Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Middle Initial?

Would it be better to put George W. Bush's middle initial in the article instead of his FULL middle name since thats the name he uses more often? George W. Bush or George Walker Bush? -Anon

No. The W stands for Walker. People are likely to want to know that. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Blessit link not controversial

some ignorant admins apparently want to whitewash any link to Arthur Blessit, Bush's connection with Blessit has been well documented, eg on PBS Frontline, and in the book The Faith of George W. Bush by Stephen Mansfield ISBN: 1585423092

"Mansfield details later encounters with evangelists Arthur Blessit and Billy Graham that he believes were pivotal in Bush's spiritual formation."
  • Unless Bush actually comes out and says Blessit played a role in his conversion (as far as I know, he hasn't), then there is not enough fact to go on to add this reference. Bush has publicly acknowledged Graham, and Graham only, as the evangelist most critical in his coverting to Christianity. This article is about fact, not the thoughts of an author. Harro5 09:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Funny, have you read the book? How do you know the book is not fact based? Also, what about the PBS Frontline reference? Bush is certainly not the last word for his own history. If that were so none of the other controversies re his alcoholism, drug abuse, AWOL behavior etc would ever be known. Bush discusses a bible meeting prior to the Graham meeting, in spring of 1984, the same week as Blessit's revival stop in Midland Tx. where Bush heard Blessit on the radio and requested a private meeting.

[1]

In his book “A charge to keep my journey to the White House” by George W. Bush pages 136-139, he tells in quite some detail about a visit with Rev. Billy Graham in Maine where he says “Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul”. Mr. Bush goes on to say about Jesus, “I would commit my heart to Jesus Christ. I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like me. I was comforted to know that through the Son, I could find God's amazing grace, a grace that crosses every border, every barrier and is open to everyone. Through the love of Christ's life, I could understand the life-changing powers of faith. I began reading the Bible regularly. Don Evans talked me into joining him and another friend, Don Jones, at a men's community Bible study. The group had first assembled the year before, in spring of 1984, [that was the spring of Blessit's week meeting in Midland]
Honestly, what difference does it make? And the Blessit page is just a tiny stub. What does this add to the article. We already know that a Graham's work began his "conversion." What does Blessit add to this? Will I understand Bush better if I know this fact(I guess) about a preacher I don't even know anything about and Wikipedia says nothing about him either?Voice of All(MTG) 18:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, what difference do any facts make to an encyclopedia? Blessit precedes Graham by one year. Though Bush is apparently embarassed re Blessit, one would think the true cause of his conversion would be worth mentioning rather than the fake PR smokescreen.

Added info about the middle-finger incidents

I checked the archives of the discussions and saw no mention of it, other than someone complaining about a photo of it being there. Anyway, this stuff's incredibly well-known. And it's a historical fact: He holds the record of being the first President to have been seen giving the middle finger, both before and during office.

Everyone knows of the photo of him giving the camera guy the finger when he was governor of Texas. But also, there's an undated video on Jay Leno of President Bush flipping off the media while in office [2]. This is relevant, because it affects the public's perception of him. So, I put it in the "Public perception and assessments," section. There was also a third report of him flipping off the media, but there was no video or photo of it, so I left it out. 69.138.24.96 07:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Rude Gesture

Under the domestic section it says that Bush holds the distinction of being the only U.S president to be seen using the middle finger, before election and during office. Can anyone tell me if this is a joke or if it is actually true? Thanks.Banes 08:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

a search on google images shows a kerryfinger.jpg image purportedly showing Kerry doing the flipping the bird Gesture. Both Bush and Clinton are also shown doing the heavy metal salute, aka sign of the devil, aka Hook 'em Horns.

So, nothing on the middle finger then? I dont know about the sign of the devil, because the hook 'em horns gesture, according to the link you provided is a University of Austin, Texas, fan symbol. The photo shows Bush using it at a sports event. Anyway that has nothing to do with him giving the finger. Banes 08:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The new show on Comedy Central, Mind of Mencia, the first or maybe second episode ended with a clip of Bush giving someboey? the finger. No hint that it was not real. Circumstances of the clip were not explained. Gzuckier 14:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The clip is real; it was before an interview on a Texas tv station, while he was governor. I'm not sure how encyclopedic it is, though....
There are two clips of George W. Bush flipping the bird. The first is when he was Governor, wearing a lousy blue-grey suit, and he gives a quick little shot of the finger, followed by his trademark snicker [3]. The second, more recent, on-film fingering (or was it a 'thumbing', as some commentators maintain?) took place last month in front of reporters and was on the Jay Leno show [4]. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


I crossed that out. feel free to unstrike it if you wish. Redwolf24 15:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I just Got rid of it. No need for that kind of stuff here. this is supposed to be a discussion not a place to say i hate so and so. <Eraser>

"What if they're New Here?"

"What if they're New Here?": Is this line meant to be in anti-vandalism header for this article?

It was quietly added last night. I've removed it. If someone wants to ask the question, here on the talk page is the place for it. Not in the comments in the article itself. TexasAndroid 18:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Movement to impeach Bush? Give me a break, that's not neutral

Folks, you might as well have a link to "Nazi", I mean give me a break.

The movement to impeach Bush is NOT mainstream. Just as the 9/11 conspiracy is not mainstream. The former and certainly the latter do not deserve a spot on this page.

I was messaged by an editor here that these links have been "voted on" but I do believe that a majority here are not of the opinion that Bush is a good president, as most internet precedents are.

This is FINE by me, but if you are going to have links to other things about Bush, fine, keep the author link, but delete the movement to impeach him, that is absurd and irrelevant, and certainly not mainstream or NEUTRAL. unsigned comment by 24.206.237.159

I have to agree with the movement to impeach link...it isn't mainstream or neutral. The F911 link was decided as being substantive enough due to the widespread popularity of the film.--MONGO 12:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm removing it if its still there.Voice of All(MTG) 17:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
This all seems rather inconsistent to me, considering the recent minor dispute regarding Tom Cruise and the inclusion of the non-neutral website "TomCruiseIsNuts.com (Humorous site chronicling Tom Cruise's statements)". See my comments on the talk page there, if interested. Hall Monitor 18:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the link on the Cruise article shouldn't be there either...this isn't some gossip rag or one that should be covering far out and incredibly unlikely events as a Bush impeachment (based on the evidence currently on hand). Not one senator or congressman is seriously pushing for an impeachment of Bush...it's a far left pipe dream.--MONGO 18:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Until the threat of impeachment is a significant aspect of the public discourse, we shouldn't include it here. --kizzle 20:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)



Hmm... Bush's approval rating has dropped well below 50%. Are we allowed to start a movement now? Or do the American people still have their voices silenced?

Jeez, chill out people. The "movement to impeach Bush" is not mainstream at all. NOBODY is earnestly talking about it. Not one member of congress is pushing for it. This isn't denying free speech. And Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. It is NOT what wiki is all about. Now, plummeting approval ratings, that's valid. But trying to worm in some fringe movement about impeaching him is intellectually dishonest. - JDoorjam 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC), former Kerry-Edwards staffer.
Uh "NOBODY" is clear POV disinformation. But the people who are talking about aren't U.S. Senators or Representatives. So, yeah, impeachment is off the table.Arnoldlover 02:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if that is steve again :)Voice of All(MTG) 02:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to point out some more disinformation. There are certainly Representatives speaking of impeachment, and a significant number of representatives have filed a "Resolution of Inquiry", the first step in the impeachment process. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
And regarding another piece of disinformation: "The "movement to impeach Bush" is not mainstream at all. NOBODY is earnestly talking about it.": [5], [6] The mere fact alone that zogby did a poll on this is notable. The numbers are too. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality is not the point

We report nonneutral statements and link to nonneutral sites all the time. If a particular aspect of opposition to Bush is notable, it should be reported in this article. The call for impeachment has certainly gone far beyond the stage of one crackpot in his basement putting up a website, but it still hasn't become important enough to be mentioned here. If it gains in importance, though, then it should be mentioned, even though it's not neutral. JamesMLane 17:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed sentence

The sentence fragment I removed was due to the use of the words "some allege" in response to the press release of Bush' DUI conviction being a timely press release to influence the election...the sentence I removed stated: and some allege that part of the press deliberately waited to disseminate the information to the public in order to swing the election. If someone can substantiate this then it still would be better placed in the daughter article here.--MONGO 10:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was by far the most popular theory of the time by the "right-wing" press and a few "non-partisan" groups. Also, "allege" is used a few times in the article and is somewhat NPOV...
(semi-blog link follows)
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/102004g.asp
Although I think it goes better in the article as it helps keep the section centered a bit POV-wise.... but YMMV --RN 16:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
An Rfc on the passages discussing drug and alcohol was recently performed and we tried to keep counterbalances either way relegated to the daughter article...I don't disagree with the sentence you had, and in fact am inclined to believe it was true, but if we start putting that in, then counterarguments start to return and the entire section ends up diverging away from the original Rfc...the Rfc is [here] if you wish to read all about it...--MONGO 19:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I see your point but I think you could mention that it (the timing) was just "controversial" and then do the real work in the daughter article. Also, your original proposal seems a bit more NPOV than the current state which has a bit more (albiet subtle) anti-bush stuff in there that weighs it down a bit. I'm pretty impressed with the article though... its too bad that the Microsoft pages don't get the same treatment. --RN 21:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
The article hasn't had any major changes in a while...as always, don't be discouraged to add whatever you see fit so long as you know that there has, at least, been a great deal of bickering back and forth since it was first written and it is becoming more NPOV all the time...at least that is what we hope for.--MONGO 02:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Anagram

I apologize that I have to bring this subject here, but I believe in consistency and others a promoting something quite juvenile that it must be brought up here. About 4 editors, 2 might be sock puppets, on Spiro Agnew insist on adding an anagram stating "grow a penis." Responsible editors have reverted them but they insisted that it is appropriate for the article for various reasons and started a poll. I don't think anagrams are appropriate for an article, for instance, it is noted that "George Bush = He bugs Gore."; "George W Bush = He grew bogus." and "George Herbert Walker Bush = Huge berserk rebel warthog." If we go down that way, we will start including anagrams on all the pages (which seems quite juvenile). If you agree that this is inappropriate, please go to that page and vote. --Noitall 14:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Bob Saget doesn't have the anagram "Got Babes". Or "Full House's Bob Saget" and "He's Got Soulful Babes". Or "The Olsen Twins" and "Slow, Thin Teens". Just a thought. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 15:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Nor does the article on Jimbo Wales present any of the many choice possibilities ... what an outstandingly anagrammatic name. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Gay Appointment

There is a section in the article under Domestic Policy about Diversity and Civil rights that contains a sentence noting that Bush is the first Republican to appoint an openly gay man to his administration. This is true, but the sentence is still misguided. This section should concentrate on Bush's overarching stance on the issues of civil rights, not the token exceptions. Painting the Bush administration as one that is unusually inclusive of homosexuals (as this sentence attempts to do) is horribly misleading.

My beef is with the big deal it makes out of the fact that Bush appointed an openly gay man to a government position. However, there are numerous reasons why this is not a big deal. Firstly, a President makes thousands of appointments during his tenure. Secondly, presidents before him (Clinton) have appointed gay people in much larger numbers. And third, it should be noted that he is really one of the first republican presidents with even the opporunity to appoint gay men. The last time a Republican was in office was 1992, when tolerance and acceptance of the homosexual community was at a very different stage than it is today. Bush is almost certainly not the first Republican to appoint someone who was gay, but is the first to appoint someone who is OPENLY gay. Openly gay politicians were a lot harder to come by in the late 80s and early 90s, and Bush's Republican predecessors shouldn't be faulted for that, nor should Bush be praised for it.

I thus compare it to George H.W. appointing C. Thomas to the supreme court. Should he be praised for appointing a black supreme court justice? He is currently the first and only Republican administration to do so. Yet this is not noteworthy enough to appear in his article, because the *real* civil rights breakthrough was with L. Johnson's appointment of Thurgood Marshall.

Bush's record on support of the gay and lesbian community shows a huge amount of intolerance. To make special note of the one small act of inclusiveness he has made (which in the reference links is alleged to be little more than a token concession to the Log Cabin Republicans, campaign contriubuters), without context or addendum, is misleading and dishonest in spirit.

Please change or delete the sentence so that the sentiment is not so easily misconstrued. Sdauson 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I must agree with Sdauson on this. THe sentence is misleading, unless it is acompanied by an explaination of why it is misleading. --jonasaurus 18:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how The whole paragraph is about how he has not been a supporter of Gay Marriage Rights. I do not see why it distorts the picture to point out that he has appointed an openly gay person to his staff. Who are you to say that person is a token member of the staff, calling someone merely a token appointment sure sounds like POV to me. --AjaxSerix 18:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the assertion that it's a token appointment is largely unsubstantiated, and shouldn't be put in the article. But mentioning the fact that Bush has made an appointment of an openly gay person (Bill Clinton made over 150) without putting it in its true context (as outlined above) is misleading, and an obvious attempt to portray Bush in a more favorable light than is deserved on this subject. I would move that the whole sentence simply be taken out of the article. It is not an important or sybolic facet of Bush or his administration. Sdauson 19:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
While I do see your reason for pessimism on it, I think that the first appointment of an openly gay person by a republican President as a significant step forward for Gay rights. Token or not it means that at the very least Bush saw some value politically in appealing to homosexuals, which is a broken ceiling. I think the first person is noteworthy enough. It might be worth it to add though that he picked him to be the AIDS czar, which may highlight the sterotypical view he took in doing so.--AjaxSerix 19:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Then why is George H.W. Bush not to be commended for appointing Clarence Thomas, the first African American to be appointed to the supreme court by a Republican? Or Bill Clinton commended for being the first Democrat to appoint a female justice to the same court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg? It seems like these should be MUCH more important and symbolic acts, as a President gets only one or two nominations to the high court if he's lucky, as opposed to one of the thousands of general appointments a President may make over his career, such as AIDS czar. I mean, hell, why don't we put the fact that George W. Bush is the first Republican president from Texas under the age of 70 with a daughter who owns a Toyota as being indicative of unusual support for foreign trade?
I guess I see the importantance of it being in the traditional opposition of the republican party to gay rights. It is a crack in the wall.--AjaxSerix 19:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the passages about the alleged "gay appointment" are misleading. I particularly agree with the comment above about the misleading sentence. For these reasons, I think that a factual error disclaimer should be added.
That claim is factual, but it may not be NPOV. There is already a POV warning on this article. There is no need for a factual error disclaimer. android79 19:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. These claims have never been verified by a credible source.
It's cited directly in the article: [7]. android79 19:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Do you dispute the reliability of this source? android79 19:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Android79 the statement is factual. The complaint you are making is covered with the Neutrality tag.
Just because the article has an NPOV tag on it doesn't mean we shouldn't be continuously be trying to make it a more neutral article. Neutrality tags aren't a license to put whatever you want into an article. Also, please sign your comments. Sdauson 19:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The last post was me I forgot to sign... always do that... I agree the wording could be made more neutral, my comment was about the person who kept adding the FACTUAL Dispute tag along with the NPOV. I was saying that the second box was not necessary.--AjaxSerix 19:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

WOW it seems like all arguments related to this article are always long and drawn out... anyway I tried to put the sentence in context and removed the disputed tag as it was pretty silly (this article seems to have iron-clad references for EVERYTHING) (2 edit conflicts yikes) --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Better, but I would still like to know why the fact that George H. W. Bush was the first Republican president to appoint a black supreme court justice is not mentioned on his page. Is that fact not significant for all the same reasons presented in the defense of the gay appointment fact? Why is this one more significant than the other? Sdauson 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I think this page is run by young Republicans, fascists, and Tony Blair-worshippers. You didn't beat the Germans after all. --Paul Laremy, anonymous user
It's good that you are all growed up about things. see...Godwins Law--AjaxSerix 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The sentence used to state that Micheal Guest was the first "openly gay ambassador to be appointed by a U.S. President and have his appointment confirmed by Congress." Clinton performed a recess appointment of an openly gay ambassador prior to this. The sentence was placed there as the only conversation about Bush's stand on homosexuality was totally negative and the addition of the Micheal Guest ambassadorship was added for balance.--MONGO 20:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to tell me that the conversation about Bush's stand on homosexuality SHOULDN'T be totally negative? Do you have any knowledge of his history and record on gay rights? Sdauson 20:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon's insertion of disputed

Unless he can point out what fact is incorrect, it will be reverted, and he will be blocked for violating 3RR. The dispute has to be pointed out before the tag can remain. The presence of a dispute is only a matter of record when you put forth the effort to explain it here. So go for it. --Golbez 19:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

He hasn't answered my question, and given the last comment, it's pretty clear he's just here to stir up trouble. android79 19:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Longest page ever

I just archived this talk page today, and with one little conflict over the tiniest thing, it is now soooo long again. Good thing I created the empty archive. Looks like it will be needed soon. If someone wouldn't mind doing this, it would make this page a lot more manageable. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)