Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17.5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

See:

George W. Bush

Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17

Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17.4

Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17.6

Contents 1 Cabinet table alignment 2 Formatting question 3 Bush administration disinformation about Iraq 4 Three Comments 5 Protected 6 Failure to Meet with NAACP 7 First and Second term pages 8 Resignations 9 Most vandalized page on Wikipedia? 10 Have not/did not 11 Ohio the focal point of 2004 election "shadiness" 12 Other info 13 An explanation 14 robert jordan redirect 15 Bush was a cheerleader. 16 Cocaine 17 =Hayes 18 Cut down the article 19 Oil companies 20 Intro 21 Medical diagnoses by political partisans 22 vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease 23 Bush Picture 24 Bush Picutre 25 Drunk / Drugs / etc 26 Inuendo and slander 27 Salon.com's February, 2004 report 28 "Gentleman" Cs 29 Vandalism 30 Related links 31 The "Dry Drunk" nonsense 32 NPOV doesn't mean suppressing all criticism of Bush 33 What Rules Should Govern Opinion Piece Links? 34 Comment on content 35 Gazpacho's summary 36 The Wormer Article 37 Protected 38 UNprotected 39 Explanation of excision of "validity..uncertain" 40 Infobox 41 Keep article about Bush 42 Who put up the disputed page tag? 43 Business man? 44 Information.

Cabinet table alignment

Why is the table listing the Cabinet members appearing on the right side of the page, leaving large ugly whitespace on its left? The markup appears to have "align='left'" on it, and it's not a problem with my browser because I checked in multiple browsers. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:09, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think there's a mistake in the table formatting. It says 'style="...;" align...'. Changing it to 'style="..." align...' makes the alignment (and border) work for me.

The white space is caused by the <br clear="all"> after the table, which prevents the next section from moving up alongside of the table. Probably the table should be moved to the top of its section.

—wwoods 17:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrapped in a float:right div, and it looks better now. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Formatting question

In the Transcripts section of external links, the {{wikiquote}} tag displays badly. I tried to fix a couple ways, but to no avail. It appears correctly on a section preview, but not when saved. Any help? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same here, tried 4 or 5 variations. Previews correctly, renders wrong. I'm using Netscape. Wolfman 20:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bush administration disinformation about Iraq

Silverback's edit summary asks me "What lies?" His version is not NPOV because it asserts, as if it were an undisputed fact, that after 9/11 "there was a new sense of urgency" about the WMD issue and the possible aid to terrorists. I deny that there was such a renewed sense of urgency. My POV is that Bush knew, because all his intelligence experts were telling him, that Saddam did not have WMDs, was not close to getting nuclear capability, and had had nothing to do with 9/11. It is further my POV that Bush, knowing these facts, cynically and immorally seized on 9/11 as a convenient pretext for doing what he'd been planning to do since before the 2000 election, namely depose Saddam. Now, I don't expect the Wikipedia article to reflect my personal opinions of Our Glorious Leader. We should indeed report the line that the Bush administration was publicly spouting. Nevertheless, we don't assert it as fact. We attribute it. The version I've reverted to says "the Bush administration argued that", which is the properly NPOV way to present Bush's statements. We could, of course, get into more detail about what documentary evidence was available about Iraqi weapons programs, but if we're going to assert that Iraq made claims that weren't documented, then we should also link to Yellowcake Forgery to point out that Bush made claims based on forged documents. JamesMLane 02:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Completely agree with your point. Wolfman 02:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with keeping it NPOV, the yellowcake forgery was not done by Bush, although since it had been called into question, it should not have been used. Nevertheless, the concern it raised, that Saddam wanted nukes was valid, and it is clear from interviews with Iraqi scientists since the war, that Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD programs, and he had the resources to do it. My own POV is that the war was not justified, but that, even so, it was probably the most just war the US has ever been involved in and fought because we only intended to transfer the power and resources to a democratic government by the most just means because we didn't use conscription, and used some of the most accurrate munitions in history, to carefully preserve civilian life and infrastructure. Yes, we have avoided conscription in other recent wars, but in Serbia and the first Gulf war, we purposely targeted civilian infrastructure and in the bunkers in Kuwait murdered over 100,000 innocent Iraqi conscripts.--Silverback 02:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, if he wanted WMD, if he had the resources to do it, if the sanctions were not interfering, then why didn't he have any WMD? It's not at all clear that any of the premises above are true. Stating any of them as fact is POV; stating that the situation was urgent is POV. Stating what Bush said and attributing it to Bush is NPOV. Wolfman 03:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saddam did want the sanctions to end, yet obsfuscated against the inspections because he wanted his neighbors to believe he still had WMD. Of course, it made the rest of the world believe he still had WMD as well. Why he wanted his neighbors to believe he still had WMD is unclear. was it as a deterrent to Iran? or for prestige in the region? to intimidate the shiites and kurds? Frankly, Saddam bears far more responsibility for the war than Bush, he had one of the greatest opportunities in history to open his country, get his borders guaranteed without any need for further military expenditures on Iraq's part, even disolving his military, and to thumb his nose at the west by legalizing drugs and calling his nation the freeist on earth. I would have done it!--Silverback 03:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The french, germans and russians probably also bear more responsibility for the war than Bush, because they gave Saddam hope he could wait out the sanctions and get them removed without the full cooperation that would have given Iraq's claims of having destroyed the unaccounted for material credibility.--Silverback 03:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would say that the person who started the war is responsible for starting the war, but that's just me. Kevin Baas | talk 05:49, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

I say the moral bright line is between sanctions and non-coercive means, not between sanctions and war. Sanctions are acts of war, a gun to the head, so to speak. Sanctions commit one to backing them up occasionally. Of course, one can also take the "start" back to the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, there has only been a truce since then. Rest assured that another nation imposing a no-fly zone on the US (as the UN did on Iraq) would find it considered an act of war.--Silverback 05:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am not fully aware of the details surrounding Desert Storm. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing who went to war. The controversial term "preemptive strike" comes to mind. I guess you could argue that it was self defence, but that would be a failing strategy in any court, national or international. In any case, the War, the actual physical battle, was started by the Bush administration (and prepared for long before). I.e. it was a premeditated act commited by the Bush Administration, and insofar as one is responsible for one's actions, the Bush administration is responsible for acting as it did, and all of the consequences resultant therefrom. Kevin Baas | talk 07:12, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

The sanctions were in place after Desert Storm which was only "ended" with a truce (not a peace treaty) and that truce had been violated many times. However, I don't see the "preemptive" element as introducing any moral issues. Saddam lost any right have his rights respected, when he initiated violating the rights of others, the rape room, or the torturing of the soccer players is all the excuse needed. The key moral issue is that taking out Saddam in order to prevent further violations of rights involves the certainty of collateral damage, including the taking of innocent life. But governments do that all the time, even in peace, they use net-lives-saved justifications to delay access to life saving medications. In the United States delays in the approval of clot busting drugs (TPA and streptokinase) and beta blockers (propranol HCL, atenolol, etc) are estimated to have cost over a million lives (they didn't quite achieve a net plus on this one). If net-lives-saved are enough to justify taking innocent life in peace, there is no reason for the standard to be higher war, and given the nature of Saddam's regime and his diversion of humanitarian aid to the military and to the corruption of european and international leaders, the Iraq war may already have met the net lives saved standard. Madeline Albright estimated that over 500,000 infants had died in Iraq, before the oil for food program was initiated.--Silverback 08:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, you're kinda jumping around here. Egregious human rights records do not necessarily justify us to invade a country's soverign rule, otherwise we would be at war with many many countries, with at least a few we have far more of a reason to invade than Iraq. Iran is a much better target, why didn't we hit them? Regardless, the point is that we started the war, we are responsible for the war. The argument that we were provoked into doing so, like KB says, is flimsy at best. Any justification you can use for Iraq can be applied to many other countries... if we must accept this justification by provocation, we are morally inclined to invade these other countries as well and the fact that we haven't done so yet should incite moral outrage. --kizzle 07:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

As much as I agree with some of the posters here. It's all off topic. Does anyone have any concrete proof that Bush lied to the American public. Are there any documents that said before the war that Iraq neither had a single drop of WMD (remember that a single drop can kill hundreds), nor wanted to make them? The CIA may have had wrong information, like it's had hundreds of times before, or they could have been moved out of the country, but unless someone has concrete proof that Saddam didn't have WMD, and that Bush knew about it and intentionally lied about it, it shouldn't be in a factual article. PPGMD

Conversly, if and only if the CIA had "concrete evidence that Saddam Hussien possesses WMD." at the time that Bush made that statement, Bush was telling the truth to the public (i.e. x is a true statement). If he was not telling the truth to the public, then he was lying to the public (i.e. x is a false statement). To the best of any informed person's knowledge, the CIA did not only not have any "concrete evidence" of this, but had no credible evidence whatsoever. Therefore, Bush knowingly lied to the public. Simple logic. Sound and valid.

Why knowingly? Because this is the kind of statement a president makes to the public if and only if they know. If he did not know, then he is not only a liar (however unknowingly), but an abhorently irresponsible and incompetent one. That is, I am actually being nice to him by giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying that he knowingly lied. Kevin Baas | talk 20:45, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

No credible evidence whatsoever eh? I am sure the President knows what's going on in the bowels of the CIA HQ. Most intelligence agencies at the time that he made the run up to the war said that Saddam had WMD. There was very little evidence to the to rebut it, the report that they delivered to the UN didn't help anything either, since it didn't account for all the weapons. There was credible, evidence, at least as credible as one can get without any intelligence operatives on the ground.

Once again, show me documents from credible that prove that President Bush lied? This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of conspiracy theories, without concrete proof it shouldn't be in this entry. If I want junk like that I will goto coasttocoastam.com PPGMD

The onus is on the president to demonstrate that there was hard evidence of WMD. As the saying goes, "innocent until proven guilty." Until it is proven that iraq has WMD, i.e. is guilty of a violation. The proof is the lack of evidecne to the contrary. there can be no other proof. how can you prove that something does not exist other than pointing out that there is no evidence of it's existence? This is the logical problem mistake that make people believe in God. By the same so-called "logic" people use to justify their belief in god you are justifying your belief that saddam had wmd. You cannot disprove their existence because there is no possible way for there to be evidence of their "nonexistence"; one cannot be shown their "non-being".

The onus is on the president. Saddam probably didn't think he would go to war. Who can blame him? How could anyone expect a national leader to be so belligerent as to go around invading other countries on the basis of completely unsubstantiated allegations? The whole world, in fact, was rather shocked.

He said there is hard evidence. He does not know the bowels of the CIA! The CIA doesn't even know their own bowels. Where are you getting this from? Your blind faith is scarry. He said there is concrete evidence. There is not concrete evidence. He lied. I understand that this may be difficult to accept. But that's proof. That's as much proof as could possibly exist. Yes, the president of the United States blatently lied to his country. I know that's the last thing you want to hear. It sounds very ugly, it's horrendous. Maybe that's why you're having so much trouble believing it. You're not alone: nobody wants to believe it. But it's the sad truth. He lied and repeated his lies and when he could repeat them no longer because there was too much evidence to the contrary, he shifted them so as to make it look like that's what he was saying all along, and repeated those new lies over and over again. When there was too much evidence to the contrary, he shifted them again. Ofcourse it worked, ofcourse people think that he didn't do this; that he's told the truth the whole time. Have you done your homework? How do you learn something? Repetition, repetition, repetition. Teachers know this. It is the most powerful tool. Repetition. What is repeated is taken to be true, regardless of any connection with the empirical world. It's basic psychology. There was no evidence. There still is no evidence. The CIA knew this (with 2 maverik exceptions), every other country in the world knew this (except isreal. Britian's population knew this overwhelming, and Tony Blair possibly knew it as well.) He lied. People lie, you know. They do sometimes, really. No, really, everyone doesn't always tell the truth. Sometimes people actually do lie. No, really. Really. Kevin Baas | talk 23:52, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Read The Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill, or Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke. We were planning on going to Iraq before we even considered weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the weapons of mass destruction claim came after our plans to invade. While it cannot be technically proven that he did not know, its like he claimed Saddam was planning to invade the U.S., a hypothesis with little to none substantial evidence. You make a statement like posession of WMD after you have the evidence, not before. --kizzle 23:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

This discussion didn't arise because someone wanted the article to say that Bush was lying. It arose because someone wanted the article to parrot Bush's lies uncritically. The demand by PPGMD for "concrete proof" should apply both ways. The article shouldn't state something as a fact if the only basis is that Bush asserted it. I have no problem with our reporting his notable statements in a form like "The Bush administration argued that...." It was the omission of that kind of attribution that caused the disagreement. JamesMLane 01:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

True. Plus the Bush administration did state numerous times that we had incontrovertible evidence that Saddam had WMD. Obviously we did not have undeniable evidence, since no WMD were found. Therefore, the administration did plainly lie about the strength of the evidence. Now whether that's the CIA or the Whitehouse is perhaps debatable. But last I checked, Bush is the leader of the executive branch, and that's where the buck stops so the issue is relevant to this article. Wolfman 04:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It isn't a lie unless the "liar" knows it is untrue. It is a copout to state that "the administration" lied. Who lied? Perhaps someone jumped to a conclusion or assumed the worst. Frankly, it appears the U.S. had inside intelligence high within the Saddam administration or military and believed what they believed. Iraqi unit commanders knew they did not have chemical weapons, but they thought other units did. It also appeared that Saddam himself may have been lied to, and the U.S. believed those lies also. In any case, it all turned out for the best, how lucky can the U.S. get?--Silverback 06:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silverback is really George W. Bush, that's not a lie by his criteria. Yes, how lucky we are to have invaded Iraq, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, taken 10000 wounded in action and 1200 dead. Wolfman 06:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Touche! There must be some further qualification or criteria for lying that I have forgotten from my ethics class. I would characterize your statement (that I am W) as speculation, with extremely little evidence, but you are right, I wouldn't call you a liar by my criteria, even though I know through personal knowledge the truth or falsity of your statement. It is a very few hundreds of billions, but the casualties are low by historical standards, if only someone could liberate us the from yoke of the US government so cheaply. 8-) --Silverback 07:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I second JML (once again), its just fun to talk about this sometime, but we cannot officially endorse Bush's viewpoint, we must quote and attribute, quote and attribute. Back to debating, whether or not he lied is a question which will never be proved either way, however we do know that Bush wanted a war with Iraq before WMD's, before 9/11, so it just seems a bit convenient at best.--kizzle 09:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

You overstate it. There is a difference between wanting Saddam removed and wanting a war. He would have been more patient with other approaches, if not for the unaccounted for WMD, which gave it a sense of urgency. I doubt he would have waited very long however, if the other approaches were not showing promise. All the conservatives were impatient with the resource drain of the no-fly zone and competely lack of credibility of U.N. sanctions.--Silverback 10:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Resource drain, as compared to how much we're spending on the war now? To see the invasion of Iraq as merely a response to a threat of WMD misses the point. I don't think that's what Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were thinking at the time at the very least. --kizzle 11:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Obviously the army is tied down. But the airpower is significantly freed up. Read the PNAC document for an idea of the strain the no fly zone put on the U.S. Kuwait was not a good base for dealing with Iran, Iraq puts us in a better position, and makes sure the oil revenues are spent in Iraq for the benefit of her people, rather than spilling over into Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. You may think suicide bombers are cheap and in unlimited supply, certainly ones that can penetrate a western country are, but even there, I think there is a big drain on this irredeemable element being thrown against hard targets (U.S. military) and unfortunately innocent Iraqi's. They obviously view democracy as a threat, which proves they agree with the possible consequences of this risky and idealistic U.S. strategy, although of course, they oppose it. This war against a corrupt, depraved dictatorship may look like a bargain a few years out. Frankly, I think a civil war would not be that bad, especially if it resulted in the Kurds and Shiites getting nations, and the discredited bathists getting a middle country but permanently defanged, because they have no oil.--Silverback 12:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For those who missed it, Silverback just said "Frankly, I think a civil war would not be that bad". This needs no futher comment. Wolfman 14:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Three Comments

1. The box with the Cabinet appointments is wrong. Although some Cabinet members have submitted their resignations, these do not take effect until their successor is sworn in. So, for example, Colin Powell is the Secretary of State until Condoleeza Rice is sworn in. Same goes for Ashcroft, Evans and the others.

2. Concerning the above talkpage discussion. It is amazing to me how people cannot stop their political viewpoint from obstructing their view of facts. At this point it makes no sense to put Bush's administration in a historical context. Many of the controversial acts Bush has done may be great for America in the future, OR it could be a disaster but only time will tell. For example, TR's action in seizing the Panama Canal were controversial and maybe illegal but in the long run it is recognized as one of his Presidencies greatest achievements, likewise President Buchanan's reluctance to engage the Confederacy is now looked on as a major failure but at the time were seen as necessary to avoid war. So with that in mind, I think the current Bush article is better because it seems to be simply reciting the events of Bush's first term without arguing whether these acts were right or wrong.

3. I noticed in the articles, that there are separate links between Bush's first term and his second (which will happen, regardless of what one of the contributors above thinks). This is unnecessary. It was not done for other two term Presidents, so I don't understand why we need to do it here. Just have it all on the same page.

Thanks Ramsquire 23:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page again because of the spurts of vandalism it has been receiving. Will unprotect as soon as is possible. Any changes, feel free to submit and discuss here. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 02:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. This is an actively worked on page, so the vandalism gets corrected almost instantaneously and gets lost in the noise. It is the vandalism on less active pages you need to worry about.--Silverback 06:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For once I agree with Silverback. Unprotect. Dealing with the vandals is a hassle but a minor one. Besides, how can anyone "unprotect as soon as is possible"? We won't know how much vandalism will occur until it's unprotected. JamesMLane 00:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Failure to Meet with NAACP

Under "Domestic Policy" the following line appears:

Although President Bush did meet with the National Urban League, he is the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.

This is poorly written. A better edit would be:

President Bush has met with the National Urban League as President, but has not yet met with the NAACP as President, though he did address the NAACP at their 2000 convention in Baltimore as a presidential candidate. Should President Bush not meet with the NAACP before he leaves office, he will become the first sitting President to have not met with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.

This is a significant improvement for several reasons. First, while Bush hasn't met with the NAACP as president, it's unfair to fail to mention that he has met with them in the past. Secondly, Bush isn't "the first sitting President not to meet..." anymore than Bill Clinton was the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP up until the time that he actually did. The sentence won't be true until Bush has left office still not having met with the NAACP.

I agree. Your statement should be added to the piece.Ramsquire 22:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I too agree sounds more NPOV.--198 04:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yes, making the edit now. Wolfman 05:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

oh, well then, i see it's protected. at any rate it's a clear improvement. and the page should be unprotected, as it just encourages vandals by making them feel powerful. block them, not us. 05:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First and Second term pages

I don't know why, but some one removed the links to George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as president of the United States I added them back to the see also section.--The_stuart 19:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again, some one has removed the links to these pages. I thought that discussion was supposed to come before removing something from this page. I don't see any reason why links to these pages shouldn't be incluided some where on this page. Until there is discussion as to why they shouldn't be on this page I'm going to keep putting them back. I'm not try start any kind of conflict, only discussion.--The_stuart 18:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the link to Bush's first term and second term because I find it strange to point to other articles that are basically discussing the same things as this article. Also, I explained my edit above in the section entitled "Three Comments". I am just confused as to why we would need separate links since the topic of this article concerns the life and presidency of Bush. Ramsquire 21:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because, after only one term, the page is already 57k. Spinning off sections to separate pages (and replacing them with summaries!) is standard practice as articles grow.

—wwoods 21:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But wouldn't it make more sense to just prune out the unnecessary stuff. It is weird that Bush's one term page would be larger than Clinton's two terms page. Maybe we should try to format the page so that all pages on world leaders follow a very similiar format, but if there are other things the person is noted for, e.g Nixon and Watergate, have that under a separate title. The reason I proposed the edit is that Bush's page is very unlike all the other US president pages, containing sections on world and domestic views on the Presidency, which maybe can be streamlined into the body of the rest of the article. Just an idea.Ramsquire 20:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer to use the existing split by subject matter -- to prune the sections on foreign and domestic policy, moving a lot of the detail to those respective daughter articles. A particular reader is more likely to want to know something like what Bush did on economic matters, regardless of which term it was in, than to want to know what happened specifically before January 20, 2005. JamesMLane 03:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the Clinton comparison, recent subjects tend to attract more attention than older ones. The article on Bill Clinton is much longer than the article on Thomas Jefferson. JamesMLane 10:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Bush just happend to be president now, so more things are going to be written about him. Later presidents will also probably get exstensive articles as well. Its just a matter of the timing that his presidency will be so well documented.--The_stuart 16:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that since Bush is in office now, it seems like everything he does will have historical significance and should be included in this article. Things like the SEC investigation will have no historical significance in four years, but yet paragraphs are dedicated to it in this articel. I think we have to fight the urge to include every possible angle and keep the article simple. I know it would be too difficult now, but perhaps we should have a specific format for world leaders that we have to stick to, instead of the add everything we can think of going on now. It is ridiculous that a one term president already has all this information in his article. I do like the idea of using the foreign and domestic policy split over first term/second term split though.Ramsquire 18:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Resignations

I just compared the current version of the page to the version by VerilyVerily at 05:27, 12 Dec 2004 diff. One major omission is the following paragraph. Since I'm aware that this page is being attacked by vandals, I'm copying it here in case it is vandalism that has been missed (it probably isn't, but I'm being extra cautious).

"Within a few weeks after the 2004 election, several Cabinet members announced their resignations: Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and Secretary of Health of Human Services Tommy Thompson. Bush has announced his nominations of Condoleezza Rice to replace Powell, Alberto R. Gonzales to replace Ashcroft, Margaret Spellings to replace Paige, Carlos Gutierrez to replace Evans, Mike Johanns to replace Veneman, and Bernard Kerik to replace Ridge, although Kerik has declined the position." --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, I replaced that paragraph with the table of "Proposed second term cabinet" to make it all more readable. I may be a vandal, though, as I've been accused in the past.  :) Jewbacca 04:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected that this might have been the intention, but I thought it was worth querying just the same. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were some changes during the first term, and some continuity between the first and second terms. I don't think breaking it out this way is best for the long run. When the dust settles after most of the confirmation hearings, we should go back to a single unified table (with dates), and a paragraph noting the spate of changes at the end of 2004. For now, though, a separate table is reasonable, to accommodate all these unconfirmed nominees or intended nominees, who can't yet be listed as Cabinet members. JamesMLane 05:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely. We finally agree on something :) But yes, we should merge it to look like the table at Bill Clinton after confirmations. Jewbacca 06:04, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Most vandalized page on Wikipedia?

It sure seems like it. Every time I visit this page, typically half of the current History actions on the screen are vandalism reverts. --I run like a Welshman 22:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if these things are tracked, in a meaningful way, but the impact here is probably less than on other pages because the page is actively worked, by experienced wikipedian's, reverting the vandalism is a minor nusance. You will also usually many substantive changes to the page on any given day. Really, once you gain some experience, it is hardly a bother at all.--Silverback 15:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's probably to do with the amount of traffic this article recieves, Bush being about the most visible figure worldwide. Michael Moore and Adolf Hitler are two articles I've looked at that also recieve a lot of vandalism. At least there doesn't seem to be a revert war going on, like there was with the John McCain page a few weeks ago. Diceman 15:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have not/did not

I changed As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised about inaccurate counting of votes and other irregularities, especially in Ohio, although in 2004 they *did* not lead to recounts that could affect the result. to As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised about inaccurate counting of votes and other irregularities, especially in Ohio, although in 2004 they *have* not lead to recounts that could affect the result.

I'm not making some conspiracy case that the election can be overturned, but in point of fact, it's Jan 6. when 'did not' becomes accurate. Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 20:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed "could" to "is expected to". It is technically more correct. There are enough uncounted provisional ballots and spoiled ballots to overturn the result, besides the fact that it's physically possible for there to have been fraud. Kevin Baas | talk 20:10, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Ohio the focal point of 2004 election "shadiness"

I added mention of Ohio being the focal point for suspicion over voter representation in 2004. I was oh-so-tempted to mention how the CEO of Diebold said they were committed to delivering Ohio's electoral vote to Bush in 2004..but that would've clearly been biased and I didn't want to polarize this entry. MDesigner 21:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

The recount showed a change of only 300 votes -- Get over it and let's move on First Lensman 15:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Get over it and let's move on." Nothing to see here, folks. Classic. 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities -- RyanFreisling @ 00:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other info

The page is about George W. Bush. I am looking, and thinking, things like his beliefes, financial backers, agenda and the like have a place in it. They are legitimate in an article about him, and can and should be shown, albeit neutrally. Its not just about "his acts and history as president". FT2 09:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

agreed--The_stuart 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to agree if we were doing a biography on the subjects in this page. The problem is that many of these things turn out to be apocryphal and therefore don't belong in an encyclopedia. In a biography it is more acceptable to use poetic license and rumors, than it would be in an encyclopedia article. Here we should stick to facts that can be verified (so that we don't have to keep constantly editing and adding things to the articles). For example this article says that there have been rumors that Bush has used cocaine. If it were to come out tomorrow that the cocaine use has unquestionably been verified, either way, then we'd have to change the article. If it wasn't in there, we'd wouldn't have to add it unless it affected policy or his health, or had some current importance. However, I understand I am in the minority here, most people do want everything ever written about a figure in the wiki articles. Ramsquire 22:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An explanation

this page was moved - and there were problems with the move back (someone edited before the page was replaced). Because actions weren't going through - it ended up with a move and a delete happening at the same time - and so the real page was deleted (by me!). The restore function also wasn't working - possibly because of the size of the history. Now it seems that the history is duplicated - but at least the page is back and koo got it in the right state! -- sannse (talk) 01:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History is quadruplicated. :-) Evercat 01:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep - not sure what can be done about that... hopefully a dev will be able to fix it. what a mess! -- sannse (talk)

Thanks to User:Tim Starling, the problem is fixed, so long as nobody tries to undelete the page again. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 15:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

robert jordan redirect

Someone filled out the entry for Robert Jordan as the author for Wheel of Time, so when someone clicks on the entry mentioned in Bush's business career it goes to that. How can that get fixed as a redirect or something? --kizzle 22:37, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've dabbed it into Robert Jordan (lawyer) and will now do a stub. JamesMLane 18:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bush was a cheerleader.

Bush was a cheerleading captain, at Andover, I believe, if memory serves. Somebody look it up. One of the notes to the edits to this page mentions it and assumes it's vandalism. But, no. Wrongo. He was a cheerleader.

Is it important?Ramsquire 18:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

David Letterman frequently uses an old photo of Bush as cheerleader and says, "That's exactly what our country needs, a cheerleader."--Pharos 17:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the fact that he played baseball and rugby any more important? Should that be removed as well?

If I had my way the rugby, baseball, drunk driving, his religious conversion, rumored cocaine use, the details surrounding the Harken incident, the anecdote about his jury service as Texas Governor, the entire public perceptions and assessments section and the trivia section would be removed, but I am in the minority here when it comes to how this article is presented. I believe that these articles should reach for brevity, as do most other encyclopedias. It is sort of ridiculous that a one term President has an article that is almost three times the size of two-term President and major historical figure Thomas Jefferson.Ramsquire 21:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now a TWO (2) term President (Thank God) First Lensman 15:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's be adult about this. The issue isn't whether Bush was a cheerleader or not; it's the context in which it's presented and NPOV. This could be viewed as a "color" item—an interesting fact about someone, at least as significant as that John Kerry named his boat "Scaramouche." But simply saying "cheerleader" without context implies a short skirt and pompoms, an attempt at ridicule (POV) and an undercurrent of homophobia (worse).

IOW, I don't know the circumstances of Bush's cheerleaderness, but if its mentioned as a "color fact," we should know what "cheerleader" meant. Was he one of a bunch of guys who performed dance moves? Was he a token male in a groups of girls? Did he hold a megaphone and call out cheers while others danced? Was there anything special in his decision to enter this activity? Do it right or don't do it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I for one never thought it was important at all, just passing along information. If anyone wants to know, in the Letterman picture, he's just yelling out of a megaphone and looking cheery.--Pharos 19:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the length of the article, Ramsquire. Bush is a present day figure. We know a lot more about him than we do about Thomas Jefferson. Every bit of information that is preserved about him on here is, IMHO, good. Displaying everything can help prevent bias (for or against) and will help ensure that that information will be there for future generations. Imagine if the people of ancient times had had a Wikipedia in which to inscribe everything they knew about their culture and political leaders. -- J. Jensen 16:36, 14 Jan 2005 (CST)

Cocaine

The now-blocked 216 has a point, does he not? Should we really carry accusations without giving any real evidence at all? Evercat 19:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see we've not reverted his removal of same. Fine. Evercat 19:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The cocaine "allegations" are just endearing and humanizing personal anecdotes. Supporters probably think they add color to his testimony, and opponents can hope that someday he'll remember that prison would have denied the country a great leader in its time of need, and end the hypocritical drug war.--Silverback 19:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We give the evidence for what we state, namely that Bush has been accused of having used cocaine. It's NPOV to report that accusation, which has enough currency in the political world to be notable whether or not it's true. We don't assert it is true. JamesMLane 21:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The cocaine allegations have no place in this encyclopedia. The source of the allegations came from a single book from a discredited man. Just because something is alleged in a book (particularly one from a no-name author instead of say, Bob Woodward) does not mean it needs to be given space in an encyclopedia. I saw a book that claimed Bill Clinton was part of a murder conspiracy that resulted in the death of Vince Foster and others. The book is at your book store right now. Does that mean the murder "allegations" should be included in Clinton's entry? Of course not. And in the very least, if we must include "allegations" from a discredited author and a discredited book, we must at least say that the allegations were never proven and are not widely considered credible.

Let's not discuss the vetted fact concerning ALL the drugs John F. Kennedy was hopped up on While He WAS President. Noooooo! But, Let's just state every innuendo, every speculation, every lie, fostered on the public by rabid Liberals bent on the character assassination of George W. Bush, and present it as fact in this encyclopedia. Just because a Liberal spouts something doesn't make it true. These items need to be vetted. Place them in the discussion area before posting to the article. FirstLensman 16:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

=Hayes

although in 2004 they have not lead to recounts that would affect the result. George W. Bush is the only President to win re-election after losing the popular vote in his first election. The other three, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison, were each defeated in their bid for a second term.

I don't believe has ran for a second term in 1880 or at least he was not the GOP candidate Garfield was.

Cut down the article

The foreign and domestic policy sections have already been placed into other articles but are still too large in this article - it's 56k last I checked. I think it'd be best to further summarise those sections where possible. I would do it but have no particular interest or knowledge about this topic. violet/riga (t) 23:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oil companies

What the article stated about Bush's career in the oil business was that he founded Arbusto; Arbusto changed its name to Bush Exploration, and under that name was sold to Spectrum 7; Spectrum 7 had Bush as its CEO and went bankrupt; Spectrum 7 was saved by Harken Energy; Bush became a director of Harken Energy, which encountered some financial difficulties, from which it extricated itself through an arrangement with Harvard.

It appears to me, however, that Spectrum 7 did not go bankrupt. It lost money and might well have gone bankrupt except that it was saved by the Harken deal. There's a detailed account of Bush's career in the awl bidness in this cached Village Voice article by the reputable James Ridgeway (I hope this link works): [1] To my mind, "bankrupt" implies a formal filing, by the company or by one or more creditors, in a Bankruptcy Court. Even if it turns out that Spectrum 7 actually did go bankrupt, I find no support for the statement that was added to the lead section of this article that Bush managed "several oil companies which went bankrupt". Accordingly, I've reworded that passage in the lead section and the more detailed discussion of these companies later on. JamesMLane 04:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that what seems to me to be the undeniable and somewhat germane fact that, prior to getting elected partially on the promise of 'running the country like a business' his experience with running a business seemed to consist mainly of overseeing their accumulation of massive deficits, is being NPOVed over. Perhaps the use of the words 'unsuccessful businessman' to refer to someone who presided over the serial running of several oil companies into the groud is too NPOV; but at least the observation that the companies over which he presided have not, on the whole, exactly been models of competitive economic success should be able to be presented in some sort of objective wording. Gzuckier 17:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For the lead section, I think what we have now is appropriate. I agree that his poor track record in the private sector is germane, but it should be presented in the section about his business career. There, I think the objective wording is simply to describe the history of his companies, as we do. JamesMLane 08:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I think we should take out the part that says his term is scheduled to end on jan 20 , 2009. It sounds like the writer is anxious to have him out of there. In other words, not a NPOV. --Dmm246 06:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You could read this passage in the article as being POV in either direction -- reassuring Bush admirers that he's in for four more years, even if he can't hold the support of members of his own party, or consoling Bush detractors that the nightmare will end in 2009. The reason to leave it in has nothing to do with POV, but because it's useful information. Many readers will be more familiar with a parliamentary system (like the UK's) in which a leader doesn't serve for a set term. JamesMLane 08:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really doubt that most americans don't know that the president serves a four year term. Regarding you comment "it's useful information" I am sure there is a lot of useful information that negative POV users would like to put in which didn't make it but I think this is one of them. You don't have to put a positive spin on saying he got for more years and fill it with praise but I think we should just leave it out. I am more just voicing an opinion than saying we must change it. If more people think we should change it then thats fine.--Dmm246 17:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that most Americans would know. That's not the criterion, though:

Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible. The reader is probably reading the article to learn. It's quite possible the reader knows nothing at all about the subject: the article needs to explain it to them.

(from Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader) That's why I mentioned above that many readers would be more familiar with the systems used in other countries, in which the leader doesn't serve a fixed term. JamesMLane 20:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This seems to me like an fairly innocent, utterly harmless idea. It's a fact. I think having it in there is educational and appropriate. -- J. Jensen 16:44 14 Jan 2005 (CST)

Medical diagnoses by political partisans

Those who feel that the "dry drunk" and "cocaine" allegations are appropriate and NPOV say that the allegations have been made, and we are just reporting them, without stating they are true. Taking it in good faith that these statements are sincere, we need to give the reader context. The "dry drunk" allegations do not come from medical journals but from political partisans, with one article illustrated with Bush as a wino. As for Cocaine, those charges have been made against other politicians (including Clinton). The only significant source for this allegation is Hatfield's book. We could also note the man was an ex-felon (convicted of trying to have a former boss murdered) who sets up the perfect unprovable journistic setup: "Bush was arrested but his father had the record expunged." Most of the people who have taken Hatfield's book seriously are the ones who want to believe it's true and the man himself committed suicide as he was being pursued for credit card fraud. Ah, the reliable sources that Wikipedia depends on to inform the people. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your edit gives the false impression that the cited article was written by Cockburn, when in fact it was written by a professor who'd previously authored a book on addiction. I'm deleting the language about Cockburn. If you want to convey the point accurately, it would have to be something like: "(This article, written by a professor of social work who had co-authored a book on addiction treatment, was published in Counterpunch, a magazine edited by Bush detractor Alexander Cockburn, who also writes for the leftist magazine The Nation.)" One could give a similar treatment to the Bisbort article. I think all this is more detail than the point warrants -- readers can figure out for themselves that statements strongly supportive or condemnatory of any controversial person might be influenced by the writer's bias -- but I could live with including it if people feel it necessary to get in a dig at Counterpunch. JamesMLane 09:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK. I will accept your wording if noone works to dilute it further. Please remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If we read something like this in the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, I doubt we would say, "well the editors expect us to assume that they've included this highly prejudicial material with the expectation it was written by fire-breathing partisans." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You placed my suggested wording after all the links, giving the impression that it applied to all of them. I moved it so that it followed only the reference to the Wormer article. (Note that I said, "One could give a similar treatment to the Bisbort article." If you want to undertake the effort of drafting yet another gratuitous slam at a Bush critic, go ahead, but I think the paragraph already looks pretty silly.) JamesMLane 10:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the paragraph looks pretty silly as it is, since the subtext is innuendo that Bush's policy are a result of his being a "dry drunk." I know Jimbo Wales' opinion doesn't necessarily carry any extra weight in Wikipedia, but I agree with his statement that the choice of what to include and exclude is in itself POV, even if the material is described accurately.

But before leaving this subject, I want to make one point: I was a lifelong (and proud) liberal from 1953 (McCarthy) to c.1996 when liberals I knew suddenly decided they weren't anti-war anymore, and a sometime socialist. I never voted for a Republican for president until 2004 (I voted for Nader in 2000). I voted for Dukakis, for chrissakes—I voted for a man who looked like Rocky Raccoon in a tank because I was worried about the rightward drift of the Supreme Court! Arrrrgggh! So there is a point I wish liberals would take to heart: it has long been a habit to portray those who don't vote for the people liberals want (or the politicians liberals don't like) as stupid, or ignorant, or wicked, or deceived, or "troglodites" (popular in the 1970s) or now, as non-drinking drunks. As long as this attitude, which runs from condescension to operate hostilty persists, liberalism will not come back. Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's well-known in liberal circles that all conservatives are lowbrow idiots. It's equally well-known among conservatives that liberals are latte-sipping elitist wimps. Oh, and we all hate America. So the only lesson here is that people with strong political opinions are happy to believe and repeat unflattering stereotypes about their adversaries. Anyway, while I appreciate your advice about how we can "come back", I must note that the Democratic candidate has gotten the most votes in three of the last four Presidential elections. Now, obviously, we're going to get slaughtered in 2008, when voters look at all the thriving democracies in the Middle East, and the robust economy and federal budget surplus produced by the tax cuts for the rich... well, sarcasm mode OFF, back to editing. JamesMLane 04:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, you see, sarcasm or no, therein is the problem. This isn't a duel of which side has the juiciest epithets against the other; it's that Democrats have been sinking, and the explanation is to blame it on the Republicans, or on the voters. Isn't possible that the fault, dear JML, lies not in their enemies, but in themselves, that the Democrats are now underlings?

But to one subtantive matter, yes, the Democratic candidate got the most popular votes in three of the last four presidential elections, but lets look at that. Clinton (who I voted for twice) pointed the way to Democrats getting the white house. Play to the middle, reform some of those Democratic icons (like welfare) that need reform, leave the economy alone, look to the middle class. But right now Clinton's DLC is dirt in the mouths of many, if not most, Democrats. And Al Gore? Yes, he got 500,000+/- more popular votes than Bush, but he should have been a slam dunk. A good debater over an uneasy one. Mr. Technology. Intellectual. And the Vice President under a Democratic President with high popularity ratings, a booming (until the last year) economy, and apparent peacetime. And all he could do was barely more than tie dumb little George W. Bush. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You touch on an important subject. Quite a few Democrats agree that a better campaign would have produced a cheatproof victory in each of the last two elections. The trouble is that half of them think "a better campaign" means a move to the center, and the other half think "a better campaign" means a more vigorously left-wing program. Resolving that dilemma is somewhat beyond the scope of this talk page, however. JamesMLane 06:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the diagnosis was reached without a direct physical examination or medical history which might have revealed or been able to rule out other possible causes of the symptoms inferred from the public record and the diagnosis is not an officially recognized medical condition. Note, that co-authoring a book may get you on the talk show circuit, but is not a peer reviewed publication. That said, I think wikipedia should reflect its manner of creation and not merely attempt to duplicate the dryness of brittanica. Not including obviously controversial material might induce users to over trust it. --Silverback 10:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will also note that Katherine van Wormer, the author, is not a Doctor of Social Work (I checked) and certainly not a medical doctor and therefore no more entitled to make a diagnosis than I am, even if she had examined Bush. I'm quite familiar with this. My younger daughter is autistic, and couldn't be educationally placed as such until she had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist (not a psychologist), who is an MD -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease

Boy, this will be controversial as hell, but what the heck. It looks like the bulge observed during debate is actually a medical instrument instead of a radio receiver. Below are the two articles related to Bush's bulge. [2] and [3]

"It looks like the bulge [...] is actually a medical instrument [...]? Oh, please, you need more than a speculative piece in a European leftist web site. If CNN or some other outlet with a press reputation says so, it might mean something. The belle ciao article is really a stretch. SO Bush is on powerful statin drugs. Oooooooooo, so is a huge hunk of the otherwise healthy US population. I've been on statins for several years and I'm Bush's age and have no cardiovascular disease. Simple high cholesterol--it's supposed to help me in the future. We'll see. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush Picture

We need to change the picture of Bush because in this picture his eyebrows are bushy and it makes him look like an ape

We usually use the official picture. You can confirm that this picture is Bush's official picture if you Google the phrase "miserable failure", which will take you to his bio on the White House website. JamesMLane 19:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, do not insult apes now! -- Nils 12:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush Picutre

We really should change that bush picture it makes me wanna puke!

Drunk / Drugs / etc

It seems that every time I return to check this out, someone has edited out my completely factual info about his past as a drunk and a drug user. Also, it seems that just about every somewhat unfavorable fact about George W. Bush is removed as well, such as the cheerleader thing, etc.

Most recent example: someone edited stuff out and put "this was written by angry democrats." True I am a democrat, but I don't stoop to the level of vandalism on an educational resource, as many republicans tend to do on John F. Kerry's page.

What is there that I can do to keep people from editing out my facts? Should I leave comments with sources or what? I mean... a video of him taking back shots at a party in 1992 would seem to be enough, right?

I believe these facts and accusations of alcohol and drug use are very important and educational. They should not be left out because some republican doesn't seem to like it. If John F. Kerry had been arrested for DUI, I would want that on his page too.

I agree that this article seems to have been seriously messed up, although I don't agree with all your points.

• A whole paragraph of completely uncontroversial information, such as his birthplace and parents' names, was deleted. I've restored it.
• Also deleted were two pictures, one of Bush with his family and one of Bush in his National Guard uniform. I've restored the pics.
• The addition of the statement that Bush signed up in the Guard "Specifically asking to not be sent to Vietnam" wasn't sourced. I've deleted it unless someone can provide substantiation.
• There was unacceptable POVing in both directions. The NPOV approach is to report controversial points without taking sides and without wording that's biased one way or the other.
  • The language about Bush's drinking was full of "supposedly" and "claim" for his side of it, and said that the opposite view is "well documented". I understand the temptation to take sides -- the people editing the Killian documents article just aren't satisfied with listing all the evidence, they too have to make sure that the article echoes their view of the weight of the evidence. It's wrong when Bush partisans do it there, and wrong when Bush detractors do it here. That Bush isn't drinking any more should certainly be presented as something he says, not as an undisputed fact, but we can make clear that it's his statement without going out of our way with the "supposedly" stuff to cast doubt on it. I've tried to clean up these passages.
  • The Hatfield allegations should be reported as allegations, not suppressed and not reported as fact, and with the responses also reported. I've restored the first paragraph about Hatfield; the text of the article when I looked at it just now quoted Bush's side of the story ("He also called Hatfield's book 'totally ridiculous'.") without naming the book or summarizing its content. At some point, however, the paragraph about Hatfield's book picked up a statement to the effect that the record of Bush's cocaine arrest was in fact expunged. That's Hatfield's allegation, not an established fact.
• One point I still have doubts about is this insert about the space exploration initiative: "in January of 2005 the White House released a new Space Transportation Policy fact sheet which confirms the plan is still on track." My preliminary impression is that that's a POV overstatement and should be reworded. I've left it alone for now, but I think it needs attention. JamesMLane 10:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe somebody could update the article as to how Bush's previously announced War on Steroid Abuse is coming along. Grin grin. Gzuckier 21:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The source for Bush asking not to be sent to nam is all over the place. a google search found this ...which you may agree is a valid source (his own form). Andsat 04:40, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)

Oh come on here, I see Kerry's signature on his form, but I don't see Bush's on the part that is supposed to be from his form.--MONGO 12:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the allegations should be mentioned although not given undue weight. If someone has a problem with the weight and context given at present, perhaps the thing to do is to edit to add more context and adjust weight, rather than try to remove all mention of the allegations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inuendo and slander

When I came to this page for the first time, it was after I had utilized another article for reference and dechiphered an obvious non NPOV. This POV was left leaning and I as surprised as I have used Wiki for some time now. So on a hunch, I queried George Bush and was appalled! The rampant slander was so apparent, I thought it was written by some left wing extremists and decided to start editing. I haven't decided as to whether I will continue to edit this page, becuase I have lost all faith that the major contributors to this article are to the extreme left. I find it funny, reading through others bios how young, perhaps not American citizens, and how liberal in attitude are those that I am arguing with here. I mentioned to one, that since he lived in Germany, perhaps I could utilize the same techniques employed by the likes of him and quote or state as fact that a book had been written by unreliable sources that Adolph Hitler wasn't such a bad guy and he had little to do with the murder of millions. These books do exist, in published form, and they are AN OPINION, yet we know that the opposite is true and therefore in good taste, we exclude them from any discussion here in Wiki. In a nutshell, this article utilizes POV and that POV is anti bush. Anyone that thinks that this rubbish of an article is NPOV is blind. I have been warned and etc. and I really don't care. So in an effort to show what ridiculous is, I created my user page and made it as preposterous as possible. MONGO--MONGO 11:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess it shows how wide the gulf between some editors can be that I, a European, at first took your reference to "how liberal in attitude are those that I am arguing with here" as a compliment. Indeed in British English this sentence is impossible to take as anything other than a compliment as far as I am aware.

That aside, I notice that the Adolf Hitler page does indeed give room to some fringe speculation: the theory that Hitler had some Jewish ancestry. The presentation of the theory (which is well known enough I think that many people reading this will have heard it) does not amount to an endorsement. Nor does the presentation of the allegations of Hatfield and Salon magazine's speculations with respect to the drug testing program amount to an endorsement of those positions. They shoud be mentioned as opinions, with such factual basis as might exist to support or refute them., because they are common opinions held by educated, intelligent people about Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget the words of Churchill when he spoke of political leanings....it goes somewhat like> a man under thirty who is not a liberal has no heart, but a man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brain. Being liberal is a good thing...being blindly so is not. I hope you're no older than 29.

Liberal has an entirely different meaning in Europe. Don't confuse them with US democrats, hippies or guerillas ;)

The major contributors to this article are brainless or lacking in enough of a brain to see that the entire article is speculative and that I am convinced that the insertion of the Salon story and the book by Hatfield are unworthy of mention in that they are opinion, inuendo and without the ability to stand up in a court of law. I don't care if because they were written then they should be mentioned. I care about quantifiable truths that would be accepted as facts and be fact based. Lets get the inuendo of Hitler having Jewish ancestry out of that article too and then, just maybe, this stuff will start to become NPOV. --MONGO 13:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Churchill himself switched from Conservative to Liberal and back again at key points in his career. He had no problems with the term "liberal". I have not yet reached the age at which Churchill ceased representing the Liberal party in Parliament.

Now on the section that you have removed, it reports some claims that were made in Salon and were widely reported during the election campaign. Why then did you remove it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salon.com's February, 2004 report

MONGO removed this:

In February, 2004, Salon claimed that Bush's cessation of flying in the spring of 1972 and his subsequently refusal to take a physical exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which, Salon said, meant random drug testing for pilots, including Guardsmen.

I believe it's adequately referenced--if preferred I can include a complete citation for the precise article, or even quote a relevant paragraph. Is there anything else you think should be provided to satisfy your problems with this, Mongo?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/index_np.html

See article referenced above --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Gentleman" Cs

I see alot of detractors trying to make hay about George W. Bush's "Gentleman" Cs he received in Yale. I'd like to amend this section to at least consider another POV regarding his performance in Yale. Here is a conservative (some say ultra-conservative) gentleman attending a liberal institution. The instructors are stubbornly Liberal in their views. A student who tries to argue their conservative beliefs would be labeled wrong and be given low grades. I am not saying that Bush is a genius. But, I am saying that he was disenfranchised (to use the term du jour) and his grades were depressed because of this conflict. He did go on and do much better when getting his MBA. Because Yale is a Liberal institution, I also wouldn't give much credence to the notion that Yale let Bush skate through. First Lensman 15:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If you have a public source for someone making this point about Bush's Cs, please feel free to add it. But if you just thought of this and there is no external source then it may be "original research", not encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Original research? Wishful thinking more like it. I second the call for external sources. -- Nils 12:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that I got you dangling on the hook, check out the New York TImes article titled "[Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's]. As you can guess, it is an unflattering article about the President's Yale years. But three items can illuminate some of the discussion here. The first is the quote "Mr. Bush was pressed during his years at Yale, 1964 to 1968, to take sides in the great battles then unfolding over politics, civil rights, drugs and music. Mostly he was a noncombatant in those upheavals, but when forced to choose, he ultimately retreated to the values and ideals established by his parents' generation, and to their accepted methods of rebelling." My interpretation of this is that he remained conservative in his views. This would not have been looked upon favorably by the faculty or his fellow classmates in Yale. The second relates to the alleged drug usage mentioned in another section, that "For all the buffeting that late-night television has given Mr. Bush over questions of drug use, he was in most respects a very conventional young man, and classmates say they do not recall him ever using marijuana or other illegal drugs." This from the New York Times??? If there were any evidence that President Bush used drugs, the New York Times would have plastered it all over the place. Finally, the article addresses President Bush's intelligence. While going through some anecdotes about his grades, the most telling quote is that: "This guy is very smart," said Lanny J. Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton and a supporter of Al Gore, as well as a fraternity brother of Mr. Bush at Yale. "This notion of lightness is totally missing the point. There are many smart people, intellectually smart as well as street smart, who don't have the energy or motivation at times to act smart, but that doesn't mean they're not smart. There are times when George coasted through Yale courses or through exams or seemed overly facetious. But don't mistake that for not being intellectually acute." The article then reaffirms my point by stating, "yet ever since he showed up at Yale as a freshman in 1964, Mr. Bush has resolutely cultivated an anti-intellectualism and chafed at what he describes as the arrogance of liberal intellectual elitists." Because this is a New York Times article, I say that the Yale establishment chafed at Bush's attitudes as much as Bush chafed at them. The article also states that "Mr. Bush's tension with what he sees as an arrogant Eastern elite, and his perception of himself as outside it, seem to have arisen initially from the clash of generations that occurred while he was at Yale." Again, I state that the tension went both ways, causing Bush to form an "...association with a community of gifted people with whom Mr. Bush would form lifelong friendships -- and Mr. Bush's strategy at Yale was clearly to build great friendships, more than a great transcript. It was also a perfectly reasonable strategy, for one could argue that Yale graduates in the 1960's got further on the networks they made than on the grades they earned." Anyway, does this suffice as a source? First Lensman 14:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you haven't found a source for your main thesis, indeed the article seems to be saying that Bush was essentially apolitical and that he personally feels that he may have suffered some prejudice because he was a Texan. But you have an excellent source for the fact that Bush isn't thought to be dim by some of his former classmates and indeed demonstrated a keen social intelligence at his fraternity house. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to read between the lines to extract cause and effect information. I think I have done so here. While the article stated that the prejudice he suffered was because he was a Texan, I have cited other statements in the article that shows the prejudice was because he was Conservative in his views. First Lensman 15:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you're drawing an inference and you're entitled to do so. I don't see anything in the article or in the sections that you have cited from it that demonstrate that the prejudice, if it existed, was because he was conservative--indeed as I have pointed out Bush himself thought that any prejudice that might have existed might have been regional. That is, those eastern intellectuals thought a guy with his Texan background and accent was dumb and probably only got in because the college had a regional quota for admissions.

The upshot of this is that if you can find someone notable drawing the inference that you draw (in the media) then you can cite that. Otherwise it would be original research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would consider the Salon article to be original research as well. I read through it and found not one credible source mentioned. I failed to find anyone notable in that article yet you portray it to be creditable.--MONGO 13:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However you personally might want to describe it, citation of an article in Salon is not original research in the sense used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Items that Wikipedia reports on may well be primary sources, which would comprise original research (everything starts as someone's original idea). Or like Salon they may comprise secondary sources (the research is originated by third parties and Salon reports on them). Wikipedia is a tertiary source in this instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Alright, stop it. I'm an ultra-liberal, Kucinich-supporting, Democrat, and yes, it is very tempting to vandalize this page, esp. today. I even wrote up a vandalized edit making reference to his last name. But actually posting it is only a detriment to the Democratic Party. It makes us seem immature and juvenile. Democrats, stop it.

Would someone please protect this page for twenty-four hows or something?

• You voted for Kucinich? Seems like you and I made a good choice at least. I agree on the lock though, we could be spending our time doing much more productive things. :)

That amount of vanderlism recived by this article in the last 24 hours doesn't seem hugley exceptionalGeni 03:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Related links

I agree with the edits made by 69.92.137.107 that have since been reverted by Rhobite. For example, why is it necessary to link to a some random website where people try to collect signatures to impeach the President? Is this really something that important to link to?--BaronLarf 06:30, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

The VoteToImpeach item deleted by 69.92.137.107 was not a link to the website in question, but to a Wikipedia article which said, inter lia:

In the days leading up to the 2004 election, the group was cited by some conservative pundits as proof that opponents of Bush believed President Bush would win.

So it was hardly an anti-Bush link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't claim that it was an anti-Bush link. Just not necessary and not something really topical in a 32k discussion of a president who has never had any serious threat of impeachment. I can see that going in the George W. Bush Category, but not in a short list of related links. But I know that trying to get a serious article about a conservative American politician written on here is like spitting in the wind, so I'm not getting my hopes up. Cheers. --BaronLarf 16:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

That has been my point...the leftist have determined that irrevelent is relevent. Thank you for a keen eye as I havene't even been able to get beyond the personal life section of the article yet due to the level of bias there alone.--MONGO 10:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "Dry Drunk" nonsense

This article is a partisan opinion NOT based on fact and NOT based on a physical or mental examination. I've left in all the stuff that the President has admitted to, the "reckless youth", the "DUI", the cessation of drinking at 40, because they are admitted to by the president himself, or substantiated by documentation. The article does not demonstrate a NPOV. Items should be put up in the discussion area first so that the information can be vetted by the users. (See "Gentleman's Cs section above"). Then, there will be some massaging of the information that would eventually wind up in the article. Just posting information directly into the article is just not productive. First Lensman 23:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"This article is a partisan opinion NOT based on fact and NOT based on a physical or mental examination." I assume that, by "this article", you mean the Wormer article, not the Wikipedia article. You're completely correct about Wormer's opinion concerning Bush. Of course, exactly the same could be said about Bush's opinion concerning Saddam (he had WMD's, he was involved in 9/11, etc.). Should we censor out Bush's pretexts for launching aggressive war just because they've largely been exposed to be pretexts? No. We report these opinions and attribute them. To say that Saddam had WMD's is opinion. To say that Bush claimed he did, however, is an undeniable fact. A point that that people often miss is that reporting and attributing a POV is perfectly consistent with NPOV. JamesMLane 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't Bush's opinion concerning WMD. He was informed that they did have WMD by the United Nations, NATO, The members of the European Union, and the U.S. Intelligence Services. First Lensman 01:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Don't blame Bush for his faulty intelligence. For what it's worth, I agree with James - decribing POV opinion is not POV. To understand and contextualize an issue, POV's must be explored, in an NPOV way. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

James, I think if Wormer based her claims on observations similar to those a medical professional might make, people might not have such a problem with the paragraph. But she's claiming that Bush has a behavioral disorder because his rhetoric is not to her liking. She cites "regime change", a phrase that predates his presidency, as an example of his "extreme language." A remark from one speech, not repeated to my knowledge, indicates an "obsession" with revenge. She cites a sentence, "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients..." that would sound absurd if replaced with its negation "We need not be prepared..." So her conclusions end up looking shaky and random to someone who doesn't share her political bias, not much more credible than the report of the Lovenstein Institute. We could put a paragraph here for every allegation on Bush family conspiracy theory, but we don't. If Wormer's article has a place here, I think it's the External links section. Gazpacho 09:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're deluding yourself. We have been involved in an aggressive war with Iraq since 1991. Repeatedly we bombed Iraq because of their consistent violations of the cease fire agreement. We maintained at tremendous cost in tax dollars a no fly zone and imposed sanctions which were detrimental to everyone because we were forced by agreements with our partners to not invade Iraq, overthrow their government and establish a democracy. Bush asserted that there were WMD because the evidence supported it, and it is therefore not a POV. Regardless, the fact that none have been found doesn't mean that they don't or didn't exist. The major contributors to this article seem to fail to understand that and blame Bush for making a decision based on the evidence. --MONGO 10:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, I don't think we need to turn every content dispute (or any content dispute) into an open argument about Iraq. Gazpacho

Most of my argument has been about content, this is my first about Iraq...what are you refering to?--MONGO 12:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my comments in the page history as to why I deleted the "dry drunk" info from the main article again, I meant to say I would post a comment, not a link, in discussion. Anyway, it seems to me this info really does belong in the exlink section because there are some issues of partisanship in the study itself. There is also the fact that this study is not well-known among the general public which might account for an exception if that were the case. I don't see anything wrong with having this link in the exlink section, but it does seem rather biased to put in the main article. That's my opinion. --Xaliqen 01:00, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean suppressing all criticism of Bush

People keep trying to remove passages that are unflattering to Bush, notably by arguing against the criticism -- Hatfield was a felon, Wormer didn't examine Bush, the Yale professors who graded him were probably liberal bigots, etc. The NPOV policy certainly requires that we not endorse any particular opinion, pro or con -- but NPOV permits, indeed requires, the reporting of those opinions, properly attributed. I'm restoring the huge mass of material that's been removed. That's not to say that all of it is perfectly OK. For example, there's this statement about Bush's governorship: "His tenure in office featured a positive reputation for bipartisan leadership." Now, that's an opinion, and unlike the negative things about Bush, it's not properly attributed and sourced. An article about a controversial subject has a particular need for editors to cite their sources. Someone notable could probably be found who said something like that, which is why I'm leaving it in for now, but it should be attributed. JamesMLane 16:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I've stated already, I left in the DUI, the "Irresponsible youth", the drinking, et. al. But, when someone puts out an attack piece insinuating that He's a "Dry Drunk" without ever examining him either physically or mentally, I say that it has not been vetted properly for inclusion in the article. First Lensman 13:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could pick this entire article apart with the constant unfootnoted inuendo such the repeated use of the terminology of "others have said" "it is the opinion" and each and everytime, this is without a reference to a source of who the "others" are. Let's look at another figure who may be considered to be a controversial leader, namely Robert E. Lee. Now in Lee's case, there is plenty of room for allusion, opinion and positions that are not NPOV. Yet I fail to find them there...the entire article meets the criteria of size and shape and offers a basic synopisis of the facts though in a brief format somewhat lacking in details that may be of importance to those that need more to diet on. I believe that the vast majority of the articles in Wiki are without bias and without inuendo based on weak and transparently leftist or right wing bias and take a NPOV. In the case of a few though, primarily those of more recent political aspects, it is hopelessly biased and the truth is that this bias is to the left. Constant reference to the kind of inuendo by those that perpetrate this to be good science fail to see that the support of the leftist arguments are no more reliable for truth than the National Enquirer would be. The reasoning that since it was written and therefore an opinion and is mentioned along with detractions that the source is without support is a built in refutation of the evidence and therefore it should be excluded. "This guy or organization said this, yet this guy or organization is essentially an unreliable witness to said events"...how does that philosophy make it credible to be included in what is supposed to be a NPOV article? With that in mind, it seems no different that an article on North American mammals should discuss Bigfoot because on at least 50 occasions, Bigfoot was spotted here or there as reported in certain issues of the National Enquirer. Editing out the inuendo of this article is good reporting. If anyone thinks I edited out all the "bad" or negative information about Bush, they are gravely mistaken. JamesMLane and similar charged persons are passionately opposed to Bush, while I am no fan of his, I am conservative and would not have voted for Kerry under almost any circumstance. Yet, polical affiliations aside, the negative aspects of this article are placed here without regard to their questionable source due to the fact that the detractors of Bush wish to slander him.--MONGO 21:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can assure you, MONGO, that there's no leftist bias in favor of Robert E. Lee. (Remember, it's leftists who want to remove the Confederate flag from U.S. state flags, who criticize Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University because of its segregationist policies, etc.) Instead, the difference between the two articles is that Bush is a contemporary politician. Articles on such people attract editors who support the subject and editors who oppose him or her. Both sides have a wealth of online source material (far more than in Lee's case). A better analogy would be John Kerry. He actually served in Vietnam, yet you'll see that the Wikipedia article reports the criticisms of his service. For example, it notes that "two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott ... have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved." In fact, just as with Bush, the back-and-forth about what he did during the Vietnam War got so extensive that it was spun off to a separate article, leaving behind only a summary. That's why the articles on George W. Bush military service controversy and John Kerry military service controversy were created. As for unfootnoted statements, we don't need to provide a reference for noncontroversial stuff like his place of birth. Although you complain about "the repeated use of the terminology of 'others have said'", I searched the article for the word "others" and found only two uses: a quotation from Bush, and a reference to other previous elections. I invite you to call our attention to any specific passages that you think should be sourced. JamesMLane 23:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did that aleady when I mentioned the Salon article. Where is their source for their allegation? I could start on online magazine or paper which made plenty of inuendo and provided propaganda of some sort or another. Because I said it in my paper, would it be a citable source for Wiki articles even if it itself provided no references or named sources? Depending on which version of this article you are talking about is the number of times you can find the passage of, in essence, "others have said" or similar. I once counted it 5 times. Naturally, I wouldn't expect a footnote in regards to his date of birth. I do expect, since a simple query in Yahoo brings you to this article within 5 links, that less innocent ones may wish to research the subject without having to be subjected to it's obvious left wing sentiment and unsubstantiated propaganda.--MONGO 07:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "others have said" and the like, at least where it presents controversial unsourced material, is not acceptable. Your edit was unacceptable, MONGO. Citation of a report under NPOV does not require that the primary source of newspaper/journal-reported allegations upon which we report be available. The newspaper/journal report is encyclopedic in itself (though the lack of a named primary source can be and should be noted). The removal was also far more extensive than justified by your criticism of the Salon report. You removed the entire section starting "Katherine Van Wormer" and ending with 'knew random drug testing was going to be implemented"', with the exception of the paragraph starting "The New York Times article". I am reverting the sections you removed for these several and distinct reasons. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What Rules Should Govern Opinion Piece Links?

I created the 'Opinion Pieces' sub-section so that some of the partisan commentary could be referenced there as opposed to in the main article. However, there should probably be some rules governing what sorts of opinion pieces are best-suited to the section and the article. It seems logical that, if an opinion piece is intelligently written and references factual circumstances or sources, it should be included. It's a bit tricky, though, to know when to draw the line. Perhaps the best policy is to review each link on a submission-by-submission basis. I'd say that a good goal for this section could be to avoid simple-minded propoganda for one viewpoint or another and aim for intelligent pieces. But, I know opinions will vary. So, if anyone has any input, it would be well-appreciated.

I think we can do without the opinion pieces actually. The factual information they may contain can be gotten elsewhere, and the opinions themselves are not relevant to George Bush. I say we stick with "give people facts and let them make their own minds up." --fvw* 23:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

I think the opinions are relevant to the article because one can only gain so much insight from facts alone. But I do think they should be limited to representative intelligent examples of each viewpoint and placed in the exlinks section as opposed to within the main article. The reason I think opinions are important for this article is because of the sharply differing viewpoints over the subject-matter. It would be nearly impossible to provide solely factual information and come away with an informed perspective. --Xaliqen 23:30, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Comment on content

The article still appears as somewhat left of NPOV, yet the current revision is the best one I have seen yet as of 12:30, 24 Jan 2005 Ferkelparade. I can concede this as an adequate series of alterations, and would not disagree with internal links to the Salon reports, Hatfield's book and van Wormer's discussion, so long as they don't constitute the main body of the article and remain as links to further reading if someone chooses to read such items.--MONGO 13:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gazpacho's summary

The summary simply eviscerated all mention of substantive reports except to repeat Bush's own denials. Since the President's past life does attract a lot of interest (the afterword to the Hatfield biography, Boehlert's Salon piece, van Wormer's bizarre ad hoc diagnosis) I don't think a summary is appropriate here, and this summary in particular does not capture the breadth of speculation directed at the President by the media both before and during his Presidency. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you admit that it's speculation, then why on earth should it be in the article? The article does need a statement of when and how long the press focused on the cocaine allegations during the 2000 campaign. But aren't citation links a better way to present claims that are just based on someone saying "maybe"? Gazpacho 18:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that the administrator(s) of this page and major contributors to this article wish to present, as a major component of the article, unsubstantiated drivel as part of the basic synopsis of the life of Bush, which explains the current protected article. Repeatedly, it has been mentioned that I consider this to be poor reporting which should be eliminated. I conceded that I would support a brief mention of the unsubstantiated bias if it were linked to another source and out of the main body of this article. Those that say that I wish to see no negative aspect of the man here are deluded. I simply wish to see the facts, without the leftist bias, that are worthy as a form of communication and worthy of this forum. That the page is protected in situ in an earlier form makes it obvious to me that the administrator(s) are not to be persuaded that their position is not NPOV and that instead they use this medium as a way to argue that the irrelevent is relevent and that what rational human beings would regard as speculation, opinion and slander would be permissible in this article. The mention of these items of dispute is one thing, the elaboration of them is another. Obviously, this article is a poor example of what normally appears in Wiki, in that it is not NPOV...it is leftist bias, plain and simple. The page was protected because the adminstrators(s) wish to filibuster any attempts to weed out bad reporting.--MONGO 20:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The source given for the van Wormer thing was CounterPunch. In my opinion this is a fairly obscure source. I propose to remove the reference to the van Wormer "analysis" unless she should be shown to be notable or a more prominent source is found than CounterPunch. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, much better. I traced the original to the Irish Times. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Wormer Article

I still say that this entire paragraph needs to be removed:

"Katherine van Wormer, a professor of social work and writer on addiction treatment, claims that Bush seems to have the mindset of a "dry drunk," an alcoholic who still exhibits thought patterns that accompany alcoholism[6] (http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html). She bases this view on her perception that his public speeches express rigidness, obsessiveness, impatience, and grandiosity. Wormer's assessment was published in Counterpunch, a magazine edited by frequent Bush detractor and Nation writer Alexander Cockburn. (See also [7] (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info/a/aa081397.htm), [8] (http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html), and [9] (http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy1019.html).)"

It has not been vetted through an actual physical or mental examination. If there were a report by a Bush physician that hinted there was "Dry Drunk" syndrome, I'd say leave it in. What we have here is someone who is trying to negatively label someone whose opinions and actions she disagrees with. Why don't we have a new article called "Wild Accusations About President Bush"? This would be a much better place to put this article! First Lensman 13:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion Wormer's claims are absolute bilge. However what is worthy of note is that a published author on addiction wrote this extraordinary nonsense about Bush and it was published in the Irish Times. We're writing a NPOV article here and this is encyclopedic by the standards we're using. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess I just don't agree with leaving "bilge" in. Just as I wouldn't put in the Pat Robertson claim that Bush has been sent by God to lead this country. In both cases, there is no proof. We need to have stricter criteria. Why not use the credo of Detective Friday on Dragnet -- "Just the facts"! First Lensman 14:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it is a fact that Pat Robertson claimed that Bush has been sent by God to lead his country, then Pat Robertson's prominence, and the prominence with which the claim was published, would establish whether the claim was worthy of note. The fact reported would not be "Bush sent by God" but "Famous televangelist with massive following claims Bush sent by God." This is the essence of NPOV. We don't say Bush was or was not sent by God, we say Pat Robertson says this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it isn't a proven fact, then it shouldn't be included!!! First Lensman 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:NPOV. "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." If Pat Robertson said that, it's a fact about his opinion that can be asserted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What swung it for me was The Irish Times. Published author in CounterPunch isn't much. Published author in the newspaper of record of a European nation of four million people and a longstanding US ally, that's quite a lot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A reprint in a foreign newspaper doesn't validate an article. First Lensman 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree absolutely that it doesn't validate it. (I believe the article was originally an opinion piece in the Irish Times, actually). What it does is make it noteworthy. If we only reported opinions that were validated, Wikipedia would be a very small website. Instead Wikipedia reports opinions that are published prominently enough to gain wide circulation. If something is in the Irish Times, I can read it by popping down to my local newsagent in London. I should expect the same is true in most large US cities. That's what I call prominent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"If we only reported opinions that were validated, Wikipedia would be a very small website." -- well at least small-er and I'm all for this !!! My concern is that by having a whole paragraph so prominent concerning an unproven opinion printed in a foriegn newspaper will make students believe it is truth, which it isn't. This encyclopedia is a resource that is not only used by adults, who can make the determination that it's hogwash, but by students, who can't make that determination. That is why we have to stick to "proven" facts and place a reference to the opinion piece in the Irish Times down in the "opinion" section that was just started. First Lensman 15:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If "students" will believe something is true just because it's printed in a newspaper, Wikipedia cannot help them. It is not Wikipedia policy to suppress reporting of opinion for fear of being seen to endorse that opinion, but you're welcome to start your own fork of Wikipedia that operates on policy to be determined by you. If we stuck only to proven facts we'd have to get rid of all reported third party opinion--this on a person who owes his office to the opinion of third parties. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, elected officials are especially appropriate subjects for inclusion of third-party opinions -- although, as Tony Sidaway has said, reporting the facts about opinions is our general policy anyway. If someone wants to add Robertson's opinion that Bush was sent by God, I think that would be an appropriate addition, if it's properly sourced. (I did a quick search and found Robertson saying a year ago that God had told him Bush would win in a landslide: "I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004." [4] I didn't find Robertson saying specifically that Bush was "sent by God" but I didn't check all the hits.) Robertson's opinion is quite clearly bilge (at least, it's clear to me), but we can let the readers decide for themselves. JamesMLane 17:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to continue off-topic, but I suspect that any such claim by Robertson would be an urban legend from those who never see his show. He has denounced Bush repeatedly. Others may have made such claims. Gazpacho 18:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standard for evidentiary inclusion into our legal system? The DUI stays in because we have the record of the DUI. The drinking stays in because the President admitted to drinking and then giving it up. The "AWOL" charge is much more problematic. If you look at the President's record, he earned enough points (842) his first four years, which amounts to over 16 years of service credits at the minimum of 50 rate. So, he's more than earned his honorable discharge. He did skip some months, but the National Guard allows people to skip months as long as they are made up, which the president did. But, it has to be included not because of it's veracity, but as a note about the rabid attacks against the reelection of this president. The "Dry Drunk" was one article written without any substantiating proof and was not carried by the U.S. press or the Democratic party. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it doesn't warrant a whole paragraph in this article. A citation at the bottom under the new "opinion" section would suffice. First Lensman 19:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Protected

It is more apparent than ever to me that those that disagree with some of the context of this article are to be denied the opportunity of editing and that the administrator(s) pretend to open this up to a forum of discussion whereby a concensus will be reached that will result in those that are not to the extreme left and wish this article to actually be NPOV will find appeasement. Rubbish. The page is protected in an effort to maintain the bad reporting and to extend as encyclopedic left wing bias and propaganda. I doubt anything disussed here will result in any major improvements to this rag of an article because the administrator(s) are hopelessly POV, anti-Bush and determined to slander his character. They impose martial law because they are unwilling to admit that their position is weak. We can argue about the situation forever, but there is no doubt in my mind that unless you agree with the major contributors of this rag you will never get appeasement. Let's not pretend to think that we can hash things out here. Open to discussion...it's like farting in the wind.--MONGO 20:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"They impose martial law because they are unwilling to admit that their position is weak"

1. What position?

2. How is this position weak?

--kizzle 00:14, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. It's a core wiki premise and without it, pages wind up protected and uneditable... -- RyanFreisling @ 20:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with MONGO on one thing. The current protection of the page does not seem to be justified. There is a minor content dispute but nothing that is likely to cause great acrimony, and all parties seem to be behaving well. There has been some vandalism but I understand that is normal for this article and the regulars have all dealt well with that (a vprotect would be more appropriate in such a case, anyhow).

Has the administrator who protected the page made an entry here explaining why he did so? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Protection of this page was requested by two separate people on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and if you have an problem with it being protected, raise it there. You will also find entries in the protection log and on Wikipedia:Protected page where my action is recorded for review.

On the other hand, if you want to believe that this page is "protected in an effort to maintain the bad reporting and to extend as encyclopedic left wing bias and propaganda", and that I am "hopelessly POV, anti-Bush and determined to slander his character," or that I am imposing "martial law" because I am "unwilling to admit that [my] position is weak," then I invite you to take the righteous fury that consumes your heart from within to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and mark your territory there instead. silsor 22:04, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

You quoted me three times and then belittle me with inuendo that I am a dog. I accuse you of being biased and having deliberately protected THE WRONG PAGE. I guess in one paragraph you did a sufficient job of proving that the protection was done as a hostle act. Perhaps you are not worthy of being an admistrator to this article. Prove me wrong and unprotect or perhaps I'll follow your advice.--MONGO 11:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the links provided by silsor, anyone who wants to fight against this blatant use of page protection as a tool of leftist bias will find some useful suggestions here. JamesMLane 01:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I feel that you're partially responsible for the locking of this article. I've watched the revision history and it seems to be a good deal of people vs MONGO. I don't care if you're a fan of President Bush, you are removing factual information from the article. Just because said information has negative connotations does not make it untrue. Even references were provided.

Therein lies the problem, the term "factual information". An article by a biased source in a biased magazine, that just happened to have been regurgitated in the Irish Times, is being pushed as fact. The Wormer article is nothing more than smear since it was not substatiated by any physical or psychological examination of George W. Bush. This paragraph needs to be either eliminated completely, or the article needs to be footnoted in the "Opinions Against" section that was started. Something like this happened to my family. A family member, who was in the medical profession, convinced my wife and I that my daughter has ADD and should be put on medication. Turns out, after an examination, she was deemed highly intelligent and was just bored with the material presented in school. My daughter explained to the doctor that she knew that stuff already and wanted to move on to other, more interesting topics. So, you see, even the supposed "experts" can get it all wrong. This is the crux of my concern with stating this article as "fact". First Lensman 17:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, many of you mistake firm disagreement for anger and use of strong tone as wrath. I mean no harm here. I have mentioned previously that I wanted to see the elimination of certain passages because I considered them to be bad reporting. I moderated that request to say that I concur to the BRIEF mention of the articles I keep deleting with a sentence that explains and directs the informed reader to a link which can elborate as much as necessary to support the commentary. I did not and do not think that the Salon article, the J.H. Hatfield book nor the van Wormer material to be reliable witnesses and have compared them to National Enquirer level of reporting. But, as I stated, I would agree to a link to these articles. No sooner do I make this concession do I find this article protected and hence my disappointment and accusations. Trust me in this: I still find that even with these articles completely removed, the entire article is biased. In the eyes of a conservative, I consider much of it to be revisionist history and smacking of left wing slander which I have a serious problem with. Without trying to insult further, I also have serious doubts that my efforts and or my concession will be honored.--MONGO 09:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I requested the page protection of George W. Bush at WP:RFP due to all the reverts being made at the page history. Some of them were vandalism, and some of them were disagreements over POV/NPOV. In any rate, it seemed some of the vandalism and NPOV corrections were being lumped together. It looked as much as edit war with vandalism in progress. As I can not personally approve the request myself, even though I am an administrator, I went through the proper channels and waited for other people to agree and approve the request. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)-

AllyUnion, thanks for going through the appropriate channels to get this page protected. I do appreciate that. However I disagree that there is any substantive edit warring going on. Mongo making edits to remove stuff and a few different people restoring it, and the odd attempt at producing a compromise, in my opinion doesn't merit protection. The vandalism is a different matter but apparently it is normal for this page and with all the eyes watching it the page content is in no danger from vandalism.

I'm not in agreement with Mongo that the page is biased (or rather, I remain to be convinced on the matter). I also don't have any problem with people who disagree with me and think the current content dispute or the vandalism merits protection--it would be a dull old world if we always agreed all the time. But I remain of the opinion that the page should probably be unprotected to enable us to use normal editing to work out a good compromise on the content that Mongo disagrees with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UNprotected

Thank you for proving me wrong and unprotecting the page.--MONGO 08:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of excision of "validity..uncertain"

I removed the following statement

The validity of the claims asserted Amy Reiter and Salon.com is uncertain.

However it is a fact that in 1999 Amy Reiter of Salon.com reported on the rumor and also reported on Salon's phone conversation with the director of the center, Madge Bush, who she reported as saying of George W. Bush (no relation): "I've never heard of him doing community services here at this agency, and I've been the only director for 31 and a half years." There is no reason to cast this in an uncertain light. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see it to be bad reporting. Why would you put this inuendo in here, if it is self discrediting unless the goal was to allude to Bush having used cocaine. If that constitutes what should be considered encyclopedic than there is no reason I cannot begin to edit in articles from known right wing periodicals which are also self discrediting. Quid pro quo, my friend. I say remove all the inuendo from this article which includes unsubstantiated reporting such as one would expect from Salon. I think it has been twisted around in here long enough and discussed and it seems that some folks here would like it to be true, when it is not. Personally, I would be surprised if Bush didn't use cocaine! But I would rather it come from a more solid resource that can truly support the allegation.--MONGO 10:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None of the sources report that Bush used cocaine; like you they wouldn't be surprised but unlike you they have actually investigated, they have followed up what leads they could find and reported factually on the outcome. Omitting the sources would sound like a cover-up; everybody knows the rumors and it is a matter of legitimate public concern on a man's fitness for public office. Putting them in and detailing the investigations (which are generally of reasonable quality) and the conclusions (largely negative--little or no evidence found to support the allegations) is fairer to the reader, whom I presume to be reasonably intelligent and able to evaluate the evidence presented for himself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider all readers of this to be intelligent and able to make up their own minds, I consider a large number of them to be "innocents" in that they may be coming to this site so that they can reference what is in most cases, reliable reporting, and using the references for a term paper, etc. I'm sorry, but I do not consider Salon to be NPOV and I have clicked the links in this article and am shocked that anyone would consider this to be any better than National Enquirer type of mish mash. It is all argumentative and as such, it should remain outside of this article. I do not appreciate the innuendo that I didn't do my research as well. As I said, I think many would like it to be true, and maybe it is, but nothing you have offered is anything other than liberal anti-Bush POV, and the continued use of this type of poor reporting is unworthy of Wikipedia.--MONGO 11:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't claim that Salon is NPOV--indeed few if any sources cited in Wikipedia aspire to the NPOV. But if you read the Salon article you will see that they did investigate the report and did come up with a pretty conclusive blank. It is very unlikely that the young Bush worked on a community service program at MLK in Houston. The gist of the evidence for this (specifically Madge Bush's assertion) is quoted in the current version of the article.

On your concerns for the intelligence of the reader, well I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that. Many will be able to understand what is being written, others will not. Wikipedia policy is to write accurately and to NPOV, and while we should certainly avoid ambiguity, we don't have a policy of writing in such a manner that what we write cannot under any circumstances be misunderstood. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then at the least, since you yourself seem to be unable to prove the allegation due to the unsubstantitive and weak argument provided by Salon, for the sake of the innocent reader, return the statement that the article is not substantive: The validity of the claims asserted (by) Amy Reiter and Salon.com are uncertain. I would consider this to be less POV and to be more in line with NPOV. Yeah, I know, NO ARTICLE REALLY IS NPOV....but this one doesn't come close! The inclusion of anything from Salon, which specializes sensationalist reporting is certainly not of the level of say The Washington Post et al and other more traditionally liberal/centrist mediums. This article might be substantive in a treatise on Bush under the label of mud on the President, but I can hardly accept it as worthwhile to be placed in here. To most readers, this article is an example of how NOT to write a term paper and thesis....--MONGO 19:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salon does a pretty good job of documenting its assertions 'sensationalist' though they may be. So, just to clear the air, exactly what kind of evidence would be expected to be unearthed to prove that somebody did not serve somewhere where they were supposed to, if the absence of any positive evidence that they did is insufficient? A report from someone who followed the person for the entire time in question and can state that they never did what they said they did? The impossibility of proving a negative is well known and well used by those who can just glance at each new piece of evidence and state 'Not convincing enough. Try again'. (See also, 'Global Warming Skeptics'). This is why in an ideal research world, one must frame the question first, and decide what evidence would result in a positive or negative outcome before gathering the evidence, rather than evaluating each chunk of evidence as it comes along. Although this doesn't happen in the political world, it's never too late to start. Can you state what kind of evidence would convince you of the Prez's absence, in the purely hypothetical possibility that he was absent? Gzuckier 19:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Argument circular...the entire treatise makes and or alludes and imposes on readers the thought that whether it is true or not, there is the possiblilty that he is currently a cocaine user. I repeat that it is a slander based on less than creditable sources. I would not consider the Salon innuendo to be anything other than hypothetical.--MONGO 20:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your position presupposes that this stuff about George W. Bush being a bit of a playboy prince during his teens and twenties originated in Salon. It doesn't; Bush himself is a self-described recovering alcoholic. I think you should trust the reader more--Bush himself trusted the voters and was rewarded well for it. The bottom line is that rumors have surfaced about Bush's younger days and the better journals investigate before publishing. In that Salon investigated and drew what amounted to a negative, and stated so in its report, Salon is one of the better journals, at least as far as that report goes.

This is emphatically not restricted to yellow journalism. A New York times editorial in August, 199 said: If Mr Bush never used illegal drugs, he should say so. If he did, he should 'fess up. The Washington Post as early as February, 1999 carried a piece about Mr Bush's evasiveness on this issue. I don't think the subject merits more than we have put in, but I could expand with quotes only from the Times, the Post and some other more reputable dailies if you prefer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. I didn't say anything about him never using drugs or being a former alcoholic. I just said that the remarks allude to make the reader think that this is still the case. Whether it says it is the case isn't the point, the point is that the illusion is that he still does. Round and round we go. I am quite familiar with all the charges and they are unsubstantiated. Why is it so difficult to wish to stick to the facts that can be proven unless the piece is supposed to be an exercise in slander? Examples: we know the facts such as his name, where he was born, comments from his speeches, legislation he dealt with, his confession to being a drunk, the premise he had to go to war with Iraq...we know these things are as solid as concrete. But when I see this type of innuendo, that is all written based on circumstantial evidence or heresay, then I see no place here for it. Sure, state facts about opinions etc. I have read all that and that's fine....but isn't this supposed to be NPOV....how is circumstantial evidence that is not backed up by facts appropriate here unless you are trying to push a point of view? Example: I've seen the video of Bush at the wedding, acting goofy and at the end he does certainly appear to swallow down the nasty lasty of a glass of something....but is it beer, is it alcohol, or is it water? Who knows! It can't be proven that it was alcohol and there is no one to collaborate that it was alcohol. These type of items are not appropriate because they are conjecture and they are misleading. Once again, I know, facts about opinions...well, that doesn't suffice. Then whowrote this opinion?: Should Bush not meet with the NAACP before he leaves office, he will become the first sitting President to have not met with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover. How can anyone ascertain future? ybe he will meet with the NAACP and maybe he won't...but the innuedo suggests that he is a bigot to the casual reader. The FACTS that Bush appointed Powell to the highest cabinet post ever held by an African American man and followed that up by having Rice confirmed for the same post, becoming the highest level attained by an African American female, is hardly alluded to....just a comment that his cabinet is the most ethnically diverse. My extrapolated point is that the entire article is filled with uses of certain words, inclusion of circumstantial evidence and omission of some positive issues which makes this thing look almost like some childish prank.--MONGO 08:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still get the impression that you're uneasy about this piece because, firstly, it could be misread by an inattentive or unintelligent reader as an assertion that George W Bush once used cocaine, and secondly you believe that we should only include facts about opinions that can themselves be proven to be factually correct. I've addressed both of these points already.

In my opinion there would be no problem with including a reference to the wedding video and the interpretation that some commentators have put on it, provided this was reported prominently enough to break out of a narrow niche. As it happens, that piece was reported by Drudge and picked up by Slate, who went to some journalists for opinions. Christoper Caldwell, who writes for the The Weekly Standard and the Financial Times, was quoted (he was a fence-sitter on the subject, and gave some good reasons for and against). Writers from the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the New Republic, Vanity Fair, and the New Yorker also gave their opinions. By themselves, I don't rate Drudge or Slate very highly, but I think the fact that Slate got the opinion of some first rank journalists makes it relevant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a perfect world, I would like to see all this stuff...Hatfield's book, van Wormer's opinion, the Salon referenced issues, and other skeptical sources of knowledge to be withdrawn. I would settle for them to be greatly condensed and then linked to another piece which can be as detailed as anyone would wish, based on the Wikipedia standards, which I would not edit. ie: It is the opinion of some that Bush has used cocaine in the past, has consumed alcohol after claiming that he no longer drank alcohol, has been considered to be clinically a Dry Drunk....etc.....for further clarification on these issues the reader is directed here.....and then create a "Bush substance abuse controversy page"...outside of the main body of this article. But, I am still not satisfied...as witnessed to my bringing up the issue of Bush not meeting with the NAACP. I don't think forecasts of the future should be in here....unless you can find where it was referenced from, which I suspect may be hard to do. But if anyone can, the Wikihawks can.--MONGO 11:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would you want them removed? It is a fact that there has been a great deal of speculation and rumor about Bush's younger years. That this speculation exists is not controversial, it's a solid fact upon which any honest biographer would have to report. I don't think it's important enough to spin off into an article on its own, though. A few paragraphs in the main article should be sufficient.

Actually what the NAACP says is this: Although candidate Bush appeared at the NAACP’s Convention in 2000, in 2004 President Bush became the first President since Warren G. Harding to refuse to meet with the country’s oldest and largest civil rights organization when he declined an invitation to speak at the 2004 NAACP Annual Convention in Philadelphia.

So the point NAACP is making is that he's the first leader since Harding to have turned down a specific invitation to address their Convention while in office. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that is a FACT...and should be included, but it doesn't address the speculation that he will not still meet with them...so that part needs to go. See, you Wikihawks are so resourceful....continue to find true FACTS and you'll never get an argument out of me...--MONGO 12:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

The newer version of the box (as found in this version of the article) seems to me to be not an improvement. Wikilinking some key points, like Bush's predecessory, wife, and VP, is helpful, even if they're also linked in article text; this pulls them together. Inclusion of the lines for death information is redundant when the box already says that he's the incumbent. More generally, use of the template makes it harder to edit. My attempts to edit within the changed format produced various forms of mess, so I finally gave up and went back to the old one. JamesMLane 09:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i love george w. bush. he is by far one of the smartest men to serve our country !

Keep article about Bush

Noticed reversal of edit I made which took out comparative statement of Bush and Clinton regarding federal budgets/deficit. This article is about Bush, not Clinton. The only relevency of reverting back to the the comparison would be to continue to cast Bush in a negative fashion which suits the leftwing and is therefore a POV. Everyone knows that Bush has created a gigantic federal deficit and that information is a FACT and should be included, but the article is not about Clinton, so his budget surpluses are not relevent.--MONGO 13:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The text removed reads: In the last year of the Clinton administration, the federal budget showed an annual surplus of more than $230 billion. [5] Under Bush, however, the government returned to deficit spending.

In my opinion the fact that the final Clinton budget had a surplus is relevant to Bush's fiscal performance. Had he inherited a huge deficit this would mitigate his fiscal record; conversely the fact that he did not adds to our understanding of his performance. We could remove Clinton's name if you prefer. In the last year of the previous administration...' --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still feel that that this alludes to and enhances the reader's view that Bush has done a worse job than his predecessor and everyone already knows who that was. It passes judgement and doesn't take into account that the main reasons for the deficits are related to such things as a downturn in the economy (which was already happening prior to Bush's first election), the impact of 9/11, the fact that Bush cut taxes, and then had a huge military spending bill passed...something that Clinton didn't have to do per se. I say state the facts and let the reader be educated and enlightened, not state the facts and let the reader decide...this constitutes the great rift between myself and many of the editors here. Likewise, could we put in there that so far, Bush has had a better professional relationship with his White House interns than Clinton, in that he has yet to use his position of power to use that as a magnet to young obsessive women? I think not.--MONGO 21:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The federal budget is huge; even a President, for all the power of the office, can't turn it around completely in a short time. Therefore, the information about what kind of budget a President inherited is relevant. If Bush had come into office facing a $700 billion annual deficit and had managed to whittle it down to "only" $400 billion, that would reflect a different fiscal history of his administration than what we actually see. If you think the baseline Bush inherited in other areas was similarly significant, feel free to include it. The treatment of interns obviously wouldn't be a good example, because that's something that the President can change immediately and unilaterally, regardless of what the situation was under any prior administration. JamesMLane 21:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well like it or not, MONGO, fiscal performance is something that US Presidents have been judged on since Carter at least. Chasing interns around the Oval Office, while not compulsory, doesn't seem to have hurt the last incumbent's reputation in the long term. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, without going to far off on that tangent, I was not the least bit unhappy with Clinton until the situation with the intern came up, so his reputation in my eyes from that point on went downhill. Iused this contrast to show that I didn't want to do comparisons, not because I do...and you can't predict the future.--MONGO 08:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who put up the disputed page tag?

68.49.191.97 please identify yourself by contributing here in discussion or remove the tag please.--MONGO 09:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll remove it with an edit comment asking whoever to make an entry here explaining why he disputes the factual accuracy of the piece. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I thought it was a good idea, but agree with you that if it is to be done, they should hash it out here.--MONGO 12:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Business man?

Where is the proof?

--Relaxation 18:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The parts talking about the businesses he owned/ran? That's your proof. RickK 23:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Information.

[delete copyright violation] - RickK 23:49, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

--Relaxation 20:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So? We call Gerald Ford a President. - Calmypal 20:58, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)