Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 14

message: In my opinion, most of the details about the Clear Skies Act listed under Environment should be moved to the Clear Skies Act article, which should also incorporate a discussion of the criticism of the legislation. neatnate 00:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear Skies Act 

message: Here 
Rex071404 01:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  FL Vets Kerry / Bush 

message: The Florida vote was heavily disputed. When the initial tally came in as favoring Bush by a very small margin, at the request of the Gore campaign and as a result of several local election board decisions, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop these recounts from further delaying the certification of his winning tally and after a multifaceted U.S. Supreme Court, ruling of  7-2 and 5-4 , Gore conceded the election. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.
Rex071404 07:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I prefer this version 

message: I'm a relatively new user of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is the right place to make this comment, but perhaps someone can pick this up: for some reason, when I try to read the Wikipedia article on "Fascism", I am incorrectly diverted to "George W. Bush". I don't know how to correct this, otherwise I'd do it myself. Please would someone more experienced sort this out ?  Thanks.
:It would seem someone's already fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out! --Golbez 16:54, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
: I don't understand. What was the problem? (hahaha). Gzuckier 20:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Link 

message: I'm protecting this page again due to the ongoing edit war interspersed with vandalism -- and in hopes that mediation will begin. This seems rather ridiculous to me. This is one of the most important articles in Wikipeida at the moment, and it appears unacceptable either for 1) the page to be protected, or 2) the page to be in a state of connstant reversion. However, in light of the last few days, I am opting for choice #2. A consensus on this article however it needs to be worked out, whether that is multiple articles, a section about points of contention, or whatever works.
There is a pending request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#VeryVerily_and_Gzornenplatz.2C_Kevin_Baas and I am willing to mediate this dispute if I am an acceptable choice.
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  As an interested party, I made a comment at that mediation page and user Neutrality deleted it. Rex071404   14:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is protected...again -- Let's focus on Mediation at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#VeryVerily_and_Gzornenplatz.2C_Kevin_Baas|RfM]] 

message: The article on John Kerry has a paragraph about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, with a link to that article.  Texans for Truth is, like SBVT, a 527 group that's buying TV time to attack a major-party presidential candidate over his military record.  Is there any reason why the reference to Texans for Truth should have been deleted from this article? JamesMLane 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Texans for Truth

message: The latest Killian memos that 60 minutes provided are obviously, blatently fraudulent.  They are the output of a MS word document.  It is absurd that this entry mentions the content of fraudulent documents and does not mention that the documents are bogus.
If this entry is not corrected quickly, the reputation of Wikipedia will be damaged permanently.  The page needs to be unlocked, and the entry about Killian fixed immediately.
:Can you please tell us where we can find these memos, and give evidence of their fraudulence? Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Mike∞Storm 16:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring inaccuracy 

message: This page George W. Bush military service controversy (see link) is not locked! Rex071404   19:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV means give all sides:  Explain the memos, explain the doubts. VV 21:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[George W. Bush military service controversy]] 

message: I've created a page to work towards a compromise. Direct edits to George W. Bush/Compromise, and please don't revert war there. Guanaco 20:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush%2FCompromise&diff=0&oldid=5808681
—Guanaco 22:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise page 

message: VV, how does one have a "Neutral Point Of View" about a fraud like the Hitler diaries or these bogus documents?  I have not seen anyone willing to argue their authenticity here -- I must assume because the evidence is overwhelming that these documents are fraudulent.
There should not be "facts" on the George W. Bush page based on the fraudulent documents CBS used.
Sdaconsulting 21:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV about a "fraud" is maintained by, until fraudulence is proven, keeping the data regarding the memos in the article, but inserting a message about its questioned authenticity. Sdaconsulting, you seem a little too eager to believe whatever you read online, and I'm rather glad that this page is currently protected. Mike∞Storm 22:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I don't believe either way.  In any case, I think the memos should be in there, with all the supporting evidence such as corroboration and signing..., followed by the doubts about them, clearly stated.  I don't think the article should say that they are authentic or inauthentic until the article can demonstrate so conclusively, or the opposite claim is debunked.  AS long as it's clear and in proportion, and there is no extrapolation or suggestion, it's all good. Kevin Baas | talk 01:06, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
:My thoughts exactly. Mike∞Storm 02:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the memos should be in Wikipedia somewhere, with the evidence pro and con as you suggest, but I don't see why it should be in this article.  This article should include a quick summary of the National Guard controversy.  That dispute long preceded the release of these documents, and has considerable substance beyond these documents, so an appropriate quick summary wouldn't get into any of these points.  That's covered by the link to  George W. Bush military service controversy. JamesMLane 17:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be in the article 

message: The man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to "sugarcoat" George W. Bush's military record left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo supposedly was written, his service record shows. Rex071404   02:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  More challenges about whether Bush documents are authentic 

message: Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation Rex071404   02:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we please stop creating new sections every time someone makes a new point? This is the ninth new section on the same subject. Mike∞Storm 17:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: TIME Magazine: "Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York City who worked for IBM repairing typewriters from 1973 to 1985, says those experts "are full of crap. They just don't know." Glennon says there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he says were not unusual — could have created the superscript th."  To say the memos were impossible to produce in the 1970's is, to say the least, under dispute. Wolfman 03:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: The GWBush article already links to George W. Bush military service controversy.  I think that's the right way to handle it.  We should avoid having to edit the GWBush article every time some new angle develops on the Killian memos. JamesMLane 03:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I guess that's right.  The controversy article is a more appropriate link. Wolfman 03:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation 

message: Has anyone else noticed that the word Afghanistan does not appear in this article?  Rather odd considering the US fought (and indeed is still fighting) a war in Afghanistan under Bush's leadership. Wolfman 19:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This was part of a perfunctory effort at splitting off some information to a new Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration page.  The war sections were simply moved.  I have rewritten the foreign policy section now to give a broad overview of all this information, with proper links to the individual pages. VV 21:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan 

message: Hi. When and if this article ever gets unlocked, could someone insert the following into the article. I assume nobody's disputing that George W. Bush was the Republican nominee in 2000 and 2004. MK 06:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican Party Presidential candidates 

message: both VV and I have reverted a fairly large rewrite by this anon.  to me, several of the changes are pretty clearly not in keeping with npov, see for example the section on cocaine use.  i'm not interested in getting into a revert war myself, can somebody else have a look at the edit history and give their opinion?  thanks.  Wolfman 19:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 66.93.166.174

message: Could someone add :vi:George W. Bush to the list of interwiki links once this page is unprotected? Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) 03:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  vi: