Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 23

message: I like the change from "were less impressed" to "disagreed with his analysis".  This was a case of my British taste for rhetorical understatement leading to ambiguous wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you...none of it would be necessary if the original passage didn't exist to begin with.--MONGO 08:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That argument could be applied to any piece of editing. Delete the piece that needs editing and you solve the (or at least a) problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried that but instead requested a voting consensus...you were even invited dispite my knowing that you will vote against my proposal.--MONGO 08:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "were less impressed"

message: Well?
:Not very often.  Hitler seemed to get much more of a workout than goatse.  I confess, though, that I haven't paid much attention to the exact content of the vandalisms. JamesMLane 00:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen goatse used on this page. James is correct that Hitler has been a vandal favorite, and Mao ranks a close second, I think. 95% of the time, though, vandalism in this page is just text that is simply anti-American or suggests that Bush is something unpleasant (a Nazi, not intelligent, etc.). It would be an interesting statistic to collect if somebody was bored enough. – ClockworkSoul 00:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey guys, how many times was this goatsed? 

message: I am opposed to the concept of voting on whether to remove factual NPOV information relevant to a subject from an article, so I'm not going to participate in the poll.
:Selection of what factual NPOV information relevant to a subject from an article is a necessary task, we shouldn't have everything ever written about Bush on the main page... I'd be open to discussion about a drug use subarticle, as I rarely like to remove information altogether, but I don't like the inclusion on the main page as it is. --kizzle 02:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by 67.101.67.167's claim that there was a discussion a few months ago and a decision to remove Van Wormer.  Well this didn't happen while I was editing, but I thought it was possible that it had happened while I was away from this article between around Feb 23 and May 11.  But I checked, and it seems that it was present after MONGO edits on Feb 28, April 1 and May 1.  So the claim seems a bit far-fetched. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're still curious, it would have been late March, early April. I can't say exactly because the page history doesn't go back that far. Maybe you can catch it in someone's contribution history if you care to. Have a blast. --67.101.67.167 01:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is my discussion about why I removed the tag Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_21#POV_tag_removed and it was because the issues regarding Wormer, Hatfield and Frank were not present in the article at that time.--MONGO 01:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Remove anything critical of Bush would mean shortening this article by 50%. I don't see much evidence that anyone has tried to do this.--MONGO 02:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And here is the edit []in which I removed the tag due to the lack of the POV silliness we have been argueing about.--MONGO 02:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't take it out...I found it that way...--MONGO 02:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The poll, and 67.101.67.167's odd claim

message: Anyone know how to fix it?  (infobox on the right)
Teach me!
Kaisershatner 14:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template vandalism

message: 131.252.242.164 inserted this paragraph under "Trivia" a short while ago:
In a 2002 Poll conducted by Harvard University, President Bush was rated among the top 5 presidents of all time.  The panel (Consisting of a bi-partisan collection of university history professors) voted Woodrow Wilson, Grover Cleveland, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and George W. Bush as the nations top leaders of all time.
Did they, now... ? Considering that all the other edits from 131.252.242.164 are Sneaky vandalism, I'm removing the passage. Please reinsert it if you can source it.--Bishonen | talk 02:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing claim pending confirmation

message: I propose that this section is too large, and includes some information which should be deleted. For example: "In February 2004, Eric Boehlert in Salon magazine claimed that Bush's departure from the Texas Air National Guard was related to implementation of the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program." In my opinion, this section is bogus, because the democrats would of broadcast this to the world if it had any truth to it. It would be in his medical records if there were truth. I see this as wikipedia wasting space by publishing unsupported rumors from a random reporter, and if this type of stuff is allowed to stay then the article will become a few gigabytes in size because of everybody elses crap that will be added to it.
Also, the line "Bush has admitted to a once serious alcohol problem" is incorrect. In should read "Bush decided to stop drinking before it became a serious problem", the reason it should read that way is because of the interview he gave where he described his drinking. It was not a problem, but it was a habit which he was not proud of, a habit which could lead to an addiction, so he quit. Nowhere in his history is there a record of chronic alchohol abuse such as loss of job, entering into treatment, etc. 
*Not sure of the details of the Boehlert allegations, but I agree with your proposed edits to the alcohol sentence. Your suggested version is better NPOV, and has been well argued. But its probably best to get the OK of either MONGO or JamesMLane because, while I know no one "owns" any article, these two will likely smother you with a pillow if you edit a section on Bush criticism without their OK and ensuing two day argument...Harro5 09:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
::To Harro5: A few days ago, kizzle worried that I might blow his head off.  If your only concern now is that I might attack with a pillow, I must be getting a reputation as a softie.  :)
::To the anon who started this section: The issue you raise has already been discussed extensively on this page.  Some people agree with you, some don't.  We're trying to reach consensus on how to address these issues.  Please feel free to comment on the possible compromise in the section immediately above this one. JamesMLane 09:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Personal criticisms and allegations of drug use" section is too big