the vandalism as it happens. As soon as this page is protected, the vandals have won. —Guanaco 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope-too soon. Apply again tommorrow.--File Éireann 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that we have waited long enough. I am challenging the original reason for protection. —Guanaco 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, it's unprotected. Thanks, Splash. —Guanaco 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You see, that there is the wrongness of protecting this and waiting for the vandals to go away. Come back tomorrow? Will they all be taking a day off tomorrow? I can easily understand protecting against the semi-bot-like vandal for a couple of hours a day, since the rate of edit conflicts might otherwise become disruptive, but it should be unprotected quickly after that. And we shouldn't operate on the principle that something might be different tomorrow! -Splashtalk 13:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected, yet again 

message: OK, here goes: a straw poll. I have no clue about how long it should last, but we'll see. :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: # Prevents progress and has not signficantly decreased vandalism. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-enable section editing

message: * # Yes, if it can be proven that this actually helps reduce vandalism.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep section editing disabled

message: #It will all be moot in a few weeks. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-17 21:58
#Amen. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't Care

message: I started this, feel free to enrich. Izehar (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The article is currently protected right now, but I think a sentence or two should be added to the article about the recent revelations that Bush has repeatedly re-authorized spying on U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil without a warrant since 2002.  This is very important news and speaks a lot about President Bush's views on privacy.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 22:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "spying" is POV in this context. We shouldn't add every little revelation about Bush to this article. But if we choose to add this one, we should do it using neutral language. Rhobite 22:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And it would have to be verified with reliable sources.--Sean|Black 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are CNN or The New York Times good enough for you?  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 22:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they're fine, but you didn't cite anything in you initial post- I didn't mean to accuse you of lying.--Sean|Black 22:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What word would you suggest rather than "spying"?  It's an accurate term for what has been ordered.  It's even being used in the CNN and New York Times articles.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 22:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Eavesdropping or surveillance would be fine. CNN and NYT don't exactly have NPOV policies. I'm not going to accuse them of being biased sources, but they are among the more left-leaning media outlets. Rhobite 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fox News uses "spying", too. JDoorjam 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How about "domestic surveillance"? It seems less emotionally charged than "spying". – ClockworkSoul 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding information on secret spying 

message: The section on gaps in Bush's military record is too biased against him. Stating:
"Skeptics contend that many of the official records can no longer be found, and that the matter is at best ambiguous. Barring the discovery of additional documents that are either exculpatory or incriminating, the issue is unlikely to be settled conclusively." implies a likely 50/50 split between the suspicions being fact or false. On the contrary, all documents found have corraborated the president's story. The wiki article should reflect that.
Additionally, stating:
"Several months later the statewide manual recount of all counties was completed by a group of newspapers and it was determined that Al Gore had won in Florida under four counting standards and had lost to Bush under the other four counting standards." is deceptive, and does not reflect an unbiased summary of even the articles quoted. This quote strongly implies that there was an even chance for Gore to have won the election, and that it was simply a matter of which of eight recount methods were used. On the contrary, most of the proposed methods that resulted in Gore winning were standards that would be *illegal* to use -- for example, assuming that a person that voted for both Gore and Buchanan was a vote for Gore, something no county in America allows.
The NORC study is also not the best study to link for on the subject. A better link would be to the consortium of Florida newspapers that did a manual recount after the election is over. They found that using the most commonly accepted standard for recounts, Bush won. There were variant counting methods by which Gore could have won, but there is a general consensus that he would have lost even if the third recount hadn't been blocked by the US Supreme Court.
Links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm
http://www.democ.uci.edu/resources/virtuallibrary/vote2000.htm
--Wkerney 23:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Much as I'm vehemently against Bush and his policies, I've got to say that the chart of his approval rating seems a bit misleading, as it only charts the range between 35 and 90%.  It looks as if his approval rating had fallen to near 0% (if only!), the way that this chart construes things.  If someone wants to fix this, or find a chart that reflects this, please do.  But I do think having the chart is better than having no chart at all, since his declining popularity is certainly noteworthy.  Aislar 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted the graph and extended the numbers through december.  In the future, just read the image description and it will direct you to my talk page if further changes are needed. --tomf688{talk} 04:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's popularity 

message: Although I will say I am not a Republican, the neutrality of this article is not completely neutral. There are many adjectives that carry negative connotations that are used far too liberally (no pun intended). Also, personal takes on the article are glaring "Nation building with MIXED RESULTS". What do you guys say?
Michaelzhao 05:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NEUTRALITY!

message: This afternoon,  inserted the following text into the article:
: Our continuous presence in Iraq has been questioned by many within the US due to the fact that Saddam's regime has been successfully overthrown, he himself has been captured, and three democratic national elections have since been held. Many US citizens often wonder why the US is still fighting, and when the troops can finally return home. President Bush and his administration have explained that although the former dictator is gone and Iraq is free, there exist many Saddam loyalists ("Saddamists") and rejectionists who make up the insurgency that is preventing Iraq from living in total peace and functionality. These insurgents are being aided by remaining members of Al-Qaeda, led by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, whose overlord is the wanted Osama bin Laden. While combating such enemies, United States and coalition forces are helping train the Iraqi military so that it may eventually defend their newly liberated country on their own. President has stated that "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."
There are a number of problems with this. Firstly it refers to "our continuous presence", presumably this is written from the point of view of the United States of America.  Secondly it suggests material assistance provided by Zarqawi to other factions without providing a reference for this.  Thirdly it suggests that only this insurgency prevents Iraq from living in peace (ignoring the disaffected Shias, Sadrists, etc).  I have removed this text in its current form but a rewritten version may well belong in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of edits by [[User:24.29.84.114|24.29.84.114]]

message: Why is there larger space, between the title and the body text of this article, than other articles? It's kinda irritating to anal people like me; I'd understand if it's a necessary byproduct of some measure against vandalism, though. --Apostrophe 02:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor, minor issue

message: This is an absurd category to even exist on wikipedia much less be used to start linking people too.  It provides no value and is simply there to continue the smear.  Let's vote on who wants it to stay and who wants it to go. --Jbamb
: This conversation does not belong here.  If you disagree with this category, take it up with WP:CFD.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drunk Driving Category 

message: It seems wrong to me that the He-Man article has been protected for the past 48 hours with little vandalism, and the article for the President of the United States has been nothing but vandalized for the same amount of time.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Something is wrong

message: In one of the televised debates in the 2000 Republican primaries, all participating candidates were asked to name their favorite philosopher. Bush responded by stating "Jesus Christ", because "he changed my life".
::I remember him saying "Changed my heart" not "life".  
Here is at least one article that supports my recollection:
 
http://archives.cjr.org/year/00/4/hanson.asp 
Vegasjon 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missquote? 

message: This are all, basically, current event "scandals" against Bush.  Aside from a few sentences that he enjoyed wide support after 9/11, is there nothing anyone can find anywhere that indicated 40 some odd percent of the American people think he is doing a good job? -- Jbamb 23:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV - Perception section 

message: This stretches the bounds for having a NPOV, but it does seem to be authentic. If someone can confirm that this is true, it would make an interesting addition to our Wikipedian entry.  - AWF
:I don't know if you can trust that site. Here on its main page, for instance, he refers to the president as "Prince Dubya". It's just a random blog dressed up as a reputable online news site, I think. Matt Yeager 01:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonauthoritative source.  I'm sure it would make an appearance somewhere before an op-ed first if he really said it. -- Jbamb 04:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The source is bogus. I've seen Capitol Hill Blue before, they make stuff up. They're the ones who wrote about Bush running around the White House ranting and cursing about how everyone was out to get him. Rhobite 04:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm a progressive and very anti-Bush, but I agree that CHB is a shit-rag.  What they do is write stories that progressives enjoy reading, but almost always turn out to be wild fantasies.  There's plenty to hang Bush with using reputable resources.  And we already know he hates the Constitution, even if merely judging from his plainly illegal spying on Americans. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 04:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' 

message: Carbonite changed this paragraph
:Bush obtained a statistically insignificant increase in support from African-Americans during his presidency. He only got 9% of the black vote in 2000, and he received 11% in 2004. A marginally significant increase in Ohio (from 9% to 16%, each ± about 5%) may have helped give the victory to Bush over Kerry.
to read
:According to a CNN exit poll, Bush's support from African-Americans increased during his presidency from 9% of the black vote in 2000 to 11% in 2004. An increase in Ohio (from 9% to 16%, each ± about 5%) may have helped give the victory to Bush over Kerry.
The explanation was "reword to eliminate some POV and to more clearly cite the source."  Carbonite's version is factually incorrect.
It is not POV to say that a change is statistically insignificant or marginally significant.  These are precise terms of art that mean a difference that is less than the margin of error or equal to it.  Scientific journals, news articles and encyclopedia entries commonly use these terms.
It is a factually unsupported statement that "support from African-Americans increased."  The data is consistent with a decrease, an increase, or no change.  You can only say there was no significant change or that there was a statistically insignificant increase.
It is also factually incorrect that all of the data comes from the CNN exit poll.  The 2004 data does come from there, but CNN used 2000 data from the defunct Voter News Service.  This detail would be distracting to include in the main article.  The CNN reference provides no real information, since the real story is in the footnote.  It would be best to just stick with the footnote.
At least the current wording is better than what someone else tried to change it to say.  They said that the change was "statistically significant for a Republican," as if the laws of mathematics are different for Republicans:-)
--RichardMathews 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My only suggestion regarding this is that we allow the reader to decide what is significant, or not, when it comes to these percentages. Arkon 06:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anything that is hovering within ±1% of 10% is definitely low, by any standards. I think saying "Bush has had low approval ratings from African Americans" after citing those numbers is not POV in any extent. The Ohio bit is more interesting, though, so it might be better if that one stayed. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't really responding to that point.  I was responding to the original line of "Bush obtained a statistically insignificant increase in support from African-Americans during his presidency. He only got 9% of the black vote in 2000, and he received 11% in 2004. A marginally significant increase in Ohio (from 9% to 16%, each ± about 5%) may have helped give the victory to Bush over Kerry." Arkon 06:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if it is statistically significant (and you can find the correct wikilink for that), it might be ok to include the marginally significant increase line. But the statistically insignificant is not necessary, that is an understatement. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fuzzy math 

message: Is it necessary to give to billing to the theories that Bush screwed the National Guard and that he's a coke head?  Can we say nothing else about is family and early life?  This should be expanded greatly.  For examples, see the John Kerry article that has a substantial bio without giving top billing to the detractors. -- Jbamb 14:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article is somewhat of an attack piece at times on the current President, but he does have only about a 40% approval rating and that coinincides with the pervasive negativism of this article. Not to mention that he also has a historically low approval rating outside the U.S. and this is, afterall, a multinational encyclopedic effort. The best thing to do, is locate accurate information that rebuttals that which you see as negative and incorporate that into the article.--MONGO 15:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is important to remember who edits these articles. There will almost always be bias (positive or negative) inserted, consciously or unconsciously. The best bet is to try and balance the article if you find it POV. But remember to remain NPOV yourself, not pushing it in the other direction. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying negative stuff shouldn't be included... but he has essentially no biography and it goes straight into the cocaine/National Guard stick.  No family info?  No school info?  No background?  I'm not saying the data shouldn't be there, I'm saying how about we start with a biography (as in John Kerry) instead of starting with scandals that are less than solid. -- Jbamb 16:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be more on him personally...check the editions a few months back to compare.--MONGO 16:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life / Reorganization 

message: Why is this page vandalized so much? What are the motives exactly? People inserting email addresses followed by vulgar comments are just waisting their time.
68.103.149.210 03:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Locked Again 

message: It's something new. This is the first attempt at using it. Read up on it at WP:SEMI. Essentially, anyone with an account older than about 4 days can edit the article. Newer accounts and anons cannot. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My test a moment ago suggests that it actually restricts only anonymous editing, and even a brand new account can edit through semi. This seems accidental given Brion Vibber's description of the feature. Can someone who knows how let him know? -Splashtalk 10:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OKay, is semi supposedly up and running? I can report any problems to him if needed.--MONGO 11:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. I've tested it as an anon and as a new account, User:Splash-testing. -Splashtalk 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've decided to bring the question to a wider audience here. Dan100 (Talk) 14:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd raise that at Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy, as that's a global issue. Dan100 (Talk) 14:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Pages that are protected for vandalism are generally not expected to need requests, since it's very temporary and the admins will take care of it. Semi-prtection is meant to work the same way. But there's no harm to RFPP. It's admins at RFPP too, not just anons and new users. I'd expect any admin patrolling there to acquaint themeslves with the situation. I think on any protected page it's okay to request unprotection on RFPP or the talk page (and we could change it to say that), but most articles simply aren't watched enough for that to be feasible, so we have the central discussion page at RFPP. I don't see how directing someone to RFPP is directing them to the wrong people though... Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Remember that what one admin does another can undo. This page will only remain perma-semi-protected if none of the 740odd admins are prepared to unprotect it. If it reaches that point, then something is probably wrong elsewhere. At present, there are enough admins making unprotectional noises that I don't think we need to panic. -Splashtalk 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The page is semi-protected 

message: * User:Carbonite and User:Dan100 subst in the template and shrunk it down and whatnot. I have reverted back to the  template. The template as it stands was designed thinking specifically about pages like this.wangi 15:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages that are protected for vandalism are generally not expected to need requests, since it's very temporary and the admins will take care of it. Semi-prtection is meant to work the same way. But there's no harm to RFPP. It's admins at RFPP too, not just anons and new users. I'd expect any admin patrolling there to acquaint themeslves with the situation. I think on any protected page it's okay to request unprotection on RFPP or the talk page (and we could change it to say that), but most articles simply aren't watched enough for that to be feasible, so we have the central discussion page at RFPP. I don't see how directing someone to RFPP is directing them to the wrong people though... Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Remember that what one admin does another can undo. This page will only remain perma-semi-protected if none of the 740odd admins are prepared to unprotect it. If it reaches that point, then something is probably wrong elsewhere. At present, there are enough admins making unprotectional noises that I don't think we need to panic. -Splashtalk 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection notice 

message: It'll be interesting to see what effect semi-protection has on this article.  I've adapted my vandalism script so that it's capable of resolving down to the level of one week (any smaller period would probably be too prone to noise), and it's possible to see that vandalism has fluctuated greatly this month, rising to  38% during the week beginning December 5, but falling sharply the following week, and apparently staying steady so far this week.
* Vandalism on George W. Bush
Note: strictly speaking I'm measuring vandalism reverts, so the level of vandalism-related edits is about double that.  If 38% of edits are vandalism reverts, probably around twice that proportion of edits are either vandalism or reverts--in that case, 76%. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Effect of semi-protection on this article?

message: Is this going to be permanent, or at least until he leaves office? If so, can we consider moving the template to the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not going to be permanent. But perhaps it should be moved to the talk page. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Under what circumstances might it be removed?  Regards, Ben Aveling 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also like to know. It's not like those vandals are going away any time soon... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Under the same conditions as ion, it will be used only to dissuade particularily difficult waves of vandals only, and then unprotected at another admin's discretion. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you guys seem to wany to get some stats on how this effects (affects?) vandalism, I'll leave it protected for now, but I fully intend to unprotect this after a week. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Semi-protection is good for fairly long times(full protection--hours to a few days at most/semi-protecion--a day, up to a week). We really are not losing anything by having this semi-protected, unlike full protection.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You don't see it as a bit contradictory to the wiki that our most high profile article is not free to edit. I hate to use a slippery slope, but eventually if we keep adding new restrictions, we'll have a system where only highly regarded users / admins can make changes. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with that concept, the semi protection straw poll passed 104 to 4 in favor of implementation. We are trying it out, per se, to see how it is working. Nothing in the semi protection guidelines suggests that any article should be semi protected for any period longer than to get past a vandalism wave.--MONGO 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. But this article gets a constant wave. Perhaps it is a 3 year wave :-). A week is the maximum SP time that is reasonable, as long as admins agree. Admins like Splash will likely unprotect earlier in this cases than I would, but that perfectly fine with me, as so many admins watch it that new waves will quickly be stopped by SPro again if needed. But I do think that Spro is generally better when applied slighlty longer than full Pro, as that is the point: to stop recurring new user vandals that just keep coming for days.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 06:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo! That's exactly the problem: this article is almost permanently being vandalised! When do we determine that it has stopped, and when it is determined it has stopped, when do we determine that it's started again? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The article isn't losing anything I should say. New users will notice, and I dont want every article linked from the main page to be protected either, as that would cause noticable trouble for newbies. I think GWB being SPed is OK, even for a week sometimes.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 06:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit semi-protection 

message: This article is about 94KB! What can be done to reduce it in size? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very important article, and many of the sections have been forked into daughter articles. There really isn't much we can do besides giving a more consise summary of sections with their own article. I'm not ready to sacrifice important info to cut down on the size. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too large!!! 

message: Secret Prisons -- was known in an article on totse.com back in 2002
Yes, this whole news thing was known since 2002 and ignored.  Before I spend time to dig the article back up, is it worthy of getting bits of information on it put up in this wiki?  DyslexicEditor 23:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you guys don't even know what totse is, i was actually on that way back in the day when it was a bbs.  so there. and by the way, its not exactly the most reliable source of info. --kizzle 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Prisons -- was known in an article on totse.com back in 2002 

message: I can confirm that the vandal who has been flooding this article with vandalisms from multiple accounts recently moved on to Jimmy Wales and vandalized there repeatedly as well. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 03:13
: WTF?!?!?  His name always used to be User:Jimbo Wales before.  DyslexicEditor 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um.  Still is, buddy :).  That's not Jimbo's user page, it's his article.  I'm pretty sure Jimbo Wales redirects to there, though.  I think use of the name "Jimbo" would be unencyclopedic.  --ParkerHiggins  ( talk contribs ) 17:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeat vandal has moved on to [[Jimmy Wales]]

message: You know, if there's one thing I would take out of the article, it's the endless updating of polls.  Geez, if someone wants to know Bush's (or Congress') poll ratings from five minutes ago, is an encyclopedia the place they should be looking?  I mean, isn't that what CNN.com is for? Unschool 07:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polls 

message: We need a  solution to folk adding  to the article page! Almost as many rv's for that! wangi 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was so conflicted about it, I even entered a revert war with myself over the  tag.  Seriously, in my opinion it really just clutters up the article and should be placed on the discussion page instead, as it is.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:   should not be placed on article pages, as it is mostly an editorial template, meaning that the average reader won't give a penny whether Slashdot talked about this article or not. Talk pages are for these kinds of things. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hightraffic 

message: Hi there. Made a fairly bold edit. The 'Clinton and Carter did it' talking point has been thoroughly refuted. We're talking about wiretaps on Americans .
:The RNC asserted that Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both authorized comparable forms of "search [or] surveillance without court orders."
:The RNC quoted fragments of Clinton's Executive Order 12949, authorizing the attorney general to "approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information," and Carter's Executive Order 12139, authorizing the attorney general to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
:The Clinton and Carter orders, which were published, permitted warrantless spying only on foreigners who are not protected by the Constitution. Bush's secret directive permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on the overseas calls of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.
:The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."
Not sure where the Reagan stuff came from, but it seemed out of place all by it's lonesome. Also removed a paid site link to the Chicago Tribune, and added the Dean quote from Boxer's site. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After my edit was reverted, I've reverted it back (and won't do so again, to help avoid a revert war). The issue that is contentious is not wiretapping - it's wiretapping in the U.S. of Americans without a warrant. The information mentioned only clouds the issue at hand. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clinton, Carter, Reagan

message: I disagree with this method, it's just not realistic to think it will work. Legitimate new contributors cannot add info. Please re-investigate. --Goulcebrynn 19:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have plently of contributors, many of which are fairly new, that update this article. New users and IPs just add BS and vandalism by and large (like 97% of the time). So we are not loosing anything by Semi-Protecting this article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Just out of curiousity, what info were you looking to add? Carbonite | Talk 19:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Legitimate users are losing the opportunity to contribute, and therefore wikipedia is losing itself legitimate contributors. Is this protections supposed to be permanent? That's not what WP:SEMI implies. Kappa 19:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ** No, it is not permanent. Right now, we are using the article to collect data, but it won't be semi-ed forever. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ***I dont think that limiting IPs and very new users from editing this one article, out of 860,000 is really going to kill off all of our new users.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ****I don't see anyone suggesting that it would kill off all of the new users. Losing any legitimate contributors is a problem. Kappa 19:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *****Thus far, semi-protection on this page has been an amazing success for reducing vandalism. You can see 48 hours (!) of edits in the history right now (compared to 4-6 hours before SEMI). Of course we should make every effort to avoid losing contributors, but openess is simnply a means to a end (creating an encyclopedia). In exceptional situation, such as this article, slightly restricting how open it is to editing is entirely reasonable. Carbonite | Talk 20:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: ******Well, I consider myself a 'fairly new' contributor, and I think this is fine.  When I started contributing, I only edited 'minor' articles.  I stayed out of the 'biggies'.  There's no harm in making this an official policy.  It should also help cut down on newbie-contributor accidents.  When an article gets vandalized as often as this one, it needs SOME kind of protection.  While I think keeping only anon users off would work, this is an acceptable compromise to me.  Ehurtley 20:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *****Being unable to keep up with our current contributors is a problem with far greater immediate impact.  — FREAK OF NURxTURE ([ TALK]) 08:06, Dec. 25, 2005
I edit anonymously for a variety of reasons, all of which I feel have merit. I'd prefer to keep it that way. "Semi-protection" is a true assertion, but "temporarily restricted" is a falsehood. Those who pushed this policy through are certainly focused on keeping protection of this type "always-on" at various political articles. 67.15.77.183 01:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You are not anonymous, you are editing under an IP address, which can be traced. You are more anonymous after creating an account, since your IP address is no longer disclosed, and doing so does not even require setting an email address. So, what are your reasons?--Eloquence* 03:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: Semi protection is great and all, but one of the unintended side-effects is that I can no longer edit sections. For an article as long as Dubya this is awful since I can't use the browsers search function for a text box. Can someone please fix this?--God of War 07:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, you must be using Firefox... Internet Explorer automatically searches both within the page text and any editbox text.  I'm not sure about other browsers (Opera? Safari on Mac?). -- Curps 07:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just going to say something about this, and yes I am on Firefox. This article is way too long to scroll through, can someone look into this? SandBoxer 21:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a bug report, see bugzilla:4385. Blackcap (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't edit sections