Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 34

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

Blocked without warning?

The following comment has been inserted in the very beginning of the article's wikitext: 'Anyone vandalizing this article will be blocked for up to 48 hours without further warning.' What's the point of this, and why should this particular article be treated any differently from any other one? I suggest the comment be removed. - ulayiti (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Because this article has the same few people vandalizing it and we shouldn't show tolerance. Its a highly vandalized article like Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Jack Thompson (attorney). Redwolf24 (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
If it has a few easy to identify vandals, then a 3RR rule should work fine. It is unfortunate when special rules are applied to articles when long standing and effective techniques to control vandalism are available. This is one of the most watched pages here, vandalism does not last long, and no one is overburdened with the task of watching it alone. NoSeptember 01:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
3RR doesn't work on AOL or proxies. That said, I believe Golbez added the notice during an avalanche of vandalism a while back, and I don't think enough admins are watching this article around the clock for this kind of blocking to happen. android79 01:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
3RR? 3RR of vandalism? 3RR has nothing to do with vandalism, thats for edit war prevention. We just block vandals for vandalism, 3RR has nothing to do with it. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
It does if they violate 3RR, but again, trying to block AOL and proxies is so hard, I'm not sure the tag is necessary, but I sure do agree with it's intent.--MONGO 02:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I like the intent also, but agree that it's unlikely that blocks for vandalism are occurring. So it's misleading and (sets false hopes for real contributors) if it cannot be adequately enforced. So I think it should either be policed better or taken down. --KBecks 13:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this comment while on rc patrol, I don't think this is a fair or helpful policy. Give the vandals their due warning, and then block them if they persist, its not like we're having trouble keeping up with vandalism on such a high-traffic page (every time i've tried to revert vandalism on this one, someone else already has) —siroχo 06:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

This comment isn't unfair. It's on the Clinton page as well.

What happened to this edit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=22228134

Done by a political science professor, evidently. Looks like the person completely rewrote the page, killing most of the content....

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

pretty table for major legislation signed

Year     Legislation signed
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005


Does the above look better than the current way? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


I like it glocks out 00:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag stays

According to the recent survey (above), the NPOV tag stays. Seventeen people voted. Eleven (65%) were in favor of removing the tag and six opposed. The guideline for consensus suggests a two thirds majority as a measure of consensus on talk pages. So it's close but no cigar for those who want to remove that tag. Although it was close, strong feelings were expressed by many of the folks who voted to retain the tag. Perhaps we could look at it again down the road. I do think it is a good article, though. Sunray 14:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nah - what we decided (I believe) is tagging individual problem sections with the sectnpov tag, as just tagging the whole article in this case isn't helping anyone Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

No, that was not the decision. The vote was on removing the tag, it failed. 70.110.5.170 20:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

hey yall

should it really say "succeeded by: incumbent" in the infobox at the topp? Incumbent describes someone in a position to be reelected, no? I don't know if the phrase "succeeded by" is needed at all. has this been discussed? Schzz-niddl-bam snip snap sack 18:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That's just how the infobox is designed. --Golbez 18:50, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Foreign views

This section shouldn't just focus on Iraq. It really needs to make it clear that he is depised and ridiculed in a way that no other U.S. President has ever been for everything he is and everything he does. There is general bewilderment that America could have elected the sort of dim aristocrat who stopped reaching high office in Europe a hundred years ago. He is a figure of fun and contempt to billions of people, and outside the U.S he has no partisan base to support him . All this needs to be put in neutral language of course, but really the current section gives no idea how widely he is loathed and belittled he is. It is a historical phenomenon that a U.S. leader could be loathed by people who support democracy and capitalism in the way this one is. He is the despair of America's friends, and has given the global anti-American movement it's biggest boost since the end of the Cold War. 82.35.34.11 03:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that there have been many, many U.S. Presidents who were hated as much as Bush. Even by U.S. citizens themselves. How quickly it is that people forget history. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Name two. Provide proof. Scientz 18:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I can name one, Abraham Lincoln. During the later years of his short presidency, he was disapproved of by over 70% of Americans. This was generally a reaction to his stance and actions during the civil war and trade policies. With no comparison to President Bush (history will decide his legacy in due course), today we acknowledge Lincoln as one of the greatest presidents in American history.
Nice anonymous quote. But the topic is "foreign views", and the discussion concerned whether or not anyone can provide proof of a President who was loathed more outside of the U.S.. Scientz 14:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the burden lies on those who want to assert that Bush is the most hated American president of all time. Such claims should be thoroughly documented before being added to the article. While doing research on this point, bear in mind that Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon were both widely despised, both inside and outside the U.S., because of their policies in the Vietnam War. Brandon39 18:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the burden lying anywhere. Kudos on the Johnson and Nixon points, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of simultaneous world-wide protest marches against either. My point was (and it can't be included due to Wiki's much-needed NPOV stance) that other Presidents seem to have been despised for their stance on particular (albeit unpopular) issues, whereas Bush seems to be demonized for a broad range of issues from cronyism and financial policies that favor the top 1%, to the Iraq war and gross incompetence. To summarize, I wouldn't expect Ronald Reagan to be intensely favored in Libya, but the hatred of Bush in democratic countries like Canada, France, Germany and the UK must be noted as unique. Scientz 16:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think GWB is demonised - that suggests a lack of culpability on his part. I agree that Iraq should not be the main focus. There is also a view that his brand of religious fanaticism is not that far removed from that which he condemns. There has been at least one French documentary that presents such a view. His policies on the environment and world poverty, his denigration of the UN (even if some of his criticism is justified) do little to encourage support for him from outside the US either.The manner in which he has polarised people's opinions, including their opinion of him, has allowed the loathing that is felt for him to be felt much more deeply than that felt for ,say, Nixon who was more an object for scorn because of his unethical behaviour than an object of loathing because of his foreign policy notwithstanding views about his actions in Vietnam. Nixon actually had some foreign policy achievements to act as a counterpoint to his failures. I'm hard pressed to think of a foreign policy success for GWB. Even in countries where GWB has broad political support, displays of public loathing for him are commonplace. See Pakistan, Indonesia, Australia and even the UK. A word of caution though - previous (despised/loathed/hated) US Presidents did not have to manage the information super highway available to current (justified or otherwise) GWB detractors. Ozemandeus 13:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Good point. Demonized isn't the right word. It does seem to connote a feeling that his behaviour is somehow exemplary or irreprehensible, which I don't believe to be true. On other points I think we agree as well. Scientz 14:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Golfing while New Orleans burns floods

It seems that Bush, aside from asserting that no one thought the Levee's would give - seems to have been golfing during "a disaster of historic and unprecedented magnitude" (according to his Homeland Defense Czar). Does this need more mention? Benjamin Gatti

  • Clearly POV, hurricanes don't burn things--Wikiwarrior 03:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me or was that a bit POV? Redwolf24 (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
POV indeed. --tomf688<TALK> 04:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


Bush's commitment to golf appears to trump his interest in leading the country in a time of "unprecedented" need. Bush, is one of the few people in this country who can conduct the affairs of the country in real time. - Need walmart to start a caravan of water heading south - Bush can simply order it. The State of Luisianna clearly does not have the resources to handle this alone. It needs a leader with the authority to adapt every institution in the country to address the problem. Bush seems to think his presence would only be a distraction - what a shame, that the person chosen to lead the country considers himself to be in the way when the country needs leadership the most. Benjamin Gatti
Do not try to start a political debate, as that looks like what you're trying :-/ Redwolf24 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
If, as a matter of neutral and objective fact, Bush places golf before his obligations as leader of this country - why shouldn't that be reflected in the article? Benjamin Gatti
Because its inherently POV. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, we have to remain WP:NPOV. While if it is true that Bush went golfing during the whole mess, it can be reported, but must be worded in a way to show no bias. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. But where is the bias - perhaps we're showing a bias by placing to much focus on his being President. Again - if He himself - prefers golf to managing historical crisis as leader of the free world, then we should not place an undue bias on the other aspects of his life. Apparently Condi was shopping for shoes and killing time in a theatre while people's lives were in danger. Benjamin Gatti
You show an alarming inablility to separate facts from opinion. Dmcdevit·t 04:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Condi is the Secretary of State and, technically, this is out of her jusidiction. She can only request for foreign aid, but Bush seems to be rejecting it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Find a reliable source and write "President George W. Bush was playing golf on X day at Y time" in an appropriate place of the article. It is factual, it does not insert any connotation, and it can be verified. You don't have to spell it out, people who read wikipedia are intelligent enough to realize that playing golf during a national emergency is a bad thing. --Howrealisreal 04:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How about: It has been widely reported that George Bush was played golf during the worst natural disaster ever to hit the Continent. By contrast a Category 5 Hurrican struck Cuba and alert and non-drowsy leadership ensured that No one died.


[2] [3]

could that be any more POV? Redwolf24 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it could. How about:

How about: It has been widely reported that George Bush was playing golf during the worst natural disaster ever to hit the Continent in which hundreds if not thousands of the weakes members of society died while waiting for much promised aid to arrive. By contrast a Category 5 Hurricane struck Cuba and by strong and effective leadership no one died. Benjamin Gatti

Hooray Castro, leader of men. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't widely reported that Bush was golfing...only in left wing blogs...I haven't seen that even once in a reputable newspaper, etc. Comparing him to Castro is silly and POV...no one can really know if anyone died in Cuba or not from the storm there due to the state run media...besides, New Orleans is below sea level...and no place in Cuba is. However, I agree that this fiasco of a situation in New Orleans is due to gross mismanagement by FEMA.--MONGO 07:18, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

This "golf" thing isn't so widespread; on the other hand, it is commons knowledge that Bush was on holiday and stayed there for two days. It has also been reported that the Army was called in after one week, though I am unsure what this means, perhaps the Army vs the National Guard, or something... Rama 07:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone want to know my true sentiments...check out my userpage or [4]--MONGO 08:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, Political effects of Hurricane Katrina already covers this quite well, a mere link might be more useful. Rama 09:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, written by POV pushing edit warriors, Hell bent on assuming it's gotta be GWB's fault...it isn't his fault, it's the fault of the logistics and the fact that a few people George depends on to do the job right have zero capacity to know how to get there firstest with the mostest...until the General showed up, no one knew how to do this.--MONGO 09:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Can't we find some snarky things to say about Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was known to lift a golf club from time to time, or FDR, who made construction of public golf courses a national priority? Dpbsmith (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC) P. S. Before my time, but I was once told a very complicated nerdish joke, in which the setup involves the integral of force, f, over distance, which (to make the joke work) has to be designed r. The punchline is: "And f dr really did do an infinitesimal amount of work." My parents communicated the received wisdom that the lines in FDR's face were the result of carrying the heavy burden of Presidential office, but Roosevelt-haters obviously felt otherwise. Roosevelt-hatred, by the way, was so intense that it was still being expressed in the late 1950s, which is when I heard this. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe a President who decides to commit a nation to war on a lie deserves to "think about the war every day - every single day" i fact, i suggest that every hour our best and brightest are fighting an (imaginary) enemy, the President ought to be engaged. There is this tendency to blame middle management, but the President is the one person who can cut through Red tape and coordinate a relief effort without worrying about chain of comand and limits of authority. BTW Walmart showed up with a truck full of water - AND WAS TURNED AWAY. There is pretty solid evidence that FEMA was in the way during this crisis. Let's take a vote and guess the youngest grade school class who, in A SINGLE CLASSROOM HOUR can drum up a relief plan which could have reached the ill and injured in 8 hours - while getting fresh water and transportation to those trapped by the flood.

Those who believe 12th graders will solve the problem:

Those who believe 7th graders will solve the problem:

Those who believe 4th graders will find a practical solution:

BTW this test was done for the Titanic, and a means of saving all those on board was indeed found by untrained students. the problem in times of crisis is that feeble minds freeze up. GWB doesn't have the commitment to the nations problems, or the horsepower to solve problems. Benjamin Gatti

Opinion noted, and the point is? How does your opinion get put into the article and make it encyclopedic? GWB has at least been tested (unlike the almost impeached Clinton) , twice in fact, perhaps he failed, perhaps he hasn't failed...Hillary Clinton, the savior of our future, has requested that a commission such as the one after 9/11 be established to ascertain whether there was gross mismanagement. I am inclined to believe that yes, there has been, but I don't see how it is Bush's fault personally....that's okay though as we have CNN reporting, again, that Bush is now back in the gulf region for another "photo op"...sure, if he stayed home CNN would say he's disassociated from the events or unconcerned.--MONGO 15:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Well given that the orders to move the National Guard from the different states to reinforce New Orleans and to mobilise the Army could be given only by the President himself, his personal responsability is somewhat questioned. But this all belongs in a separate article anyway. Rama 15:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Good, that ends that...then go put it in a different article.--MONGO 15:33, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I have zero faith in HC - but for sake of argument, what would be wrong with empanelling the criticism panel during the emergency. I doubt President Bush would ever have moved his royal horse if it hadn't been for Geraldo and Shephard going down there and standing with those who were dying. Benjamin Gatti
Just pure opinion.--MONGO 17:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
A minor point, MONGO: Clinton was impeached. However, like Andrew Johnson (the other impeached president), he was not convicted (since neither article of impeachment received the required 2/3 vote in the Senate), and thus he remained in office. I think Bush pretty much has a lock on "worst president in history." I fervently hope that Hillary is not the Democratic nominee in 2008. Krakatoa 16:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware that the Senate didn't "convict" in either case. As far as worse President in history, now that's a big stretch...worse than Harding? Worse than Lyndon Johnson? Worse than Grant (okay General but horrible President), worse than Buchanan (the one before Lincoln you know)...I hope Hillary IS the Democratic nominee...in fact, I relish the notion! Once elected, she'll probably divorce Bill and get Rosie O'Donnell to move in with her.--MONGO 17:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Oh don't worry, if Our Leader's gay anti-gay chums (Mehlman, McClellan, Rove, Gannon) have their way, such brash and flamboyantly 'out' left-wingers will be on one-way trains soon enough... feel better? -- RyanFreisling @ 17:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Twas a joke...I actually don't have a problem with Hillary...she might not do so badly.--MONGO 17:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I know, I was ribbin' ya back. I think she'd do well, as a polarizing candidate - but she'd take every hit 'head-on', and might not stand up to the attack machine for the duration of a campaign. Seems good for her to be the middle-term front-runner, while the actual candidate preps and declares a bit later. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Hillary may be a bit too controlling(in the White house as 1st lady), but that, in a way, is who she is. She takes a view and fights for without cheating and stealing. She uses all power to get what she believes needs to be done. People often don't like it when women do that, although men can get away with it alot more I've noticed. She would make an effective leader, to say the least. I think this is the last political thing I am going to say for a long while.Voice of All(MTG) 18:41, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
The progression of this discussion is quite fascinating. But take it from a New Yorker, Hillary as the democratic nominee would be a hand out to the Republicans in 2008. Even with Bush's perpetual blunders, the rest of the United States will undoubtedly pick the GOP than the neo-liberal republicrat imitation. It happened with Gore and Kerry and will happen again unless the Democrats truely re-think their views. Lets face it, why buy the knock-off DLC brand when you can get the GOP name brand at the same price? Don't be sad, the DLC has it coming to them for creating a platform that only Bill Clinton could carry. --Howrealisreal 19:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Bush's Potemkin Villages

Bush has a real history of staged photo-ops:

Plastic turkey A Baghdad Thanksgiving's Lingering Aftertaste Stuffed by a plastic turkey Bush's gesture politics suggest a man seriously worried about his career


[....I hope you realize that while it was a 'display' turkey, it wasn't plastic- just prepared with appearance being a higher priority than being edible. That's fairly normal for cafeteria-style dining, which is where people in the military generally eat. -rosignol]


Mission accomplished Commander in Chief lands on USS Lincoln off the coast of San Diego, California

Mount Rushmore President Talks Homeland/Economic Security at Mt. Rushmore

Iraqui Amputeee "Journalist" Who Arranged Iraqi Amputee Photo-Op Is A Bush Donor

Bush's rescue of Louisiana Sen. Landrieu: Bush brought rescue resources for staged photo op, and then removed it.[5]

I think a section should be devoted to his staged photo-ops. Kgrr 18:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting increasingly disgusted at those who are making political hay of this tragedy. There's a noisy bunch on the left who are almost gleeful that the tragedy has occurred, because it gives them more opportunity to take pot shots.
Lots of mistakes have been made at all levels. It is always so in disaster relief. (After Hurricane Hugo in 1989, Senator Hollings said FEMA was a bunch of "bureaucratic jackasses.)
And it's a no-win situation. If President Bush does not go to the site, he doesn't care; if he does go; it's a photo op. [...].Pollinator 18:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Comment removed, I know those claims are opportunistic and lose-lose, but please don't flame, it will only make you look bad.Voice of All(MTG) 18:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
FEMA was a bunch of bureaucratic jackasses in 1989. Clinton brought in his Arkansas Office of Emergency Management director who had done a great job, and he turned FEMA into a crack outfit. Bush even praised the guy's performance in Texas disasters during the first debate. Then when he got in, he gave the guy the boot and installed his campaign manager. Then that guy left, and was succeeded by his deputy, who he had brought in because he was his college roommate and the guy had lost his job as an administrator of judging at the association of arabian thoroughbred horses. (not making this up). And then FEMA got stuck under the dept of homeland security, and even this guy feels frustrated. And even though mistakes have been made at all levels, do you believe anybody will admit to any, let alone get fired over them? Gzuckier 05:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
If you think someone is trolling, it's usually best just to ignore it. android79 18:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
You are probably right. But I've been in three hurricanes myself and worked relief in two more, and this shrill harping and pointing fingers always comes up. It hurts morale among those who are really trying to help. Pollinator 18:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
If he goes to the site to see and be seen, then he loses, The White House operates like 10 Helicopters - so he could have gone there with 10 helicopters and made a difference. He could grabbed a general and marched into the worst part of the flood with a caravan of supplies and boats. This could all be organized in 90 minutes. Instead, he was celebrating this and vacationing that. Elected officials get paid to do a lot of nothing - we expect them to be planning for emergencies, (FEME for exmaple) so when we have an emergency we get to see hwether thay have been merely enjoying the high life, or doing their job. I think its abundantly clear now which it is. Benjamin Gatti
Michael Chertoff calling the presence of desperate people at the New Orleans Convention Center a "rumor" was pretty bad. Chertoff saying that "this major breach of the levees was outside the scope of what people reasonably foresaw" was worse. That one falls in the category of making up a plausible excuse out of your head and hoping that it will magically be true. Bush calling the relief efforts "unsatisfactory," was good. But then, not following up, not holding anyone accountable, and praising Chertoff is pretty bad. I'm not sure where the buck stops in this administration. I almost get the impression that Bush is trying to pass the buck to New Orleans and Louisiana officials. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Benjamin, while I would agree that Bush could have done more using his presidencial powers(executive orders, emergy powers ect...), I don't think he could have helped directly, as he is not a professional. He would only hinder a resue missions because he is just a civilian without harnass/medical experience. Therefore, even if he acted like a rescuer using White House helicopters, it would only be a political stunt.
dpbsmith, I think that everyone is shifting blame around, not just the president. We need to put all this down and concentrate on everyone's mistakes, on all levels, so that damge from future disasters can perhaps be minimized.Voice of All(MTG) 20:45, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Android, this post was not intended to be a troll. I am merely commenting on a pattern I have observed. Bush does stage photo-ops. All the examples I gave are very well documented and not just a left-wing conspiracy theories.
Pollinator, Benjamin, and Dpbsmith, I think you are missing the topic of my original question. I am asking if there is a pattern with staged photo-ops with Bush. Kgrr 20:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a troll, though it seems others have interpreted it that way. Regarding the photo ops: I don't think Bush is the only politician that has staged things for political advantage. And, IIRC, the "fake turkey" thing was misreported. android79 03:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be difficult to find any kind of reasonably objective measure that would show that he does so much more of it than other Presidents that it would be an encyclopedic fact. I don't think you're ever likely to get consensus on this. And your very use of the phrase "Potemkin village" shows that it is hardly a new phenomenon. Since my mother taught me that the essence of a lie was not the literal truth of a statement, but the intention to deceive, I think that all such staged photo-ops are lies and I would like to see them all exposed. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Android, the fake turkey was all a stage show - plastic. The Guardian is a reliable news source.[6] and so is the Seattle Times [7] It's part of the plastic image that I think needs to be recorded in this article. Smith, Yes, clearly the intention of a "Potemkin Village" is to deceive. Unfortunately what this encyclopedia article needs to reflect is that there is a lot of effort being put forth to create a home-town tough guy image that is really not there. Bush led a very sheltered life and has mostly gotten a free ride through private schools, his Yale party days, the military and Harvard. His political and oil careers came mostly on the coat tails of his Dad. Albeit, every politician is involved in image shaping. However, it seems that Bush needs to fight *much harder* than other Presidents to keep up his image. For example, the Mission Accomplished photo-op was to signal the end of the war. We are supposed to be working a peace-keeping mission now. We are never shown caskets or pictures of dead bodies - it's all a deception to keep us engaged in a war of agression (it's not a war preemption or defense of the country) Until these lies are exposed, I believe this article is politically biased. In fairness, I believe a section covering the Potemkin village should be created. Kgrr 14:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I see it the same way you do. Roughly half of the country sees it differently from me. Regardless of what you and I think, nothing is going to get into the article and stick unless it passes muster with both Bush opponents and supporters. You'd better start looking for reasonably neutral, quotable sources that say that this administration is notable for its use of more plastic turkeys than other administrations.
Actually, if you've ever watched photographers, they're an amazingly dishonest bunch. I'm not saying it happened this way, but even IF Bush had personally served a big platter of real turkey to hungry servicemen, it is perfectly plausible to imagine a photographer saying, "OK, now let's get another, only this time stand over here where the background is better, and let's use this plastic turkey because it photographs much better than the real one." Probably half the food in any published photo is fake or inedible or has had motor oil sprayed on it to make it look juicy or something.
IIRC the famous photo of the Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima had, uh, problems....
Now, if Bush were the kind of person I'd like to imagine a President as being, I'd like to think he'd say "Go do something anatomically impossible, nobody is photographing me with a plastic turkey." But fussing about this still falls in the category of a "cheap shot." I loved it when Michael Moore caught Wolfowitz slobbering drool onto his comb, but, you know, that doesn't really have a lot to do with whether Wolfowitz is a good policymaker. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
P. S. If the radio is correct, George W. Bush's speech tonight will be made from Jackson Square in New Orleans... which will be empty except for lights, cameras, and technicians. No audience. Sounds like more plastic turkey to me. He probably could just as well make it from New Orleans Square in Disneyland. Come next spring I fully expect there to be a Mardi Gras celebration in the French Quarter with all sorts of press coverage about the brave recovery, while homeowners on lowlying ground will probably still be arguing with insurance agents about whether it was the hurricane or the flood that swept their houses away. If Bush he were to make the speech from Metairie, I'd be impressed. But none of this is stuff for the article, it has just a little bit of POV. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Bush abortion

Scimitar-

"When I said that we had proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that performed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time, who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion. The young lady does not want to go public, and without her willingness, we don't feel that we're on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because she would say it never happened... One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe v. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time. I'd just like the national media to ask him (Bush) if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America..." [8] [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a003c0d1227.htm]

(Comment moved from top of page to bottom of page)

  • To describe Flynt as "joining the frenzy of mudslinging" is not terribly encyclopedic. Furthermore, major changes should be discussed on the talk page first. Additionally, since we're a tertiary source of information, our references should be impecable (i.e. MSM, etc.). If it is the opinion of the majority of editors that this information should be included, go for it. I'm thinking, probably not. --Scimitar parley 22:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • major changes? i do not know what MSM is, i guess its one of those laughable news agencies the americans have for feeding them the lies they need and love. the fact that he is being criticised by Flynt remains a fact. "majority of editors"? free information!
    • MSM means mainstream media, which an atheist Bush-hate site is not. Please do not introduce fringe conspiracies to Wikipedia. Harro5 10:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Shrug

Well, I tried being draconian, but there are too many IPs. Looking at the block log, it looks like many of them have been blocked - but there's only a certain amount of vandalism the article can take in a certain timeframe before you lock up.

I hope the Bush haters are happy - now they can't edit it at all. :) --Golbez 01:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

(cough)...semi-protection...(cough). Thanks Golbez for keeping up the blocks on vandalism. --kizzle 01:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
(cough)...semi-protection...(cough)...Amen brother...!--MONGO 02:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
(cough)...semi-protection...(cough)...you're preaching to the choir man!Voice of All(MTG) 03:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I've tried it before Golbez. It really is futile, we can't block a page until January of 09, no matter HOW many admins we have. The only non-legal page we kept locked is the Main Page, and all templates on it, to keep penises from the eyes of the casual visitor. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Wait, I'm so confused, why is this article locked? by locking it, aren't you basically letting the vandals have their way?--Wikiwarrior 03:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
No. I don't even see how that makes sense. We're making it so the SysOps have their way ;) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
2 out of the last 50 edits were useful, one of which was by a logged-in user. 21 vandalisms were performed by 17 unique non-logged-in IPs and 2 logged-in users. All within 21 hours. Can we protect pages so they can only be edited by logged-in users? DDerby(talk) 05:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
We tried to push that and I forget where the link is in :meta I think...Kizzle can probably direct you as he pointed it out to me.--MONGO 09:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

A note to anyone who unprotects this article (which I'll probably do in a few hours): Remember to then protect it from moving. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


" his administration culminated in September 2005"

This line is false by definition, as Mr. Bush is still President, we have no way of knowing if criticism has culminated, which of course means a "high water mark" Suggest changing to: "Criticism reached new heights" or "Some argue that criticism for his administration crystalized in September 2005" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.239.61.39 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"However, some praised the actions of his administration and others shifted criticism to state and local governments of the region."

Can we be more specific about the "some" who "praised" the federal response to Katrina? And a link maybe? Otherwise I think it should go. The criticism is attributed to many victims, the praise to an unspecified "some." Like many people, I have been following this story closely, and although I have seen the federal response excused, the only praise I have heard has come from feds themselves (Bush telling "Brownie" he's doing a great job, Sen. Landrieu praising Bush, etc.) And even Bush himself flip-flopped, having first stated that the response was "unacceptable." And the reaction to the response from some conservative commentators like David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, and others has been extremely negative. So can we have some specifics please, or are we just making stuff up and calling that balance? 68.110.199.122 15:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont know about any praise. Bush never said the response was unacceptable though. He said the results were unacceptable. Banes 11:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Good, then I'll change the word "praise" to "defend." 68.110.199.122 02:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Scratch that, I see an edit has already been done. 68.110.199.122 02:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoils System

Something about the Spoils System should be added to his article, it is very clear he has used this system for the majority of his nomination and appointments and it can still reside within a NPOV --64.251.52.4 14:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

What would be the point? It is almost axiomatic that when given the opportunity, the President, and anyone in power, will appoint or promote people to positions based on such things as personal or political support, loyalty and allegence, or simply following the beat of the same drummer. Who was the last appointee to any federal office who was unanimously thought to be the best qualified? Who was the last President not guilty of the same? --JJLatWiki 22:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


George W. Bush has a lower approval rating proving Americans are getting smarter. Hopefully they will show it on the next election by voting someone who isn't a religious right wing nut.

People like you are so funny. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
And people like you are sheep. "We are not sheep." -Edward Scissorhands

Russian translation

Is it really appropriate to have Bush's name in Russian here? I know we do it for others, but I thought that was only for foreign names. --Scimitar parley 23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Already reverted. Much to my surprise, Babelfish said that it was a legitimate translation. I suspected "monkey brain" or somesuch. android79 23:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Items in Further Reading Section

Several so-called ultraliberal books that have been added recently (not by me) have been removed (Redwolf24 "reverting the addition of about 12 ultraliberal books to further reading. This isn't to endorse Bush, but rather to make Wikipedia seem NPOV".) While I make no assertions to the contents of these books, I do believe that these books definitely do fit into this article as they are valid references and have been properly published. The correct way to make Wikipedia seem more NPOV would be to add several pro-Bush books instead of removing anti-Bush books. Otherwise it's just a form of censorship, and Wikipedia should not support that. 212.147.95.59 00:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Censorship eh? I was trying to keep it NPOV, and I coculd either remove those, or spend an hour finding some books no one has heard of in which the author wants some people to see them. Removing them was faster and easier. Also, I am normally a follower of the 1RR rule, so if any registered user (who isnt an account just made) puts them back, I'll leave them be. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Links to legit books is not POV. Your laziness is not an excuse for censorship. If you don't want to look up pro-Bush books, leave a note here asking somebody less lazy to do it. 68.110.199.122 02:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Why not link to the National Enquirer or any other number of ridiculous far out "books".--MONGO 02:11, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
False comparison. 68.110.199.122 02:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Most of the books don't really even seem notable. We aren't just a repository of books about Bush. Plus about calling me lazy, you didn't find the pro-Bush books yourself, showing you seem to be POV-pushing. And just so you know, I'm apolitical. I'm not Republican or Democratic. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Agenda pushing is teh sux. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's fine without the books. (Liberal here, but some random anti-Bush books aren't necessarily notable) Ral315 02:19, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Redwolf, you yourself wrote that you adopted the course of action because it was "faster and easier." Is that the way Wikipedia problems should be solved? And I never accused you of any kind of Republican bias. I only said that you were censoring out of laziness. And I stand by that. I don't even know what the books were. I just have a real problem with deletions in general, and especially when resorted to because it is "faster and easier" than other, possibly better solutions. You don't want to do something right, post a note here and ask someone else to do it.68.110.199.122 02:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't matter anyway, note the consensus against them? We will remove anything that fails to meet WP:NPOV. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest all books that are not cited as a source in the main article should be removed. Since the contents of the books are not included and therefor vetted in the main article, mentioning them is inappropriate. A real encyclopedia does not attempt to be a compendium of works related to the subject, whether they present positive or negative views of the subject. There are plenty of, and more complete, resources for such lists. Simply trying to balance the supporters against the critics is not a neutralizing solution. Non-scholarly works, as ALL of the "Further Reading" links are, should be used and mentioned as sparingly as possible and listed ONLY when they are used as the source of information in the main article. In my opinion, as an encyclopedia, if they are cited as a source of information, such non-scholarly works should never be the sole source of information. Multiple independent sources should be required if they are non-scholarly. I think infamous works are appropriate to be mentioned in an encyclopedia such as Mr. Moore's F9/11, but ABSOLUTELY NEVER as a source of information. In my opinion, even though Mr. Moore's film is a work of fiction presented as a documentary, its infamy warrants mention in Bush's article. But no other such work, either written or filmed, is so infamous as to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Supporters of Bush must accept the influence that F9/11 wields, but the text regarding the movie in the Bush article must be unadorned and briefly, matter of fact. --JJLatWiki 00:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What influence is that? Bush was reelected even though Moore timed the films release to have maximum impact against that happening. The only influence I had from the movie is that once again, Moore proves he's still good at making stuff up to fit his politics.--MONGO 00:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
You'll get no argument from me that Moore's work is absolutely a work of fiction, but by "influence", I meant it more as in "notoriety" than "impact". F9/11 was extrememly influential on weak, especially young minds, and its ultimate influence will influence the generation of voters who elect our next several presidents. And just because his goal wasn't achieved, doesn't mean it had no influence. Take Moore out of the picture, and the election might have been even more clear. Bush could have had a more obvious mandate, as Moore complains he didn't for the first election. Bush might have had a stronger second term. Who knows? But would you argue that F9/11 has NO place in an encyclopedia entry regarding GWB? --JJLatWiki 04:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
No I wouldn't argue that it doesn't belong, but I disagree that the youth of the land have been greatly influenced to the point that future politics will be shaped by Moore's perversions of truth. I thought we had a link already to that film and a nice little vidcap that also appears in the movie of Bush reading about a pet goat. It's a wiki so edit away.--MONGO 04:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure there is a link to the movie. I think its inclusion here can withstand scrutiny. It's the list under Further Reading that I'm really talking about. I think none of them belong here. But I don't like editing an encyclopedia before some review process and I especially don't want to waste my time editing it if someone else is going to cry foul when they're removed and put them back in. Do you agree with the position that they are inappropriate in an encyclopedia? Does anyone else have an opinion? --JJLatWiki 14:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"Further reading" is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia. That "-pedia" root means to teach. An encyclopedia article isn't supposed to be the be-all and end-all of a subject, it's a learning tool and should indicate where to go to learn more than is provied in the article. Bibliographies are found, as far as I know, in all encyclopedias, and are not limited merely to citing the sources used in the article. For example, opening the Eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, volume I find an article on "Baxter, Richard" which gives a chatty and commentary on about a dozen volumes, concluding "More recent estimates of Baxter are those given by John Tulloch in his English Puritanism and its Leaders, mentions a statue of Baxter, and notes that "there is a good portrait of Baxter in the Williams library, Gordon Square, London." These books are useful information, relevant to the subject, and could well be a research source for further work on the article (and thus might eventually become citations). What purpose, precisely, is served by their removal? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Does the Encyclopedia Britannica "list" 30 books on the subjects, or are those books actually talked about in the article itself? Are the books mentioned in Britannica scholarly, or are they the typical fluff, op-ed, garbage that most of the books in the Further Reading are? Your example clearly shows a reference to the book, not a simple list. I would agree with your position if someone said in the main Bush article, "More recent esitmates of Bush are those given by John Podhoretz in Bush Country : How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane" or "Bush and members his Cabinet are lambasted in the quasi-documentary by Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11, which gained notoriety for...". Instead, the list is just a hodge-podge of unremarkable editorials that take no responsibility for their equivocal content. The list does not offer children someplace they can go to learn more about the subject, unless the child is learning the best way to find information that supports their opinion. --JJLatWiki 00:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The Britannica example cited includes about a dozen books. I didn't bother to cite it in full. They are not simply references used in the article itself. If the list of books for further reading in the Bush article is of low quality, then replace it with a better list. But don't say that "further reading" is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Tongue in Pig Incident

Sept. 14, 2005

Look at the section on Bush's college education. Err, is that true? How could I have missed this story? -Winston Laremy

I've removed it. If someone provides a source, then we can consider whether it's worth mentioning. JamesMLane 16:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV?

For several months this article was essentialy a hotbed of POV disputes. I was quite shocked to find the tag had been removed upon my visit just now. For what reason has the NPOV tag been removed?

I'm not sure. The last vote resulted in a consensus to keep it, as far as I can tell (look up the page about 10 sections).—chris.lawson (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure consensus was to keep it. Someone else calculated that 65% voted remove, and it was "close, but no cigar." The one anon user shouldn't count in this instance. I know this isn't AfD or anything, but how do we know there was no sock vote? And two-thirds is a guideline, not a policy. It was rather close to say it's not 66.66666...% POV issues had been addressed, and the article is pretty darn NPOV. I call for another straw poll on removal. If you vote keep, would you mind pointing out areas of the article that are horribly POV? We should give it a week or so. This talk page is usually pretty snappy. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Tag removed - I thought we agreed to tag invidual sections instead of the whole article? Just tagging the whole article doesn't help editors at all. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Remove POV Tag

  1. Remove. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Remove Didn't we just vote on this? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    No kidding... but some people keep putting the tag back on and nitpicking the guidelines. Hopefully, this time we can make it clear the tag should go. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Remove - Tεxτurε 21:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Remove as before, and replace only if a significant new dispute arises or there are major changes to the article that raise new questions about its neutrality. Dispute tags are for serious, active disputes, not minor, potential or past disputes. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 02:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Remove. And I thought I just voted yesterday ;-).Voice of All (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep POV Tag

  1. Keep. Adding something negative to every positive thing, or adding something positive to every negative thing, (ie. "others people defended the federal response to Katrina"--- who among us really thinks the feds did a good job?) doesn't make an article NPOV. Sdauson 02:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • A) Yes it does, B) Please use section tags not a whole article tag Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Keep Problem is that almost every section has been hotly contested by one editor or another over and over...the intro discusses back and forth the elections, changing from "contoversial" to "close" to congressionally challenged, etc. The personal life has been argued ad nauseum back and forth especially in regards to drug and alcohol abuse. The business section has been argued as to his involvement with the oil industry and with Baseball. The perceptions section has been discussed back and forth as to polling, and other related topics. What we have now for a lot of editors is a version that is a compromise, but that doesn't make it neutral...much of the information and the wording of such is POV and most of that is more negative than positive.--MONGO 03:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Keep The fact that we're even holding this discussion proves the point. olki 10:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Keep Yet again. This time, don't just remove the tag and claim something else was agreed upon when that something else wasn't even mentioned in the poll...<looks at ryan> -bro 70.110.5.170 23:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

POV

The Arthur Blessit innuendo is just the claim of that one person, and isn't substantiated....for the record, the only proven meetings with any evangelist are the ones with Billy Graham. That is why I took this out. The 2004 election results were not congressionally challenged so putting in that wording is inaccurate...some in congress may have "questioned" the results, but that is very different than a congressionally challenged outcome.--MONGO 20:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, we could attribute the innuedo to the person who claimed it. I agree with you on the congressionally challenged part :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
No, Blessitt only stated it to get him noticed...there is zero evidence that any chance meeting they had was the impetus towards Bush either becoming "reborn" or converting to Methodism. I have doubts that Graham even had that much major influence and atribute a lot of Bush's current religious views as much to his wife as anything else.--MONGO 03:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


Bush's support in Australia

I believe the comments about Bush's support in Australia needs a reference to verify. Being from Australia I find it hard to believe that 'George Bush had always had a positive image' and 'Support had gone up'. Where did these (verifiable) statements come from? Durng the last election there was on online poll in the Melbourne Age newspaper which ended up with around 80% support for Al Gore. Although the Australian P.M. (John Howard) supports Bush and the war in Iraq I believe the opposite is true for the majority of Australian people. ScottRShannon 00:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, 'George Bush had always had a positive image' is almost certainly false - most polls I've seen show a clear majority of Australians disagreeing with his politics. 203.173.27.16 01:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes but what relevance does it have to an article on an American President?...you can alter it if you can cite all the necessary references.--MONGO 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Definitely not, Bush's support in Australia begins and ends with the Prime Minister. I would recommend some of the authors of this article to read Lathan Diaries to see what the other Australia thinks.

--tequendamia 13:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Bush

You should have ratified the Kyoto Protocol you useless piece of shit.

With such a fine display of opinion surely worthy of direct attention, why not just email him here: [9]--MONGO 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Good thing you said whitehouse.gov rather than whitehouse.com ; - ) Redwolf24 (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure all the people who think Bush should have ratified Kyoto have SAID the EXACT same thing to Bill Clinton. --JJLatWiki 14:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Clinton tried but couldn't sign the US into it because the republicans in congress blocked its passage--69.42.4.3 06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Got a couple of facts for you-

1) Kyoto was never submitted for ratification by Clinton- there is no procedural way for the Senate to prevent a President from submitting a treaty for consideration. They might be able to delay the actual vote, but not the submission.

2) the Senate passed a resolution stating that they would not ratify the Kyoto treaty if it contained certain clauses (I think it was the exemption from any limit for developing countries), and that resolution passed 95-0. Considering that there have never been 95 Republican Senators in the history of the republic, do you think that maybe blaming the Republicans for this might be just a bit biased? -rosignol


Yeah I mean, you know how easy the liberal media was on clinton?right?what a free ride, so they called him buba all the time, used the words scumbag, amoral, ruined america.. I think the point here is that the media is clearly liberal, and they've been giving the clintons a free ride for far too long--152.163.100.9 23:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Have you ever watched FOX news? The Wookieepedian 07:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yale grade points sentence

The sentence says "...scoring a overall grade point better." Maybe "scoring one grade point higher, overall."? This may also be confusing because the paragraph refers to two different grade point systems, with one grade point being a huge margin on a 4 point scale, and a small margin on a 100 point scale (if that is what the Yale system is).67.120.104.151 05:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, but instead of editing the passage, I've deleted it. The article about Bush doesn't need to talk about someone else's college grades. JamesMLane 04:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Fell of the Wagon?

Reports indicate that the President is drinking again, amidst the pressure of the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the mishandling of the Hurricane. Personally, I believe this should be included in the article, but, as I am VERY biased on the subject, did not feal that I should include it myself. Yes, one of the references is the National Inquirer, but they are the ones who broke the story on Rush Limbaugh and his oxycontin abuse. [10] [11] Autopilots 20:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, rumours rarely make for good encyclopedia fodder, but if it pans out, some updating might be in order. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
In all fairness to the president, was he ever really on the wagon in the first place>?? I mean have you heard what happends when he opens his mouth and tries to make words come out??--152.163.100.9 23:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
yea but now there's an ACTUAL news report. It should be noted in the article if the story breaks.
Oh, please. It's NOT an actual news report - it's an opinion column by a Bush-hater, and references the original National Enquirer piece!

[12] [13]

If pressed to find two less reliable sources than those, I couldn't. Call back when a reputable source claims Bush is drinking. Rhobite 02:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The national enquirer was good enough for the republicans to spread "news" about the bill clinton-monica lewinsky affair. Funny how memory is convenient like that.Autopilots 03:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget their outlandish 'rumors' about Rush Limbaugh's surplus drug addiction!

--Lamrock 15:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

We didn't need the national enquirer for news about the Clinton affair....as soon as he bit his bottom lip and said "I did not have sex with that woman...." we all knew he did. And when as far as Rush Limbaugh is concerned, when he becomes president of the United States, maybe you'll have a point.

When more, er, reliable media outlets deem this rumour story-worthy (i.e., when there's something more than unsubstantiated rumour), then, and only then, will it have the possibility of being encyclopedic.--chris.lawson 15:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


All in favour for publishing this rumour just now say AYE all those who aren't (or wish to wait) say NAY:

NAY I will wait until it pans out --Chazz88 16:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia going to document every last detail?

The people who hate Bush are turning this Article (the entire article, not just a few fringes) into their own personal daily diary of reasons they hate Bush. The Katrina situation is a prime example. Why not just create a section called, "It's Bush's Fault"? Then add item number 722, Katrina, with a link to that article.

I don't like Bush and never have, but what is it that keeps people from treating him fairly? I don't mean "fairly" as in changing an intentional insult from "Bush refused to let the worst natural disaster in modern history cut into his month-long vacation." to "Bush was informed of the hurricane while vacationing and he decided to do a fly-over on his way back to Washington." I mean that we use our critical thinking skills and be honest about what we put in here, and not use an encyclopedia as the chronical of his daily mistake. How much does it matter that the president was "on vacation"? Does anyone think he was lounging on a beach turning away every staffer bring reports and paperwork for him to sign as if they were flies on a picnic? How many times did he sign his name while on this "vacation"? (and I don't mean room-service receipts) How many reports did he read? How many calls to other government officials, and officials from other countries did he make?

Honest means that if you add to the article blaming Bush for the severity of the Katrina (and Rita) because he didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, then show us that you first blamed Clinton for doing the same. If you blame Bush for ignoring the danger caused by the New Orleans levees and marshland destruction, show us that you blame all the previous presidents who did the same. Research how much federal money has been given to Louisiana and New Orleans for their levees and how much actually got put into building, repairing, and maintaining the levees. Tell us why the levee failure and the aftermath is more Bush's fault than Clinton's, or congress' (past and present), the past and present legislature of the state of Louisiana, the past and present Louisiana governor, past and present New Orleans city council, past and present Mayor of New Orleans, and the voters who made some of the actual decisions on how and where money should be directed.

Politicians and reporters have the luxory of pointing the finger at the high man on the totem pole. An encyclopedia has the responsibility to look beyond rhetoric and bias. This article is one of the best examples of Wikipedia's systemic bias and why it's an unreliable source of information for remotely political information. --JJLatWiki 23:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Very well said JJLatWiki. I agree on most of your points. An encylopedia article should be as unbiased as possible and it seems that many are trying to push their POV in order to sway people to their viewpoint. Maltmomma (chat) 00:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
So basically you are saying this aryicle has too many facts? Bush's mistakes should be chronicled if this article is going to be worth reading. The most powerful man in the U.S. should have his actions and decisions scrutinized. To state a fact is not bias, as long as all facts are allowed, including those that might make Bush appear in a favorable light. Complain about presentation -- I'm on your side there -- but it's censorship you are advocating if your calling for the removal of factual infromation like "Bush did a flyover days after the hurricane hit." 68.9.184.173 18:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Diane Ravitch should write a sequel to The Language Police titled The Language Police 2: The Plot to Take Over Wikipedia ; - ) Redwolf24 (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Maltmomma. What concerns me most about the one-sided contributions in this article and many other political articles is the effect it will have on children using Wikipedia for research. SO much energy goes into documenting every step THIS president makes while the background is completely ignored. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, editors of this article don't take on the responsibility of researching the background of their contributions to this article. For the sake of completeness of the encyclopedia as a whole, they should do more than simply adding one factoid to one article. For example, if a child were researching the UNFPA and using only the pages of Wikipedia, that child might assume that UNFPA has existed since 1969 and that the United States has been contributing unconditional funds until 2002 when suddenly Bush withdrew funding based on his own claims. Whomever added the FACT that Bush cut funding to UNFPA should have researched deeper and added that Reagan cut funding citing similar claims, and Bush/41 continued to withhold funding for the same reasons, and while Clinton restored overall funding to the UNFPA, he conditioned the funding based on the same claims that Reagan and both Bush's cited. The facts surrounding the UNFPA factoid should have caused corresponding factual entries in at least the articles for Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and UNFPA. I understand that people hate Bush, and in a blog debate, there's no reason to be completely honest. But this is an encyclopedia that happens to be a very popular source of information for a great many people. If you're contributions are motivated by such strong emotions, then you probably shouldn't contribute at all. Just like driving a car, if your emotions are getting the better of you, don't get behind the wheel. --JJLatWiki 17:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The article reports that Bush supported three major tax cuts. Should it add that Reagan also pushed through big tax cuts, and that Bush 41 and Clinton both raised taxes? For that matter, I think some Republicans cited JFK's tax cut of 40 years earlier as an example of tax cutting promoting economic growth, so does that need to be mentioned, too? The point of my question is that the article about Bush can't give the full history of every issue he's affected. That's what the hyperlinks are for. The fact is that Bush's action with regard to UNFPA has been a significant issue during his presidency in terms of the public attention paid to it (more so than many matters that involved much more money). That action by Bush is therefore an appropriate topic for the Bush article. I suggest you find citations for the earlier history you recount, write it up in NPOV style, and add it to United Nations Population Fund#UNFPA and the United States Government. Currently, that section's history doesn't go back before 2002. JamesMLane 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that the UNFPA subject had any significant attention paid to it. I doubt more than a handful of people are aware of its existance or ANY of the history of the UNFPA. And the fact that the editor who added it to Bush's article utterly and completely neglected to beef up the history of the UNFPA article tells me that contributing another negative phrase to the Bush article was the one and only motivation. The reason I haven't beefed up the UNFPA or the other articles I mentioned is that I personally don't care about it. I shouldn't be paying for it and it shouldn't be controversal that the US isn't contributing. But it IS apparently significant to the editor who added it. When I contribute edits, I research the subject of my edit and try to contribute to related subjects or at least browse them to see how accurate and complete they are. All the facts regarding UNFPA shouldn't be part of this article. Of course they should primarily be part of the main UNFPA article, but the way most editors of this article operate, they make Wikipedia seem more like a political blog than an encyclopedia. The Bush-hater's efforts to make this article a laundry list of ONLY the factual data that supports THEIR biased opinion taints the article and casts a biased shadow on the whole of Wikipedia. I point to the suggestions to include the Googlebomb and fell of the wagon. --JJLatWiki 21:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Virtual elimination of National Guard and substance abuse controversies

We had interminable discussions here about these controversial aspects of Bush's bio. The wording that emerged was a compromise that was stable for a while. A recent edit removed the summary of the TANG issues, removed the link to that daughter article, removed all the substance-abuse material (including even Bush's DUI conviction), and removed the link to that daughter article. I'm restoring these points -- not in the proper presentation that I think they warrant, but in the truncated compromise version. On a less contentious note, I also think that Bush's daughters should be named in the text of his bio, not just in a photo caption. JamesMLane 04:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't do it...!! Also, do you mean named, or expanded to include their altercations with the law due to drinking? I would support the former and oppose the latter as that sets up precedence for inclusion of court testimony of Ted Kennedy (in that bio) at his nephew's trial, which I don't support anyway aside from a footnote at best. Go ahead and put the daughters in of course.--MONGO 04:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I said "named", I meant "named". Their names were in the text of the article all along but were removed yesterday. I've now restored that passage to the language that's been there for quite some time. The Bush twins' chip-off-the-old-block histories of alcohol abuse and entanglements with the law should, I agree, continue to be detailed in their article, not here. In the future, if they manage to get into so much trouble that it becomes politically significant, we can reconsider. JamesMLane 05:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Why wouldn't Karl Rove be directing someone to do such sanitizing on a regular basis? Surely, they just wouldnt allow any such negative information to remain in the public view on such a popular forum if there was anything they could do about it.

George Bush: Cheerleader in college?

If this is true shouldn't it be in here? It is definately encyclopedic? Comments

I would expect to find it in the new Early life of George W. Bush article. I'd be wrong, but there you go. Jkelly 03:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Categories seem to need pruning

This is a list of the categories of which this article is a member.

This seems a little excessive to me. There's also quite a lot of redundancy (category George W. Bush is a member of category Bush family, and so on). Would anybody mind if I prune the cats a bit? --Tony SidawayTalk 19:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind so long as we don't leave in such cats as Category:CIA leak scandal...which I'm not sure even deserves a category to begin with.--MONGO 05:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That cat seems to be about the Plame affair, and as there was a White House investigation into that I didn't feel able to remove it. These are the ones I ended up removing:

  1. 12:37, 26 September 2005 Tony Sidaway (→External links - rm Category:LGBT rights opposition (no evidence in article), Category:Intelligent design advocates (no evidence in article))
  2. (cur) (last) 12:34, 26 September 2005 Tony Sidaway (→External links - rm Category:U.S. politicians (already under U.S. Presidents, etc))
  3. (cur) (last) 12:33, 26 September 2005 Tony Sidaway m (→External links - rm Category:Texas history (Governors of Texas is a subcat))
  4. (cur) (last) 12:27, 26 September 2005 Tony Sidaway m (→External links - rm Category:Business leaders (already in CEOs) Category:Texas politicians (already in governors of Texas))
  5. (cur) (last) 12:22, 26 September 2005 Tony Sidaway (→External links - rm Category:Bush family (a subcat is already a member), Category:George H.W. Bush (inappropriate), Category:Drunk drivers (silly cat))

--Tony SidawayTalk 12:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well Tony, some of them have already been put back into the article. Nice effort though. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Early life section

I have replaced the current early life section with the summarized version I wrote the other day.

Friday (September 23) I moved the contents of the old "Early Life" section to a new article, Early life of George W. Bush as part of a sporadic project of mine to break up larger articles (especially this one, as it was taking a very long time to load--and revert vandalism--over my 28.8k dialup connection, and was even worse when the site was slow). I then wrote a summary of the original content, as is suggested in the guidelines for breaking up long pages. Someone (I'm not sure who, and I really don't want to go through the entire edit history to find out, since I don't care who all that much) restored the original content; I realize this was done with the best of intentions, but I see no reason for having a perfect duplicate of a sub-article in the main article. Perhaps the summary isn't perfect, but when there is a daughter article (as I have created in this case) it is better to have a summary and update it if necessary than to simply have a duplication (which defeats the whole purpose of breaking up articles). Kurt Weber 21:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This page does load up slow, even on my high speed cable connection. Usually, when a daughter article is created, it is greatly expanded over the version on the main article, as you have done. If anything, however, keeping basic bio of the subject such as the early life section, would be best left in the main article, and taking other sections that are less introductory and daugtherizing them might be best.--MONGO 05:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to go through the entire edit history to find out what happened. Just look at this talk page. I restored the material and wrote an explanation here at the time. In an article as heavily edited as this one, a major change such as the one you made should probably have been proposed and discussed before being made -- especially when it drastically alters the sections that have been especially contentious. (Note that Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 26 is almost entirely about the substance abuse passage, and there's lots of related discussion in several other archives as well.)
I have no objection to the general approach of moving details to daughter articles and leaving a summary in a main article. That's exactly what's been done here. The material you removed is the summary, one that emerged from literally hundreds of person-hours of editing. You also removed the links to the detailed daughter articles on George W. Bush military service controversy and George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. Regardless of what's in those daughter articles or in the new one you created, the main biographical article about Bush must contain the basic information about important aspects of his life, not just his presidency. Taking the article from 85kb to 82kb doesn't justify eliminating Bush's DUI, his own description of his life-changing decision to stop drinking, etc. JamesMLane 10:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I knew you'd see that it was missing from Weber's editing so I put it back...hope it's still there. Apparently a number of areas were daughterized but it becoming harder to locate what and to where they went. I agree that the article is too long and trimming is needed and think weber has acted in good faith, being new to the article, he probably didn't know about some of the conteniousness of some of the sections. Maybe a tag at the top f the article requesting any major changes should first go through the talk page?--MONGO 16:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"the voting system has played a major part in his gaining and keeping of the Presidency."

This is very simply wrong because, as is too typical, it is a politically motivated personal attack based on emotionalism, and the politics of hate over objectivism. This is starkly exemplified by the fact that such "contributors" completely neglect the fact that Bush handily won the 2004 elections via Constitutional Law (as he did in 2000) AND popular vote. The very suggestion of voter fraud (none of which has ever been proven) plunges wikipedia to the level of a pulp conspiracy-theory novella. Alas, Wikipedia is only as good as its community. Communal ignorance and bias results in a biased and therefore worthless encyclopedia. The viability of Wikipedia hinges on eliminating biasness, ignorance and hate. Rather difficult I'd say. TLY.

Is this a criticism of him that is actually being made? I find it hard to believe, just because it's so retarded...it's a tautology. If this is a criticism that people are actually making, then however retarded a criticism it might be, it does belong in the article--but I have a hard time believing that anyone would proffer such a retarded notion as a "criticism". Kurt Weber 22:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

While I'd use less inflammatory language, I essentially agree with Kurt. Sources, please. android79 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's meant in a tautological manner, and it's true that there have been widespread allegations of fraud against Diebold, manufacturer of (among other things) voting machines, whose CEO "committed to deliver the state of Ohio to Bush in 2004" (yes, that's a quote from the CEO). But if this is going in the article, it really needs to be rephrased. I think the basic intent of it is to say that Bush has been widely criticised for winning elections whose veracity is doubtful, which seems fairly true to me, what with hanging chads, the Palm Beach County ballot problems, and the whole Diebold mess.--chris.lawson 22:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I thought he was talking about perceived flaws in the electoral college, not vote fraud. We probably shouldn't engage in attempts at mind-reading. In any case, such criticism does not belong in the introduction, but in the Presidential campaigns section (at least not with such verbosity). android79 22:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
It was just a comment that, many worldwide opponent's of Bush state, that depending on the voting system used (STV, US Collegiate, First Past The Post etc). The fact that he went to court in the state where is brother was Governor to gain the presidency is a different matter. What I was pointing to was the fact that it is possible to gain the presidency without achieving the highest proportion of the casted vote. --Chazz88 23:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The electoral college system is designed so that a candidate with a minority of the popular vote can gain a majority of the electoral college vote. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and it's been around for some time. Why the sudden fuss? It's almost as if some people didn't know about it before the election :)--inks 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeh, it was actually the fourth time in history a popular vote loser won the electoral vote. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
1824 does not fit your statement. Nobody wins the electoral vote unless they receive a majority of the whole number of electors. There was no electoral vote "winner" in 1824, Adams won solely due to the vote of the House. NoSeptember 12:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
But it was the first time a president was elected by a state that given a full recount, would have gone to his opponent. --kizzle 02:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's still speculation, as the full recount was never actually performed. Do you know otherwise?--chris.lawson 02:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's speculation and it does not comport with the media pool's study as they watched the recount. Gore asked for a recount in only 4 of 67 counties so we'll never know for sure, but I don't believe it's true in this case. But I strongly believe the statement is wrong since the Rutherford B. Hayes election contained so much chicanery I strongly believe he'd have lost with a full and fair recount of any of several states. Additionally, a fair recount in Al Capone's homestate of Illinios may have changed the outcome of the 1960 election. However, this was not an election where the electoral winner did not win the popular vote. --JimmyCrackedCorn 04:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
No that's not speculation. You are right that the partial recount Gore advocated would have ended up with Bush still winning, however, given a full recount in which all the previously disqualified ballots were reviewed, Gore would have won. In other words, while the system picked Bush, the state of Florida picked Gore. That's not speculation, those are the findings of the recount performed by the AP. --kizzle 05:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Therefore my edits were valid. It was only due to the voting system that Bush got presidency. Furthermore, I didn't state this as a fact. I just stated BOTH sides of the argument. Going to rv --Chazz88 11:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The "system" to which Kizzle refers and the "voting system" to which you are referring are not the same thing. Your problems with the electoral college stem from ignorance on your part and have nothing to do with this article. Please stop reverting, or you'll be blocked for violation of Wikipedia's three-revert rule.--chris.lawson 11:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

there is no study, no recount, nothing to date that suggests Gore would've won not matter how you slice it (unless of course you discount votes for Bush). It's 2005, this has been studied, lied about, retorted, and retracted enough already, it's time to move on. Gore lost, by every and any count. Krugman may continue to try to distort reality, as the NYTimes has been doing now for years, but you can't rewrite history. Gore lost, let's move on.

would you please PLEASE check your facts before you post things like this? it's all very conveniently right here on wikipedia, in fact linked to from this article. clearly, under some scenarios, Gore would have won. if for example the florida supreme court's opinion (for a statewide recount) had not been overturned by the federal supreme court, Gore would have won. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000#The_Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts. on a personal side note, isn't it funny how conservatives reneg on their commitment to states' rights whenever it gets in their way?tej 18:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The wikilink does not say that. In fact, it says that if counting all state votes under Florida Supreme Court guidelines had been observed Bush would have won - as in the statement, "Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430" The article does say, however, if certain other methods (not approved by Florida Law or ordered by the Florida Supreme Court) of counting dimpled and etc ballots Gore would have won by up to 173 votes. Still even that is speculation based upon the Florida Project's estimations made by extrapolating what they saw in the counties that had done the manual recounts ore requested. --JimmyCrackedCorn 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

i'm confused. the 2000 election page says the florida supreme court ordered "a manual recount of disputed ballots in all Florida counties in which such a recount was not already complete." oh, ok, i think i understand now. if all ballots had been recounted, it would have shown Gore to be the winner, but if only the undervotes (undervote = disputed ballot?) were recounted, it still would have been Bush? it still seems odd in this case to argue that Bush actually "won" florida. i guess it depends on whether you are using a technical definition of "winning" or an abstract one. my opinion would be the real "winner" is the one more people voted for. according to the manual recount of all ballots, that person is Gore. in this case, the system provided an inaccurate measure.tej 22:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
To the best of our knowledge, the citizens of Florida picked Gore. Kevin Baastalk: new 23:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please speak for yourself. Lets look at the recounts, Bush one the first count, and the following count, and then the supreme court stopped the next one. To the best of my knowledge (notice it says my, and not our) the citizens picked Bush, the brother of their governor, who they also picked fair and square. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

i take it then, that you either haven't read the above information or you don't believe it. clearly, according to analysis of the florida election cited above, if every ballot had been counted, including the undervotes (where the voter's intention is clear even if they didn't understand technically how they were supposed to remove the chad or whatever), Gore would have been the winner. depending on your point of view, "Bush was elected" may be accurate (or may not be), but the fact that more citizens voted for Gore in florida is not, i believe, a matter in serious dispute. it's whether you believe those votes should have been counted or not according to our electoral system. in this case, i suppose what matters in terms of whether or not it's a "disputed election" is that the opposing candidate and his party do not dispute it (regardless of whether they perhaps should). but if you want to talk about what the citizens actually wanted, why not count every ballot?tej 21:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I've read the Wiki's on the 2000 election and information about the recount project, but I don't see where a full and actual recount of all ballots ever took place. Most of the numbers, especially those showing Gore as the winner, seem to be based on extrapolating data based on a small subset of the actual ballots. And based on that, others here are claiming as observable fact that Gore got more popular votes in Florida. Has there ever been a full recount?

By the way, can someone name a single election in which the voting system did not play a major part? Maybe the intent is that "the voting system's dispute process played a major part..." --JJLatWiki 18:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

So the fact that Bush only got the presidency by going to court, to avoid a fair recount, where his brother, just happened, to be governor of the state doesn't mean anything? The fact that every news station apart from Fox, a pro-bush station where a close friend/relative of Bush was on the decision desk that night, called Al Gore the winner and everyone believed the fact that Fox called it Bush must of meant it was Bush doesn't sound suspicious? --Chazz88 10:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Umm...no. Kurt Weber 15:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

After Bush was appointed by the Supreme court (or elected, or whatever you want to say - put in power by way of the de facto political process), the major newspapers got together and funded a state-wide recount - an actual physical full-blown recount, not a statistical guess - and published the results. Being the most comprehensive and direct/reliable measure available, said results, in which Gore recieved more votes than Bush in Florida, are the best of our knowledge. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the "never undertaken" refers to prior to Bush becoming the de facto President, and possibly to the fact that it was not initiated by a candidate, and did not have the power to overturn the ruling. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's throw away half of this article as biased! [crickets]

I was just browsing the Wiki when I stumbled upon this gem. By God's belly, this article is out of control! I see people citing the Wiki's nature as the reson for the bias, but I want to disagree. Love and hate are not bias in politics, they are the politics. All of the recent presidents here are blown out of proportions because we love and/or hate them so much, and our fundamental beliefs and feelings are actually what makes up much of the political knowledge. In other words: show me a single unbiased (and just as informative) article about W. Bush, and I will admit that Wiki dropped the ball on this one. We could throw away about half of this article and leave it unbiased, but why? I think, it is good enough that it's not locked down: with a topic this hot it shows that you, people, have done an exceptional job. Keep it up, you have my gratitude. melikamp 22:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

ha ha -- U.B.Joe|~Talk 21:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Employment Level?

Anyone know where the article comes up with the an employment level of 111,828,000 in June 2005? The US Government Bureau of Labor statistics Table A (household survey, includes self-employed) shows a seasonally unadjusted employment level of 142,456,000 people over 16 in June 2005. And a seasonally adjusted level of 141,638,000 in June of 2005. While Table B (nonfarm employer record data) shows an unadjusted employment level of 134,718,000 and an adjusted level of 133,588,000.

They all record employment levels higher than when Bush took office by December 2004.

Table A data source: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

Table B data source: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

If no one can provide a source for the article's current content I'm going to correct the numbers and source the data with a link this time.

Also unemployment rate is given from December 2000 as Bush's starting point. Figures BLS gives are typical of midmonth. Since Bush took office January 20th, 2001 the midmonth January figure is far more representative of what he started with than December. Anyone disagree?

If no comment, I'll assume agreement and make the change tomorrow at about noon EDT.

--JimmyCrackedCorn 03:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No comment. Assumed agreement. Making changes. --JimmyCrackedCorn 00:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


This table gives the number as 117 million in the household survey excluding military. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm. The figures you cite are not from the household survey, they are from the current population survey. The last survey tends to double count people with more than one job. --Gorgonzilla 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The True Dividers

It is TRULY DESPICABLE that Wikipedia is being flaunted for political purposes of the unsatisfiable left and right of the whole world!

Any small objection precipitates in a NEUTRALITY QUESTION-MARK. May I ask IF ANYONE REALIZES THAT THIS HURTS WIKIPEDIA'S REPUTATION MORE THAN MR. BUSH? Wikipedia is now a laughing-stock for degenerate behavior by many of its contributors, and as a war-field for the over, done-with 2004 presidential election.

FOR GOD'S SAKE, WAKE-UP! FREEZE THIS ARTICLE IF YOU LIKE, but stopping playing politics like nutty, real-life disappointments known as politicians on this article! Changing two lines will not change the world, OK???!!!!

FYI, I'm the most hardcore pro-Bush supporter in the world, and yet I endeavor to make a point for factuality and reasonability. Why blame him for dividing America and the world, if you guys can't even run a web encyclopedia properly?

- Nirav


i should say i'm 100% behind you on the 1st 2 paragraphs. you sound pretty intelligent. and that's what threw me off w/ the most hardcore Bush supporter thing. why?--Lamrock 07:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Youll be thrown off even more if I added that I consider him to be an Avatara of the Lord Vishnu, the Second Christ, the Messiah, the Great One...And may God have mercy on your soul! Regards, Nirav.
Well, he certainly isn't Buddha, and he seems a little early for Kalki. Where are you going with this delusion? Scientz 14:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Alcohol abuse

I'm surprised that this article does not mention the alcohol issue mentioned on Early life of George W. Bush. Bush himself admitted he once had the habit of drinking too much — which is usually referred to as alcoholism. Now, Bush has totally ceased consuming alcohol — a move characteristic of alcoholics who stopped drinking but fear they would start again if they touched one drop of alcohol.

This topic is, I think, of great importance. Alcohol abuse, to which Bush has confessed, is known for the damages that it inflicts on the brain and the mental capacities of alcohol abusers. In the case of a head of state, especially that of the United States, diminished mental capacities can have dire consequences.

Thus, I think that we should discuss the alcohol issue on this page, and not just stuff it to a side page that nobody notices.

Thanks for your attention. Truth in our time 09:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It is discussed. The DUI, his conversations with Billy Graham, his taped messages with Wead. There is no proof he was ever an alcoholic in a clinical sense...he admitted that he drank, there is a DUI conviction and he alluded to drug use...none of that is damning evidence that he is, was, or will be an alcoholic.--MONGO 10:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid that the word "alcohol" does not seem to appear in this article. Would you point out to me where Bush's alcohol issues are discussed? They don't even appear in Education, military service, and early personal life, which should be a summary of Early life of George W. Bush. Truth in our time 11:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
To be precise, you can call him an alcoholic, but he may not be one in the medical sense. A diagnosis of alcoholism is made with a help of scoring systems - e.g Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and Brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (BMAST), among others. Thus it is misleading to call him an alcoholic, especially given the negative connotations associated with that label.--inks 10:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, let's just say that he had an excessive consumption of alcohol, by his own admittance. By the way, since you seem to have medical experience, can you confirm that excessive consumption of alcohol is detrimental to the brain and correct mental functions, with chronic effects lasting even after excessive consumption has ended? Truth in our time 11:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I cannot confirm that. I am not an expert in the field, and have not reviewed any literature on the long term neurological effects of alcohol abuse (although you can do so yourself, using Pubmed[14]). The only effects of alcohol abuse I am confident about are liver and heart damage.--inks 22:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The section regarding drug and alcohol use was removed at an unknown time over the past few days...I restored it--MONGO 11:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

external links

The entire external links section looks like a liberal's book shopping list from amazon.

but I guess that's ok, huh, Admins?

That's not really the best way to get us to care about your complaint. Also, you're allowed to edit the article. --Golbez 20:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
As Golbez said, you can feel free to add notable, verifiable pro-Bush books. Also, by "I guess that's ok, huh, Admins?" do you mean you think the people who edited the External links section should be banned or otherwise punished? Adding a liberal-oriented book to External links is not a bannable offense, nor should it be. Neither is adding a conservative book, so be bold!. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 20:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I separated the books into pro-Bush, anti-Bush, and mostly neutral sections (I ended up finding one whole book to fit into the last section)! I also removed a book from the already bloated list that had very little to do with Bush.
I believe the current system not only makes the list easier to scan, but is also potentially helpful to Wikipedia users who are interested only in books with a particular bias. --Ashenai 10:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that all the books (pro or con) that focus on the Bush v. Gore decision and the Florida recount be dropped from the list here, and be listed in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 article. We can put a link here to that list, but Bush had little to do personally with the events involved, and this is a biography article of Bush. NoSeptember 11:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have moved the three books (all anti-Bush) that deal with the 2000 elections, not with Bush himself. --Ashenai 12:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the origional poster, user:Ed_Poor, user:MONGO, user:noitall, user:Redwolf24, and of course user:Agriculture along with assorted trolls and socks like yourself, are the most transparent secret liberals I've ever seen!! The reason it looks like they pretty much troll the entire encyclopedia removing things that offend bush supporters, is becasue they're secret liberals, helping to spread the scourge of communism by praising george bush, liberally, or centristly, I mean there's a clear liberal bias in the wiki, much like the one in the media, where networks like FOX, CNN, and MSNBC are really just pretending to fellate the egos of the republican party, while **secretly** being liberal in a way that defies detection, much like the 3 branches of the federal government controlled by the republican party, they're really part of a vast left wing conspiracy to pretend to republicans, whilst secretly dominating the country with hidden liberalness, just like wiki..
  • ..they must be stopped before they can complete their systematic attempts to insert secret liberalness into the wiki!--172.132.97.184 02:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
What!?--MONGO 06:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey, how do we know YOU are'nt a secret liberal, out to discredit republicans yourself?!!;) Banes 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
um, is the implication here that you have to be liberal to be anti-Bush? That's quite a strong assumption. "chaotic neutral" (or "sane non-evil") should really be enough for that 21:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"see"

What's with all the (see [X], [X2], [X3]) stuff? Can't we just include the citiations without the parenthesis and "see'? I would have just made the change, but it seems like it is being used widely throughout the article. If there is no reason for it being that way (not uniform with the rest of wikipedia might I add), I'll change it. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no single uniform citation method on Wikipedia. Some articles use footnotes, some an academic ("Harvard") style, some use inline links that are automatically numbered by the software, etc. See Wikipedia:Cite sources for more information. On an article like this one, about a controversial current-events topic, it's typical to have many citations to many different publications, because anyone who doesn't like a particular point challenges its proponent to provide a source. Under those circumstances, I think the numbered inline citations work best. People reading the article generally don't need to have the flow of the text broken up by the information that this particular fact comes from CNN rather than the Washington Post or whatever. For obvious points of comparison, see the articles on John Kerry and Bill Clinton, which also have quite a few numbered inline links. JamesMLane 02:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Right, I don't mean citing it as "New York Times, Bush realeases new social security plan, Nov 14 2004", I mean just simply removing the text "see", I think it breaks up the flow of the article and simply having numbered citations would be better. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad, I hadn't looked at the article and didn't realize what you meant. The "see" before each link must have been added recently. That's not a format I've ever seen here before, and I don't like it. If you mean we should go back to unadorned numbered links, as in the Kerry and Clinton articles, then I agree with you. JamesMLane 04:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Yea, that's what I meant. I've started editing it out, but given the sheer size of this article, it could take some time. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Filmography

I removed the subheading "filmography" because it implies that Bush was a willing contributor to the Michael Moore film Farenheit 911...he wasn't, and he isn't a star in the movie aside from Moore's comments. Besides, the movie is already listed in the "anti-Bush" section, so there is no need for redundancy.--MONGO 04:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the listing implies he was a willing contributor. On the other hand, given that IMdB lists more than 30 other movies in which he's appeared, we shouldn't single out this one. Giving his entire filmography would be too much detail about a comparatively unimportant aspect of his life. I think a link to his IMdB page is the best solution, so I've added it. JamesMLane 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Usually, "Filmography" would include films a person was in for a variety of reasons such as money, fame, career advancement, being seen, etc. etc......Bush was hardly interested in starring in a movie which spent it's entire time lampooning him...I do agree with your link to the movie database though.--MONGO 01:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No mention of Alcoholism - present or past

Highly POV to have no mention of alcoholism in the article at all. Not to mention the stories of his continuing drinking, and physical and neurological impairments due to drinking.

Do you have proof that he was an alcoholic? Alcoholism is a disease and is quite different from drinking or drinking a lot. What "stories" have you heard...do they come from citable sources that have any measure of credibility? Lastly, is there proof that his current judgement is impaired due to alledged alcohol issues, aside from those pushed by people whose sole effort is to discredit the President?--MONGO 00:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
my impression is that it is at least widely believed that he was an alcoholic. that probably comes from his statement about giving up drink on his 40th birthday (to save his marriage?). if that belief is reasonably common (needs cites), then it ought to be included as part of his public perception, whether or not alcoholism is actually documented. certainly, alcoholism was my understanding of the drinking thing, but i don't know exactly where i got the idea. of course, if alcoholism is documented, it belongs here in a more prominent way. also didn't there used to be a (cited) "dry drunk" sentence or two? Derex 00:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, whatever the difference between alcoholism and "drinking a lot", the sidelong mention herein constitutes POVness bigtime. Certainly can't object to documenting the thire-party analysis of his early habits, without original research or hypothesizing. Gzuckier 00:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
All the nonscience dealing with these issues was developed in a daughter article which is linked from the main article here: George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. Recently, the two major paragraphs in the main article that discussed his religious conversion, his "drinking" and the drug use were also removed and I put them back in to ensure there was some mention of the issues without having to link to them. As far as the dry drunk thing, it isn't even a condition recognized by any medical panel, it is only a terminology tossed about primarily by the quasi-cult approach of AA to ensure pressure tactics on their members to stick around until the "one and only approach" is fulfilled. Alcoholism has various levels of control over a human body but I've yet to see literature that has provided any proof that Bush is, was, or will be an alcoholic. I do know that if I had his job, there wouldn't be enough liquor out there for me to drink, so if he IS or WAS an alcoholic, it wouldn't surprise me. But I need verifiable proof before that kind of libel should be posted here.--MONGO 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
o--64.12.116.9 13:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
hmm, well i do know that george himself made a pretty big deal about how he stopped drinking at 40. so a sentence or two about that probably belongs in the 'early life' section. other than that, it makes sense to leave the rest to the daughter article you point out. (or did i just miss the quitting drinking reference? scanned real quick.) Derex 01:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Much of the American public has heard claims as to Bush's "drinking behavior" - it's at the very least somewhat common knowledge. Regardless of whether it's a true or false, it should be mentioned. Try to think of this page for Bush as a description for someone who's never even heard of him: should the notion that he's a possible alcoholic even be brought up? Whether discounted or accepted, the very accusation should appear somewhere on the page since it is relevant.--NoHitHair