Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 42

message: In the section "Political ideology", it mentions in an image caption "...and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon...". If i remember correctly, didn't he step down for health reasons? If somebody can confirm this then please change it to "former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon" MichaelBillington 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he did not step down OFFICIALLY yet. If I am not wrong, he is still the PM. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: His governmental powers were ceded to acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert. He is no longer the PM. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 00:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it happened over Passover after he had been unable to function in office for 100 days. Bjackrian 19:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date?

message: ANY Accurate Bio Should include the following information :
George W. Bush -- By his own admission ( thus not disputable ) was a D student and a poor academic. His Father bought his way into Yale, Where he was known for his fanatically Pro - Vietnam War political stance while on student deferment. Anyone who questioned him on this contradiction was subject to the whispering campaigns by which he would get back at his enemies ... ie any who would chalenge him. His inability to endure any criticism and engage in reasoned debate or discussion was clearly  noted by his teachers and classmates.
Given a coveted position for Fighter training for which he was not suited, in the National Guard , again only through political influence of his family, since normaly only the best candidates, in academic ability and charachter are allowed to train for fighters -- one of the most highly skilled and competitive areas of military training -- widely known to anyone who folows military aviation and training.
It is also widely known that ever since the faliures of early vietnam in producing pilots of high caliber -- later on changes in training and selection were vastly improved. It was an essential charachter trait for "fighter jock" that they had aggressive and sure confidence ( justified or not) that they are better than most - a kind of attitude which made them eager to test their skills and increased as well the odds that they WOULD be one of those whowere not as likely to waste multi million dollar craft, or far worse -- the incredible expense of fighter military training -- in the hundreds of millions s --- by  getting themselves killed and not justify the huge expewnse of their sp-ecialized training.
It is worth noting that although the fighter war inb Vietnam was ongoing at the time of George Bush's Time with the Gaurd -- He made no effort or attempt to join the rest of those of his avowed occupation - either joining the acction, or trying by any means available to put  their skills to the test in real combat, not always available to these highly trained, skilled and motivated aviators -- at least those whose positions were attained through merit and ability.
- Unknown who posted above (I was too lazy to look through all the history)
- Moved out of introduction by me, --Perlman10s 10:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I hate to be wrong, I just noticed that a [Citation needed] tag was added. Being a good Wikipedian, and since I made the comment above and added it back originally, I thought I'd go find a reference. Well I couldn't find any. I saw only one reference indicating he received one 'D' at Yale, the rest were mostly 'C's. By that definition he wasn't really a 'D' student. Can anyone point to a citation re: his high-school grades that would support the comment? Otherwise, it might make sense to remove it entirely. --Digiterata 00:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm removing the reference to 'D' student, unless someone can come up with an appropriate citation. Will replace it with, "By his own admission, Bush was not much of an academic..." Otherwise it's unreferenced trolling (apologies) --Digiterata 12:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that if he was a mostly C student with a few Ds thrown in here and there, his cumulative gpa could easily be a lot lower depending on how the classes were weighted, not to mention a lot of universities don't include failed courses on their transcripts, but do factor them into the cumulative average.. assuming he was a mostly C student (~2.0), with a few 0.0s averaged in, could easily come out to a final gpa of around 1.0--64.12.117.13 15:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trolling Remarks

message: Should the censure resolution include a quote from Senator Feingold, or at least an extra line about the purpose?  More text is devoted to the problems with the resolution than is devoted to explaining what the censure is - a poor explanationg at best. --Ryan 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Censure Resolution

message: Actually, if we want to be accurate for the sake of NPOV here, the original estimates were that the troops would pretty much stay indefinitely, that the most likely outcome would be civil war, that the war would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, etc. The original estimates were dead-on accurate.  Those estimators were promptly sacked, and new estimators were found that said what bush wanted to hear.  It's disingenous to call what bush wanted to hear "estimates", and it's disingenuous to call them "original". Kevin Baastalk 19:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but a couple of weeks ago, the media was ranting about impending civil war in Iraq, and I haven't heard this for about a week now. I get the impression the media would like to see civil war erupt in Iraq just so they can have support for their predisposed bias that the war was inherently the wrong thing to do. After the owner of CNN Ted Turner essentially lambasted Bush recently, I have trouble believing that anything that CNN has to say on any matter regarding the war in Iraq to the Bush administration wouldn't be tainted with POV. Hence, this is one reasons a very NPOV organization...Gallup has parted with CNN. We never hear about electrical outage problems or medical supply difficulties or schools being inoperative anymore...because these issues no longer exist in any major form...the media doesn't want to tell us anything about the good that has occurred, just the bad. The fact is we can expect the U.S. military to retain at least the equal to 3 to 5 divisions in Iraq for at least another 10 years and that was something I feared about this invasion. The cost for the entire operation will be in the many hundreds of billions of dollars, consuming 10-15 percent of the U.S. GDP per year at a maximum.--MONGO 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: here's one reason why you don't hear about all the good things we're building (the logan video), and here's another. Derex 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's not get into a discussion about various strenghts and weaknesses of different media outlets, but let me just say that regarding the Iraq War, so far everything has gone as I initially predicted, much to my surprise.  And that's the other thing about "estimates".  Who's estimates? the public's?  certainly not mine.  The governments?  certainly not the estimates of the people whose job it is to estimate.  they were ignored, sometimes punished.  who's estimates (if they can technically be called that)? Kevin Baastalk 20:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the original estimate was for 10,000 dead on the initial invasion.  I believe this came from the number of body bags ordered by the Defense Department.  Estimates for staying in Iraq were indefinite as there has never been a "timetable."  --Tbeatty 03:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "original estimates" of how long troops would stay.

message: According to this article from Svenska Dagbladet , the Bush family is related to Måns Andersson, a Swedish immigrant who came to American in the 1600s. Bronks april 3, 2006.
:Yes, Måns Andersson is #1316 in George Bush's Ahnentafel. 
 1316       Måns Andersson
  658 & 659 Chrisopher Mounce & Martha
  328 & 329 Robert Mercer & Ann Mounce
  164 & 165 Robert Mercer & (possibly) Sarah Beeston
   82 &  83 John Mercer & Rebecca Davis
   40 &  41 George E. Walker & Harriet Mercer
   20 &  21 David Davis Walker & Martha Adela Beaky
   10 &  11 George Herbert Walker & Lucretia Wear
    4 &   5 Prescott Sheldon Bush & Dorothy Walker
    2 &   3 George Herbert Walker Bush & Barbara Pierce
          1 George Walker Bush
: You can see the descent traced here - Nunh-huh 14:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush Family - Swedish American

message: From unsigned editor:
---SECTION ON 9/11 IN ORIGINAL PAGE---
PLEASE STOP PROPAGATING OFFICIAL VERSION OF EVENTS AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE. THERE IS TOO MUCH INFORMATION BY NOW TO IGNORE AT LEAST THE QUESTIONABILITY OF THE OFFICIAL VERSION, AND THERE IS ABUNDANT COMPELLING EVIDENCE TO POINT THE FINGER THE OTHER WAY.
FOR THE SAKE OF OBJECTIVITY AND TRUTH, PLEASE INCLUDE CONSIDERATIONS OF DOUBTS ABOUT THE OFFICIAL STORY AND LINKS TO SITES FEATURING THE AMAZING AMOUNT OF INFORMATION COUNTERING IT. WE CANNOT KEEP PROPAGATING THE SAME FALSE INFORMATION, IF WE WANT TO BE HONEST WITH OURSELVES AND THE WORLD.
THANK YOU.
I completely agree, wikipedia users should be objective-- point out all sides of the argument, all criticisms!  Otherwise, we are merely recreating whatever we have heard;  which very well could be propaganda!  Questioning and reasoning is at the heart of wikipedia, and at the throat of truth! Thanks
-------------------------------------
--end of unsigned comment.
--Tbeatty 17:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, Bush ran on a platform of reducing involvement in foregin nations and ending the notion of nation building that the Clinton administration had used in the Balkans, after September 11th that rhetoric took a 360 degree reversal.Jeff CU 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory 

message: I have unprotected semiprotection. I will monitor and will reprotect after six hours or if vandalism gets out of control.--MONGO 05:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the page history since unprotection, I am inclined to believe that every single edit has been vandalism or the reversion of vandalism.  --tomf688{talk} 19:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for messing up. I just wanted to see if protection worked. By the time I reverted myself, I was already reverted. AshishGtalk 00:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I made some edits tonight. Please comment here if you take exception to them. Merecat 05:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the adding of "fact" all over the place. The rest seems fine. I would prefer discussion of these points here rather than a fact tag scattered about.--MONGO 08:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would prefer you find the facts instead of adding fact tags all over the place. Normally, we discuss the issues here and then add a citation. You stated that we are to comment if we take exception to them and so I commented.--MONGO 06:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits 

message: If you look at the Afghanistan section you'll note that the nation was entered with "some" international support.  I looked it up but could not find any specifics.  Does anyone have any specifics (number of nations, the UN's position, and/or NATO's position) on this support so we can be more specific than just "some."  Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.200.77 (talk • contribs) 
:United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand..and I think there were others. Please sign your posts.--MONGO 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The other big one was France, with ~4000 troops. see U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan for a full list.  Derex 06:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot about that...they had a large representation there. Interestingly, New Zealand, Germany and France all stayed out of the Iraq situation...as most of the citizens of those countries overwhelmingly opposed that action.--MONGO 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afghanistan 

message: I noticed this article while browsing :Category:Petroleum; it seems out of place there. On the other hand, this article has lots of categories. Too many, if you ask me.
*Proposal: certain categories should be moved to the appropriate subarticles.
Here's a sample distribution:
*Early life of George W. Bush: :Category:Phillips Academy alumni, :Category:Harvard alumni, :Category:Yale alumni, :Category:Bonesmen, :Category:Delta Kappa Epsilon brothers, :Category:People from Connecticut, :Category:1946 births
*Professional life of George W. Bush: :Category:American chief executives, :Category:Baseball executives, :Category:Texas Rangers, :Category:Petroleum
*George W. Bush substance abuse controversy: :Category:Alcohol abuse
*George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States: :Category:Time Magazine Person of the Year
Thoughts? Melchoir 07:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: After 'agent' was changed to 'employee', I changed it to 'operative'. That is the actual word used by Novak in the actual public piece that started the leak scandal:
:Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.  -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operative / Agent / Employee 

message: I have added a tag to address this point. Merecat 02:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could remove the redundant parts that are already highlighted in the template under his phot-op pick to be the new cover boy of Mad Magazine.--Pro-Lick 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro is too long 

message: To those who read the above and think that Wilson told the truth about "yellowcake", please read "Wowie Zahawie - Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger" - Christopher Hitchens, Slate.com Monday, April 10, 2006 Merecat 13:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iraq had 500 tons of the stuff under UN supervision. This is not contested. You are conflating the 80's and the '91 overture with the claims that Iraq had 'recently sought uranium in Africa' from 2003. Pretty weak. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute is about which country they sought Uranium from.  Congo is also a supplier.  IF the emphasis is on the country, then Wilson is probably correct.  IF the emphasis is on Yellowcake, he is being misleading. I believe Iraq sought Yellowcake from Africa as late as 1998. --Tbeatty 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilson / Yellowcake 

message: Ok, so who thinks we've been freeped....again?--205.188.116.138 20:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: amount of trolling lately.. 2 archives full

message: In late 2005 and 2006, Bush led the world community in opposition to Iran's announced intention to develop nuclear technology.
I was going to tag this with , but the thought occured:  Can leadership of the world community on this issue be cited or fact-checked?  There will always be someone to dispute it, and the fact pattern can as easily be used to support a POV statement the complete opposite of this one.  I was thinking:
In late 2005 and 2006, Bush publically declared American opposition to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announced intention to develop nuclear technology.
Let the merciless editing begin... Ssbohio 21:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous UN resolutions.  Who introduced them?  Who supported them. I don't know if it was the U.S. or not but that would be a good start. It's certainly true that the U.S. is pushing for sanctions and diplomatic pressure as opposed to Russia and China which do not favor those actions.  --Tbeatty 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Led the world community

message: Terrorist \Ter"ror*ist\, n. [F. terroriste.]
   1. One who governs by terrorism or intimidation ... --Burke.
      [1913 Webster]
A number of people fly planes into buildings: this is murder.  To encourage the repeated broadcast of these searing images across a world and the promotion of fears of national security to exploit this terrible act to allow actions and policy change previously desired, is terrorism.
At best, Bush's administration has seen the distraction of the American people from the issues that effect them most and the redirection of national assets toward the interests of Bush friendly business.  If America could be seen as a powerful vehicle, Bush and his buddies have taken it for a spin, far away from where it needs to go.  I am an Australian who loves America and I hope he doesn't get America bogged and wrecked.
Is Bush a war criminal? Is the Republican Party a terrorist organisation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danieljames626 (talk • contribs) .
:I believe it is proper to distinguish between "terrorism" and "fear".  Bush uses fear to create support for policy, not terrorism. (though perhaps "terror").  I'm not sure terrorist would be the right word here. Kevin Baastalk 17:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also questionable to use a 1913 dictionary definition to describe a political/military tactic that has changed enomormously in a century. -- Cecropia 19:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A number of people fly planes into buildings: this is murder. To encourage the repeated broadcast of these searing images across the world'...' I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the U.S. the worst images have not been shown by the mainstream media: no falling bodies, no bodies in flames; no bodies splatted on the sidewalk, no gruesome pictures of mangled remains. Almost five years after the fact, they are trying to avoid broadcasting the voices of the terrified people in the towers as being "too upsetting." If these were used in even a mild echo of what even a relatively mainstream Arab network like al-Jazeera broadcasts, it would be powerful propoganda. People who saw a fraction of these images and these calls at Moussaui's trial gasped, since they had never seen them on TV. -- Cecropia 19:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who gives US terror? 

message: The article Bush Crimes Commission is up on AFD.  Unfortunately, there is concern over Wikipedia:Vote Stacking because of a large and possibly selective notification spamming.  Undoubtedly, the individual votes are good faith, but the apparent selectivity of notification raises questions about the validity of the process.  In an effort to salvage that discussion, I am posting this notification here.  My intent is to bring the discussion to the attention of those with prior expressed interested in Bush, without pre-selecting for either likely supporters or opponents.  Brillig20 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *nevermind, most of this page's usual freeprs appear to have already voted there--152.163.100.74 17:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Crimes Commission 

message: This section is factually incorrect. It reports the promise as if it was all delivered on: it hasn't been. It then explicitly states that Congress has allocated the full amount: it absolutely did not. These are untrue statements in wikipedia, they should be corrected with the correct amount of dolars actually asked for by Bush in the budget and the actual amount disbursed by Congress (the two are different). It contains nothing of the considerable controversy over abstinence funding, the effectivness of ABC prevention programs, the allocation of PEPFAR money to explicitly religious groups, the possible conflict of interest of Randall Tobias as a former chief executive of a pharmaceutical company now in charge of purchasing billions in AIDS drugs, the duplication created by using PEPFAR instead of the Global Fund, the refusal to by less expensive generic drugs that are combinable, etc. All of these are very relevant and debates over them rage in the HIV policy world. I made these edits and someone called them POV. They are not. I encourage someone to do an NPOV edit of this section, I'll recuse myself for the time being. I don't have a problem with Bush, but the article as it stands does not reflect the truth of US AIDS policy, for better or worse. Thes entinel 19:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HIV/AIDS

message: The main article's third paragraph (in the intro) incorrectly (both factually and grammatically) states that, in relation to Iraq, "The commitment of United States, Europe, and Canada troops has been controversial both domestically and internationally." The fact is that Canada has never sent troops to Iraq since Gulf Storm in 1991.
Jtlaw 03:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian troops in Iraq 

message: We know that Bush Senior was wary of getting involved in a war with Saddam back in 1990 because of the potential for large numbers of Iraqi civilian casualties and how this would square with his deity. So Bush called in Billy Graham and asked him what God would think about it. Billy Graham assured Bush that God wouldn't mind too much as it was a just war and so Bush proceeded. Now Dubya of course dosen't need to consult Billy Graham before attacking Iraq because Dubya already knows the Supreme Being's views on these matters because he talks with him all the time. Two questions arise I think: (1) Why did Bush Senior bother to ask Billy Graham over to the White House to give him advice when his own son already had a direct hotline to the Almighty, (2) Shouldn't the article on here make some mention of these things, since it might give readers some indication of what a truly amazing world we live in when even in the late 20th and 21st centuries, people as spectacularly wacky as this can actually be allowed to preside over the world's only superpower and, what's more, hardly anyone seems to think it's unusual or kind of disturbing?
:I recommend you sign your comments or they may be deleted as trolling. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also point out that your comments seem to primarily concern George H.W. Bush, the Persian Gulf War, and the Justification for the War in Iraq. I believe these each have their own articles. Not my leg 21:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bushes, Civilian Casualties and God

message: Here is a translation of part of German Wikipedia's article on Bush:
First, the German itself...
Da die Nationalgarde vorwiegend im Inland eingesetzt wird, sah sich Bush später mit dem Vorwurf konfrontiert, einer Einberufung in die Army zuvorgekommen zu sein und sich damit einem Einsatz im Vietnam entzogen zu haben - er wurde draft dodger (als ein sich der Einberufung Entziehender; vergleiche die deutschen Begriffe: Kriegsdienstverweigerer, Wehrdienstverweigerer) gescholten, bei patriotischen US-Amerikanern alles andere als ein Ehrentitel.
The translation:
Since the National Guard operated mostly within the US (literal translation is within the homeland), Bush was later confronted with the accusation of having avoided service in the regular army (here, the literal translation is "scoop himself out of the draft, which is stilted English, at best) which would have resulted in service in Vietnam - he was scolded as a draft dodger (compared with the German concepts of Conscientious Objector (the term Kriegsdienstverweigerer) or "draft dodger" (the more colloquial term Wehrdienstverweigerer)...the two have different connotations in German -- Krieg is War, so the term including "Kriegsdienst" means "war service" (Dienst means service).  Wehr, on the other hand, is merely a term for the Army (along with Armee or Heer), so Wehrdienst means "army service" (a distinct difference).  Verweigen is the verb "to deny."), a term which is anything but honorable among patriotic Americans.
It would be interesting to see if I were to be labeled a troll for posting something like this on the English language site...oh, wait, I can't because the page itself is locked from editing.  I am therefore asking that since this paragraph is included on German Wikipedia that it also be included on the English site.
TheKurgan 04:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you're registered, you'll be able to edit this article in a few days, fear not! However, the English Wikipedia has more information than meets the eye; material on the National Guard as a safe haven from Vietnam tours belongs at George W. Bush military service controversy. In fact, I think you'll find that that subarticle already has much more information than the entire German coverage of Bush. In particular, see the section on "Acceptance into the National Guard". Melchoir 05:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting omission from the English version of this article 

message: Carl Bernstein's new Vanity Fair article.  Wow. --71.141.126.76 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Senate Hearings on Bush, Now" 

message: Here's one of the sentences in the science section:  "On 2002-12-19, Bush signed into law H. R. 4664, far-reaching legislation to put the National Science Foundation on a track to double its budget over five years and to create new mathematics and science education initiatives at both the pre-college and undergraduate level."  That's ignoring the much larger issues of all of the science budgets that Bush has cut, including NIH, stem cell research, global warming research, etc.  And the section doesn't even mention stem cell research/global warming.  At least it mentions science education.  Anyone know where I could find charts/tables outlying the overall state of science funding these past six years?  NSF's budget is peanuts compared to the overall science budget.  --Cyde Weys 18:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the terms as insults.  Wrong, maybe, but not insulting.  --ElKevbo 05:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: With the exception of "activist," I don't think any of the adjectives applied to the UCS are innacurate or negative.  UCS is, IMHO, definitely "left" and "liberal."  "Radical" is probably debatable but that's so subjective that it would be a futile and silly debate.  I wouldn't particularly care for the UCS to be presented solely as a scientific organization when they clearly (and rightfully) have a strong political agenda.  --ElKevbo 04:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the CRC falls within the "fringe" distinction, relevant to determine if it's a POV to be presented, per WP:NPOV policy. I would think that anything coming from the radical left or radical right would by that fact alone be "fringe". Kevin Baastalk 17:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not necessarily for leaving the activist cash reference in, but it serves as a necessary and equal balance to the inclusion of the UCS petition.  Wikiusers have repeatedly removed the UCS-opposing-viewpoint giving rationale that would EQUALLY apply to the deletion of the entire UCS section of the article.  I've stated before, I'm not an exclusionist, but this organization hasn't even proved itself relevant in any way.  In fact, the insistent inclusion of this radical group's petition seems suspiciously more like an attempt to gain publicity.  Does anyone remember a recent news story involving rock star BONO and attempts to influence politics by editing Wikipedia? --FairNBalanced 18:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Kevbo, I think you didn't read my comment here before you made your last edit.  There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy dealing with this section.  The reason "62 prominent scientists" was removed because it was complete filler and redundant.  The name of the organization is "Union of Concerned Scientists", so we know they are scientists.  This GWB article is already 89kb long, if a person really wants to know more about the petiton, there are links they can follow as the edit currently stands.  I'm not doing this because I'm "PRO-BUSH" . as a matter of fact, the president has been fairly disappointing as of late.  The problem is that the UCS is such a radical and IRRELEVANT organization, their inclusion in this article doesn't really make sense other than a couple sentences at the most.  Can any of you present a good argument on why the petition SHOULD be included here?--FairNBalanced 18:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I like "Kevbo" - that's cute.) I think the length of the article is fine, given the topic.  Are you saying that you actually believe the cruft coming from the CRC? Kevin Baastalk 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science section is pretty poor 

message: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145545012078&has-player=unknown
This guy may have defended Clinton to the end, but he's also a highly respected historian. All points in this article should be analyzied and made note of in the main article.
:That's definitely a POV piece if there was one. --Mhking 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is Rolling Stone, a music magazine, a reliable source for historical and political topics? Gentgeen 16:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what if it was published in Rolling Stone?  If the author is respected and the piece was not forged then why does it matter where it was published?  (Note that I'm not arguing for or against inclusion of this source in this article - just the reasoning that a Rolling Stone article could not be considered reputable and valid)  --ElKevbo 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rolling Stone has been a staple of the journalistic Left since the 60's. Within that context, imho it's a valid source for admittedly less-than-mainstream (if popular) political viewpoints. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The man is a noted for his leftist POV and pushing that POV, so him saying that Bush is the worst is not notable. PPGMD 19:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just saying that because he didn't think Clinton should be impeached for a blowjob. Anyway, doesn't by definition any article arguing that something is the worst whatever have to be POV? Or are there widely accepted objective quantitative presidential performance metrics? Gzuckier 19:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OpinionJournal and Rolling Stone are clearly not equivalent in notability. You certainly can't be referring to his record  'all-time low' of 33% presidential job approval rating. In comparison, Nixon's was 24% in August 1974, but other than Nixon, Bush is experiencing the lowest poll ratings ever. And that's 33% is from a FOX poll, by the way. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that OpinionJournal is from the opinion page of The Wall Street Journal, yes, I would grant them notable placement with or above that of Rolling Stone. Rolling Stone has stated as a matter of editorial policy (specifically a column by Jann Wenner during the 2004 campaign) that it would not support President Bush, and their editorial and publishing history -- at least in terms of political articles -- certainly supports that point. I'll concede the point that RS be considered a valid source. What makes an opinion-driven piece there any more valid than one tied to the opinion page of WSJ? --Mhking 22:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument was not comparing WSJ and the Rolling Stone - it was comparing 'opinion journal' with the Rolling Stone, in response to the original point - "the reasoning that a Rolling Stone article could not be considered reputable and valid". In any case, Rolling Stone is certainly notable.  -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Notable is the wrong term. I am quesitoning RS's reliability as a source. RS is about as reliable as People Magazine. Merecat 22:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am definitely saying that Rolling Stone, an actual magazine with ~40 years of history, is far more notable in the public sphere, especially around Presidential exposes and political commentary, than 'opinionjournal'. I make no claims about Dow Jones.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Once again, the actual point of your argument seems to be less important than name calling and obfuscation. Dow Jones? Dreck? The issue was the notability of Rolling Stone magazine. Yes, it's notable. The rest (name calling and bulging crotches) is not of as much interest to me as it might be to you, Merecat. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry it was unclear to you, but I have little in the way of advice. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I've reached my troll-response limit for the day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst / Best President In History? 

message: This post is addressed to Merecat.  I find it interesting that a notable periodical with left leaning tendencies is "dreck," while a notable periodical with right leaning tendencies is "more reliable."  By that reasoning, Playboy is to be completely discarded even though Playboy is the only magazine to land an interview with Fidel Castro (the veracity of what Castro says is for a different forum).  By the same reasoning, you must also discard all of the following as "reliable sources:"
The Nation
New Republic
Rolling Stone
Macleans (Canadian)
Der Spiegel
while venerating the following as ultra reliable:
Time
US News and World Report
Wall Street Journal
Detroit News
Anything owned by Rupert Murdoch
This is fallacious on its face.  Editorial bent is inherent in every periodical, and has been ever since Ben Franklin first published Poor Richard's Almanac (or Thomas Paine penned "Common Sense").  To condemn a publication as unreliable because of said editorial bent is hypocritical since you espouse the same bent with the periodicals you venerate.
It is possible to present evidence objectively and also show your own opinion, as well.  Problems arise when opinion is not seperated from evidence (which can be caused by many things, chief among them extreme editorial bias (insert Fox News and Mother Jones as the two extremes of this)).  Shameless trolling condeming the other point of view without solid evidence is the worst kind of yellow journalism.  For example, when Bush choked and passed out a few years ago, imagine the furor that would have been created with the following headline:
Former drunken driver collapses at White House
This carries the implication that Bush was wasted at the time of his fall.  The headline encompasses two facts:
1) Bush is a former drunk driver
2) Bush collapsed at the White House
By juxtaposing the two in an underhanded manner, the editor conveys a double meaning (the root of yellow journalism).
By the same token, a right wing editor could put a differnt spin on the following two facts:
1) Vince Foster committed suicide
2) Bill Clinton was being investigated at the time (for different things)
Vince Foster found dead - Bill Clinton investigated
Two things that are undeniably true; however, Clinton was never seriously investigated nor even considered a suspect in Foster's death (ruled a suicide).  
These two preceding examples show how extreme editorial bias can demean a periodical's reliability.  I am sure that publications as reliable as Rolling Stone and the Wall Street Journal would never resort to such yellow journalism.
This brings me to my next point.  Concepts such as "worst president," "best president," "best football team ever," "worst natural disaster ever," and others are inherently OPINION pieces.  One cannot show these to be facts.  One must gather facts and other respected opinions to bolster his or her case in presenting an hypothesis.
For example, in order to make a case for the Black Death being the worst natural disaster ever (an easy case, BTW), I would present the following facts:
1) It was a disease that ran rampant throughout Europe for four years (1347 - 1351)
2) It could not be stopped by conventional means at the time
3) It killed 1/3 of the population of Europe (roughly 75,000,000 people)
All of these make a compelling case that it was the worst natural disaster in history, but it is still an opinion.  Someone else could argue that the 1918 Flu pandemic was worse because it was a more modern era and we should have known better.  Someone else could argue that the single earthquake that killed 830,000 people in one day is the worst since not even the Black Death killed that many in one day.
And on and on.  In making the case for Bush as worst president, I'm sure that there are several facts that could be presented to bolster this case (such as basing the public reason for going to war in Iraq on Weapons of Mass Destruction which have yet to be found, unbelievable grammatical and speaking lapses, supporting the Patriot Act).  As damning as those are, they still do not prove Bush is the worst president.  It is still only my opinion.  I'm sure that citizens who espouse a right wing ideology could present other evidence that Bush is the best president in history.  They cannot prove that, however.
Now, if we're going to present Wikipedia as an objective resource, we must avoid the trap of presenting only one side of the equation.  Believe me, I'd love to post what I really think of Bush as "fact" (that he's a smug, arrogant, Fascist sonofabitch who wants to institute a Christian theocracy in the US and subvert five Amendments of the Bill of Rights at once with the Patriot Act (1,4,5,6 and 8)); however, in good conscience I would not post that as fact.  In Bush's article, however, I think we should present both sides of the argument about his accomplishments/deficiencies.  The article, as it stands, is right leaning in its bias (not the ultra right wing that Murdoch would print about Bush's crap not stinking, but still right leaning).  We must counter that right wing bias by including discussion of Bush's shortcomings, as well (see the German translation above about Bush avoiding service in Vietnam).
In summation, I believe that dismissing Rolling Stone as a source is a mistake.  Merecat, would you discount it if it were as right leaning as the Wall Street Journal?  To quote the urban legend "I think not."
TheKurgan 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your lengthy comment. I'm not sure what to make of it, but thanks. Merecat 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolling Stone vs. the Wall Street Journal 

message: ----
the most recent 250
*Page stats (from the 250 edits shown on this page):
*20.8% quick reverts (any) (52 edit(s))
*11.2% probable reverts of vandalism (28 edit(s))
*0% IP/anon edits (0 edit(s))
*21.6% likely new user edits (54 edit(s))
*100% registered user edits (250 edit(s))
*78.4% likely older user edits (196 edit(s))
----
the most recent 500
*Page stats (from the 500 edits shown on this page):
*25.6% quick reverts (any) (128 edit(s))
*16% probable reverts of vandalism (80 edit(s))
*11% IP/anon edits (55 edit(s))
*16.2% likely new user edits (81 edit(s))
*89% registered user edits (445 edit(s))
*72.8% likely older user edits (364 edit(s))
----
From august 5 to 12 of 2005 
*Page stats (from the 500 edits shown on this page):
*43.6% quick reverts (any) (218 edit(s))
*27.4% probable reverts of vandalism (137 edit(s))
*40.2% IP/anon edits (201 edit(s))
*2.4% likely new user edits (12 edit(s))
*59.8% registered user edits (299 edit(s))
*57.4% likely older user edits (287 edit(s))
----
the last 5000
Page stats (from the 5000 edits shown on this page):
*33.84% quick reverts (any) (1692 edit(s))
*25.72% probable reverts of vandalism (1286 edit(s))
*23.64% IP/anon edits (1182 edit(s))
*8.18% likely new user edits (409 edit(s))
*76.36% registered user edits (3818 edit(s))
*68.18% likely older user edits (3409 edit(s))
Don't know what to make of these, but look at that 100%....yikes. The 8.18% goes up to 21.6% likely due to sleeper accounts. I bet its necessary though.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some JavaScript stats for George Bush edits

message: Imho there is a serious misstatement in this part. Pls look at this sentence: "However, most of the methods that would have given victory to Gore relied on counting overvotes -- which is against election law, as it takes a ballot with two votes on it and assigns it arbitrarily to one candidate.     212223"
OK, Firstly, link 21 has to be paid for, I can't afford to buy it and I don't think it's proper to use paid content here. However, links 22 and 23 don't support the statement in the article. 22 says: "In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name." No reference to election laws here. Instead, this shows that the recount teams determined the voter intent (you remember this phrase from the news, right?) and counted a valid vote when both the chad was gone and the same candidate's name was written on the ballot. This isn't the same as two votes, this isn't arbitrary, and it's very questionable if this is against the law - 22 says nothing about that. Now, link 23 isn't about law either, its topic is possible voter confusion. So, imho the whole sentence at the start is unsurported opinion and I think it would be the best solution to simply delete it. Gray62 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 campaigns 

message: I'd really like if someone were to review my additions to the article concerning the Illinois resolution to impeach Bush at the bottom of the Impeachment section. Polish it up, and add some more clarifying content, or improvement would be nice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfa (talk • contribs) 06:48, April 28, 2006
As a former Rockford, IL and Chicago resident, I would like to state that Illinois is not a democratic state.  The population of Chicago, which as a big city, tends to skew opinions to the left, dominates the political landscape of the state.  I don't have any facts to cite, but based upon personal experience, I would suggest that Illinois is overall a conservative state, but the population of Chicago tips the scale, come election time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.233.172 (talk • contribs) 16:51, April 29, 2006
*So... what's your point? Last time I checked, people in cities count towards the overall political landscape. Michael Lipik 04:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illinois Resolution for Impeachment 

message: 1-The alleged manipulation of NASA information seems to warrant inclusion in the Science section.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/31/nasa.media.policy.reut/index.html
2-Saudi Flights is problematic, because Michael Moore's scurrilous politicking as resource must defer to the 9/11 commission report, which addressed these allegations and unambiguously dismissed them.  I don't believe this section belongs under GWB.
3-Why is Katrina all but completely omitted from this bio?  The Public Perception section indicates that the administration was faulted for a "slow" response; this is a very generous euphemism, and does not impartially reflect the truth of the matter--allegations of negligence, the perceived betrayal of promises regarding Homeland Security, and the impression that the administration was more preoccupied with political fallout than disaster management.  It would seem that this defining moment of his second term, his response to the most visible natural disaster in the nation's history, would warrant a section of its own.DBaba 02:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to Science section and Katrina effect 

message: Wouldn't it make sense to start a Wikipedia page on the "George Bush Controversy"? It would include things in the news that have caused commotion based on events, appointees and laws that Bush has made. It would also include the thoughts of pundits on both sides of the arguments. As well as excerpts from this talk page. In a way, it would be kind of like the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry page in that both sides would get their opinnions stated. Discuss:  User:Secret
::I dont think so because there really isnt a "George Bush Contorversy", there are controversies regarding his administrations policies, most of which already have pages. Any specifically "Bush Controversey", is mostly far left POV, Mac Domhnaill 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Page Idea

message: I made a few edits here tonight. If you disagree, please do not blanket revert. Please dialog here. Merecat 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits