Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

"War President" restored

I have restored a minor note which was in the article a few months ago. Since it refers to a description made by Bush of the nature of his own presidency, it seems highly relevant & noteworthy to me. I can't begin to imagine why it was removed & could find no mention of it on the talk page. Kasreyn 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It belongs in the article. Walton monarchist89 12:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is taken rather out of context. The quote was, "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true." This indicates a focus on war issues, not an affirmation of war. The "war president" mention in the article implies that Bush considers himself pro-war -- this creates a rather negative connotation which is not very consistent with the intended meaning in the interview. --The Other Other 06:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be included but it needs to be elaborated on. KC0MLP 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

one sided bias liberal headliner with no real depth or meaning(153.42.161.199 07:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC))

I think that this needs some explanation as to context -- its use in the article makes it seem like Bush is describing himself as a "hawk," when I think the fairest interpretation of Bush's actual quote regards his role as that of a President in warTIME. Maybe a citation to the full quote is enough, but there is certainly a risk of non-neutrality in including this at the very beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.8.70 (talk • contribs) 15:18, December 1, 2006

There is "a citation to the full quote." I don't think it's POV where it's located in the article right now. --ElKevbo 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War section

The Iraq War section is listed under the President's first term, but much of the information it contains carries over into the sceond term. Any suggestions as to how it should be organized? Jpers36 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I feel that it is certainly worth putting into its own section. Possibly at the end?

Isn't there an update needed in the war section? The Baker (spelling?) comission recently declared the Iraq strategie as failure. That should proabably being mentioned, especially since Bush himself said that a shift is needed, basically admitting his failure. The war is kinda lost, just like vietnam was lost and now its official. We germans and many other peoples around the globe warned the 'mericans before and we said that the politics where based on both: Lies and illusions. I still remember that axis of weasels joking. So who's the weasel now? Whining around because they lost something like what? 3000+ soldiers. Didn't they now that in wars soldiers happen to die? 3000 aren't that many at all. They shouldn't whine that much, but rather finish the mess they started properly...

The classification of the war as a 'success' or 'failure' is undeniably political, with recent reports from the press indicating that Bush himself suggests that the situation is winnable, or contraiwise, the situation is not an abject failure; contrasting the opinions of Gates (Rumsfeld's replacement) and the general democrat leadership, who take a much more pessimisstic (or realistic?!) view of the situation in I-raq: that it is an absolute failure. In order to remain neutral i think we should show both sides of the coin and report the views of what each vested interests says about success or failure and let the reader accordingly decide the issue. Neutrality in such issues in paramount. ToyotaPanasonic 12:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Economic Policy

The Economic Policy section is only three paragraphs? Would anyone mind filling it up with some more info? Fephisto 17:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. The three paragraphs in the article are only for the first term. If you want to add more information (which is certainly possible and likely desireable), please do so in a new or different article. This one is already very long. I also don't think that particular section needs more detail although it might be better served by different details. --ElKevbo 17:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Social security

Not that it's a big deal or anything, but, when coupled w/"social services" and in the context used here, social security is a common noun meaning, "a field of social welfare concerned with social protection, or protection against socially recognized conditions, including poverty, old age, disability, unemployment, families with children and others."--Evb-wiki 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Will Ferrell and Will Forte, and maybe Will Sasso

I've always thought it was a severe deficiency of this article to not even mention Will Ferrell. As for Family Guy, it is very important because it is one of the few animated shows to criticize Bush directly. The Simpsons does so in disappointingly oblique ways (e.g., "Commander Cuckoo-Bananas"). Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This material is not at all notable to George W. Bush's bio and it should in no way be included in the article. I am against it 100%. -- AuburnPilot^talk 22:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Under absolutely no circumstances should any of this trivia be included in the article, and I will personally take it to arbitration if the revert war continues. --Iriseyes 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Weird threat of the year award contender. Gzuckier 17:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I know they want us to keep our speeches short, so I just want to thank my mom, my dad, my husband (you are my guiding light! I love you baby!) and my computer, for providing me with this incredible award. Oh, is that the orchestra? Well, I guess they want me to cut this shorter. Thank you, Wikipedia Academy! --Iriseyes 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick mention of criticism and popular culture critique wouldn't be a problem, but if we dwell on it and provide every example of criticism, it becomes non-notable and a case-in-point of weasel words and POV pushing (if you want an example of how "including all information" can turn into a case of POV pushing, try Reforms under Islam (610-661)#Animals). Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer we shorten the article as it is before including even more trivia. --Iriseyes 23:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to have an article titled Fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, which would include both dramatic and comedic works, as well as anything else? We could then provide a link to that on this article, most likely not in the criticism section but somewhere else. Jpers36 17:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually really like this idea. It lets the trivia party write what they like, and keeps this article clean and the anti-trivia group satisfied. Could one of the advocates of the trivia section please spearhead this? --Iriseyes 22:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's an excellent suggestion and the proposed article could turn out to be very interesting and informative. --ElKevbo 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best solution. (Personally, I feel that Wikipeida too often starts out with something reasonable like "George Bush is often portrayed in the media as ....." and ends up with a list of 250 items like "In St. Mary's Day Care of Winnetka Illinois 2005 Christmas pageant, the King Herod was wearing a Bush mask".Gzuckier 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Fictionalized portrayals of Woodrow Wilson? 2nd Piston Honda 17:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sounds good to me. I'd like to see how Wilson has been portrayed fictionally, both during his tenure as President and in the time since. Fictionalized portrayals of Abraham Lincoln would be very interesting as well. Fictionalized portrayals of Millard Fillmore, on the other hand, may not receive much content. Jpers36 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And Wikipedia's systematic anti-Fillmore bias rears its ugly head again... --ElKevbo 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mallard Fillmore Gzuckier 18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm is really wasted effort at Wikipedia. Kasreyn 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The false authority of Wikipedia makes us take ourselves too seriously. But hey, Wikipedia is a better time waster than most. --Iriseyes 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap. I was just about to turn in a paper on Fictionalized portrayals of Millard Fillmore. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There should be the proposed "fictionalized portrayals of..." articles proposed for those modern era presidents and a few of the more famous ones from the past (e.g., Washington, Lincoln). But in every case, the main article should mention the most important of these. SNL and Family Guy are probably the most important in Bush's case. Cromulent Kwyjibo 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is going to inform the folks who fictionally portray George Bush, then, that we have decided that their work is in no way notable? Gzuckier 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you believe it is notable, please, create an article about the topic. It is not, however, notable to George W. Bush's life or career. This is a WP:BIO of George W. Bush and this content does not in any way better a reader's understand of Bush. -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I enlarged above, I don't think the kind of list of every portrayal of Bush ever that Wikipedia specializes in would be appropriate here, but well summarized NONPOV sentence or two might be useful, then i suppose a link to the inevitable list. Gzuckier 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Since none of the pro-trivia people could be bothered, I started the page that was suggested. I pasted in (and fixed up) all the information that kept being reverted and re-reverted, but it's a very short article, so if anyone would like to keep adding info onto it, please do. Is this conflict resolved, then? --Iriseyes 20:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't call someone you can't claim they "could not be reached for comment." Some of us spend some of our waking hours offline. Anton Mravcek 15:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I should be doing right now, I have a calc test in an hour. Thank you for reminding me. --Iriseyes 17:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of the Movement to impeach George W. Bush

This was debated before and it does push a POV. AuburnPilot^talk has stated "Since I've been quoted above, I figured I'd respond. This information is definitly not NPOV." Also it doesn't need to be inserted again because it's already covered in the category section of George_W._Bush. ViriiK 17:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To what "category section of George_W._Bush" are you referring? The current version of the article doesn't appear to have any such category.

And exactly why is including another Wikipedia article in the "See also" section a problem? It's clearly directly related to this article. If the included article is so bad then it needs to be cleaned up or deleted. Otherwise, what's the problem? --ElKevbo 17:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Go to category section of the page. Click "George W. Bush" or [1] and it's right there. ViriiK 17:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Right in front of my nose... --ElKevbo 17:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't seem to find the word "impeach" once in the main article. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hiding widely held criticism in a category section that many new users will not see is definitely a violation of npov. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Despite your argument, I've already stated that this is covered in the category section. Go to the bottom of the page, click "George W. Bush" and it'll take you right there. Also your insertion of the public perception is already repeated and does not need to be thus injecting POV because you can easily find the link at the bottom of the page. ViriiK 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the link exists in the category page. However, If I used your logic I would have to remove the entire "see also" section, because there all listed in the harder to find category page. I believe most people would prefer to have a simple list, rather than having to go to another category link, (it is my understanding that "Categories", "See also", and "external links", all have there own distinct usage, but thats not to say that what they cover won't overlap.) I do agree with you on removing the second public perceptions link (ironically that is what my intentions were, seems I missed the other link) --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it important to you? His public criticism is already covered. If there was a real impeachment proceeding, then it would become relevant. Until then, it's just rumors that supposedly it will happen. In every administration, there was always an impeachment threat for every certain thing. But the problem is it's a hypothetical scenario and not factual. Most of the impeachment argument I've read are not based on factual findings but rather personal opinions and skewed interpretations of facts. Just like for example the argument the President will supposedly be prosecuting American Citizens under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 when in fact the law doesn't assert such findings. However people did edit it to skew that viewpoint that supposedly you only need to be found "unlawful enemy combatant" and not an alien to be tried under the Commission. But I had to edit it to fix that viewpoint because whoever edited it before was not basing it on facts. This is an encyclopedia based on facts. Not opinions. It's just like there was some vandal recently that kept trying to insist that GWB's religion was supposedly Skull and Bones and not the United Methodist. There's this question I also got for you. How is the "movement to impeach" affecting GWB's job in anyway? As far as I've seen, it isn't nor should he care about it. Despite the fact Representative Conyers came out with his own report, it still was not a document and thus becomes irrelevant in any investigation. ViriiK 10:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it important to you? His public criticism section has recently been removed. It is irrelevant whether or not an impeachment is in progress, only that the movement has a strong backing. I do agree that many things have instigated an inquiry into impeachment, just look at what happened to Bill Clinton, just over a inconsequential affair, yet Bush remains in office despite accusations of lying about the war, supporting torture, blah blah blah. I must point out that many people would like to see an impeachment, so in no way is the movement hypothetical, but if your referring to an actual in-progress impeachment, then yes it is hypothetical given by its inherent nature of only being in the planing and gathering support phase. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No it hasn't. It's just been made into a daughter article. It's not removed from the page whatsoever. All you have to do is click "Public perception and assessments". Your argument would hold water if it was the only article being made into a daughter article. But his "Early Life", "Professional Life", "Military Service", 1st, 2nd Term, etc are also made into daughter articles. The impeachment crowd probably are screaming for his impeachment but on what? Nothing factual and nothing that will succeed period. And the impeachment is hypothetical and most likely won't happen. It just won't happen and it isn't relevant in anyway whatsoever. When there's an impeachment hearing, let me know. You want to smear impeachment all over the main article because you obviously despise the man as evident in the Talk:Bumfights

"It's so sad; I never though it could be possible to hate american culture more, but you must not underestimate the capacity of ignorant individuals to engage in appalling behaviors and beliefs. DEATH TO AMERICA!!! AMERICA MORIAR!!! MORTE A AMÉRICA!!! (but long live the american constitution and damn those who strive to dirty the ideals of the constitution e.g. bush and his loyal bushist worshipers) (yes I live in america, damn president bush, the ignorant ingrates have finally achieved majority voting status.) Every time I cross the street and look *both* ways I tell my self "never underestimate the capacity of an american dumb-ass to drive on the wrong side of the road."" (writen by ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE on talk:bumfights)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ViriiK (talk • contribs) 09:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that the summary of the daughter article was removed from the page. Hmmmmmmm, he lied to the public, made himself immune to legal threats by enacting laws invalidating the Geneva conventions, see[2] for evidence that this was the thought process behind the move to make the Taliban not subject to the Geneva conventions, particularly where it says "Substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act" (middle of page 2), which, to me, shows that they knew there actions (present or future...) were possible violations of the Geneva conventions; These aspects are very factual. A public movement to impeach a president IS relevant to that president, nothing you say can change that. If you have seen some poll of house representatives that shows that they would not impeach, show it to me. The reasons for impeachment are irrelevant the only thing that matters is the vote of the house of representatives. You don't need 114 words to say that I hate Bush (especially when I can say it in just 24 words, actually just 3). --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You say he lied to the public. Where is that proof? You're basing your entire arguments based on pro-impeachment groups which do not have any relevancy to the biography of President Bush at all whatsoever. I do not care to read the rest of your paragraph. It's useless information for me to care about. ViriiK 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no exact definition of what "High crimes and misdemeanours" are, and thus is dependent entirely upon the senate vote, assuming it got through the house. CHAPTER 47A SUBCHAPTER I Sec. 948b (g) of the Military Commissions Act "No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.", that seems to sound like the definition of a crime against humanity.--ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

When has the Geneva Convention granted rights to Prisoners of War that do not follow the laws of war? Which includes feigning death, shedding of uniform, fighting for a terrorist entity instead of a government, etc. Also assuming it got through the house? It was already passed into law by the House 250-170, Senate 65-34. Also please mention the law that makes this a crime against humanity other than that, it's just out of thin air you're making it up. I base myself on facts, not opinions. ViriiK 09:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean someone who is not entitled to POW status, because someone who is a POW is automatically covered by the Third convention. If they aren't a POW then they are covered by Article 5 of the fourth Geneva convention. The legislation is a violation of the Geneva conventions. In particular see article 148 of the fourth convention "No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself [...] of any liability incurred by itself [...] in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article." --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Gevena Convention does not grant rights to those who do not follow the laws or wars or mercenaries. That is written in the Geneva Convention itself. Also there are the rules of war which are perdifying of death, feigning of civilian status, etc and that is illegal in the Geneva Convention itself. It has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq. March 31, 2003 from HRW reported on this [3] You are selectively picking what you want to make your arguments and that has no bearing again in this biography whatsoever. Again I repeat, I do not care. ViriiK 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CHAPTER 47A SUBCHAPTER I Sec. 948d. (c) "A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter." sounds like unlawful enemy combatant is more or less determined by a commission of the presidents choosing (grab a citizen off the street get together a bunch of loyal officers who will do your bidding and declare them as a competent tribunal, that solves that mystery, you may think that to be a stretch of reality, it's not when the pentagon has already theorized the legality of torture on behalf of the president. Quite frankly I don't care if the act applies to American citizens, the fact that it applies to anyone is enough for me. Factual arguments for impeachment: Military Commissions Act of 2006, Extraordinary rendition (I haven't looked this up, but supposedly this was also used by Clinton shame on him (depending of course on how he used it)), Treatment of detainees (contempt of command, especially in allowing Gen Ricardo Sanchez to get away with his memos calling for torture but I can't blame him since bush himself has done nearly the same.--ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize who brought forth the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Ruling that became the father of the MCA 2006? A JAG Laywer, Charles Swift. Nothing in your statements will disprove this fact that a JAG lawyer fought on behalf of Hamdan that brought forth the MCA 2006. There are honorable servicemen that will advocate on behalf of POW's either enemies or allies of the United States. It doesn't matter what you say. Afterall, they're supposed to give these people a fair trial as evident in the MCA 2006. Also it never and will not apply to Americans at all despite your supposed statement that it will. Because the term Alien is a critical insertion to the law itself. Afterall, it would have never passed if it didn't have that important word. ViriiK 09:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, I do not give a shit about the fact that it was a JAG lawyer who worked as a prosecutor in the case. My understanding is that the MCA2006 is legislation to make legal what was found illegal by the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, so don't go making it sound like Swift advocated MCA2006 (unless you know for certain, in which case I apologize for my accusation). Secondly MCA2006 is to determine that a combatant is unlawful, or in other word to determine if an combatant is a POW or not, the MCA2006 has no effect on POW's. Of course it matters what I say, otherwise neither of us would care what the other was saying. Yes I agree it says the word alien in SOME sections, but it doesn't include it in ALL sections, opening up loop holes that I have already described that allows the President the power to determine anyone to be an unlawful enemy combatant. Yes a commission is a trial that is ultimately the conclusion of the Presidents beliefs. As allowed by article 5 of the fourth Geneva convention an unlawful enemy combatant can be executed, detained indefinitely, and have no rights beyond being treated humanly, and with that in mind the only purpose MCA serves is to make it easier to find a combatant to be unlawful and then exclude them from the rights granted to them by the Geneva conventions, and since the only right the Geneva convention grants them in the first place is the right to be treated humanly, I have no other conclusion than to find that MCA's purpose ('in part') is to allow inhumane treatment of unlawful enemy combatants. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

of course you don't care and that's quite obvious. The MCA 2006 made nothing legal that was previously illegal. The basis of the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case is the argument that the Military did not have Congressional Approval to try these alien illegal combatants. That was true to a point. The AUMF that was passed by Congress in 2001 gave pretty much a blank check to the military for any means possible to bring these people to justice and they did that. Hamdan trying to find a way out of this being tried under a commission won. So the Courts basically declared to Congress that either they approve of the military commissions or don't. Thus was born the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which gave full approval to the military to try these people at Guantanamo Bay. They are not prisoners of war whatsoever. They are illegal enemy combatants because they violated the rules of war in Afghanistan many times and they were picked for a reason especially with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 911 itself. To recognize them as prisoners of war would be a slap in the face of those who died at the World Trade Center. They fight for belief at any expense whatsoever even to use human shields to carry out their mission. Also what's funny is you are intentionally leaving out the word "alien" to go with "unlawful enemy combatant". Despite what you think, you have to be found an "alien unlawful enemy combatant". The Democrats & Republicans inserted this word in the act before it was passed into law because it left open the possibility that Americans could be tried such as in the case of John Walker Lindh but he doesn't qualify for the act anymore. The Act does not make it easier at all despite your claim. I do not see any proof as I've read the document entirely. ViriiK 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for regarding me as a vandal(said with a very calm tone of sarcasm). Whether the movement to impeach g.w.bush is affecting him is not of grave importance to anyone except Bush and his allies, either way I don't care if he completely dismisses the movement or is having an anxiety attack over it, it doesn't matter. So if a report is not a document it can not be used in an investigation, I'm afraid I don't understand.--ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A Partisan report does not make a factual document whatsoever which is evident by Conyer's history. Either it has to be a bipartisan report with no disagreements between both parties or it's nothing. Right now I see 3 reports that corroborates the President's findings which is the SSCI's report, Butler Review, Robb-Silberman Review vs Conyer's personal report by his own doing. It's unacceptable period. To you, it may not be but I'm not going to care. I'm sorry but you come across as a person with an agenda to edit this biography page unlike me. I'll be watching your contributions that you make to this article. This is the last discussion I'm going to have with you. ViriiK 09:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. However, If the content within a partisan report is true, then it does not matter, as you only need to verify the content within the report, just as wikipedia is not an acceptable source but its references are (assuming that the findings of the references are true). Yes I have an agenda and you should watch out for people like me who may get carried away/over react(not that I'm doing it here (well maybe with my long responses, but thats another issue)), this is the best thing you can do for wikipedia. However, just because I have an agenda does not make my statements incorrect. It seems I will have the last word then, thank you, but I will not hold you to your statement if you wish to respond to my other (possibly questionable) statements. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In noticing how our responses are increasing in length by an exponential factor I think it would be wise if we stuck to the main issue of "see also" link inclusion (although I did enjoy the massive conversational tangent). Now a question for you; If you conclude that the "movement to impeach g.w.bush" should not be included in the "see also" section on the (in my opinion false) basis of it not being factual, then would you not want to also remove the "fictional portrayals of bush" section given its inherit status of not being factual? --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my problem because I didn't insert it unlike your insertion of the Impeachment link. If you have a problem with it. Bring it up for vote. Don't talk to me. It was accepted by the community but since you have a problem. Bring it up for debate. So don't talk to me about this. ViriiK 09:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh really, and who do you think brought up MCA2006; At this point I don't care, and either way I keep on responding to the conversation regarding MCA. I will not bring this up for vote (when a vote based upon false knowledge becomes counted), because the issue can be resolved with facts. Sorry, but if I disagree with something you say I am going to challenge it, until I get bored. I should probably tell you that me geting bored of this is not likely since I enjoy well constructed arguments. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AuburnPilot was not referring to inclusion of this link as being a violation of npov, he was referring to my poorly written paragraph, and it's lack of citations. Also information (facts) can not have a point of view beyond that of its author and therefore the existence of the [Movement to impeach George W. Bush] article itself can not be a violation of npov, only the content contained within it. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Texas National Guard, versus Texas Air National Guard

On True Story of the Bridge on the River Kwai, regarding the Japanese in the Second World War, 1941, on History Channel, I heard that some of the first Americans captured were in Dutch East Indies {&/or Malaya | Singapore}, for the Texas Guard {Tejas Guard?}. I suppose that the Air Guard would have been created a few years later.

The actual river is "Tamarkan". Japanese for [number] five is "go". The Japanese pronounced "speed-up" as "speedo".

It is currently on, & from 1100 - 1300, Pacific, 1900 - 2100, zulu time.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Speedo is just a transliteration of speed. I'm a little confused as to the direction of the comment, though. Dekimasu 09:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Great research--Darrendeng 09:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

unlock it

even if there is massive vandalism, unlock it ! 72.36.230.178

why?

There is no reason to unlock it, this is the most vandalised article on Wikipedia...Most of the IP edits to this article is vandalism.__Seadog ^♪ 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the most vandalised article even when locked. --Majorly (Talk) 19:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should not be unlocked. Each and every time it has been unprotected, it is re-protected within hours. -- AuburnPilot^talk 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep it locked. Always.--Loodog 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should get a username and then you won't have to worry about semi-protected articles. Valley2city 23:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe you shouldn't. According to your user contributions and talk page, you are a repeat offender of vandalism. Valley2city 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is corrected often to point out the complete history of George W. Bush which includes many negative facts, the constant subjective editing to exclude these negative facts is harmful to the entire wikipedia project where only facts should be noted. example, "George W. Bush has presided over the largest debt in american history and knowingly used substantially inaccurate information to invade Iraq resulting in the killing of thousands of American soldiers needlessly. and, yet this information is not properly documented within wikipedias article, thus, the accurate documentation of George W. Bush is unavailable within wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wen-sar (talk • contribs) 05:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

NPOV???

What is going on? Do we want criticism even included in this article? I have slowly seen negative material disappear from this article.

Criticism is mentioned in the introduction "he has received increasingly heated criticism, even from former allies, on the Iraq War, [.........]", yet the entire part in the main body of this article on criticism was removed.

If my interpretations are correct then I must call for *'ALL'* criticism to be only referenced in the "see also" section. Even though to me that goes against npov. And in fact this is already discouraged in the NPOV article, but arguments that criticism is so large that it needs a separate article, I can understand.

If we are going to separate criticism to a separate fork article then so be it, but then we must move *all* criticism to this article (e.g. Controversial acts, Hurricane Katrina, ...). No-one can say that one stance of criticism is unworthy of inclusion in the main article. At this point it is very unorganized, some criticism in the main article some not in the main article. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The usual approach, when a particular subject becomes too long to fit within the main article, is to move the information to a daughter article, but to leave a summary in the main article. We can't just say "there's been criticism, see the daughter article". Major points of criticism must be discussed in the article. JamesMLane t c 03:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why are we allowing the summary to be removed???? --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism articles are inherently POV forks and must be merged back in. I've tagged Criticism of George W. Bush for merging back into this article. theProject 17:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Why were the criticisms removed? All of its content was verifiable, factual information. The quality of this article is no longer up to par with other high profile politicians. The value in Wikipedia is that it offers an opportunity to cover issues corporate media channels can't or won't cover.

How dare anyone call this neutral....it makes me sick.--69.66.25.4 00:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it makes you sick, how about registering and helping out? At the very least, how about pointing to some specifics. -- AuburnPilot^talk 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia, revisited

This section has been here long enough without anybody taking the initiative to work the contents into the article and it has already begun to collect repetitive/useless information. It's time to either move the information into the article or to the talk page per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. -- AuburnPilot^talk 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Majority vote, popular vote

A possibly minor point...the introductory paragraph makes no mention of the contested 2000 election, which is in contrast to the "only candidate to win the majority vote in 16 years" bit regarding the 2004 election. If that is notable enough for the introduction, objectively shouldn't the "only candidate since 1888 who won despite losing the popular vote" also be noted there? (This may seem trivial, but my impression on an initial read of this article is that it lacks coherency as a whole, and this is just one example).

Traumerei 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The two statements almost appear contradictory due to a lack of clarity. If he is the only candidate to win since 1888 after losing the popular vote in the 2000 election how can he also be the first in 16 years to win the majority vote in the 2004 election?

This logic makes it sound like Presidents for the 16 years prior to 2004 had all lost the popular vote, which seems to not have occurred since 1888.

Basically too confusing. They should be grouped together and clarified so as to to appear conflicting in nature.

He won the majority vote in the 2004 Election with 50.7% of the vote which qualifies as a majority vote. Bush however didn't have a majority vote in the 2000 Election. Bill Clinton won the vote with 49.2% of the vote in 1996 & 43% in 1992 which are not majority votes. George H. W. Bush won the 1988 election with a majority vote of 53.4% of the vote. Majority vote in politics means a number greater than 50%. ViriiK 19:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This should be made clear; however, I think the fact that he's the first successful candidate not to win the popular vote in 112 years is more significant than the fact that he's the first to win the majority vote in 16. - Che Nuevara 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree --- the fact that he got more than 50% and that Clinton didn't is due to the presence of a third candidate in Clinton's races and the absence of any significant third candidate in Bush's; in the current article the majority win is presented as if it means Bush was more popular or more successful than Clinton. Svenonius 18:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing

You should change the picture, that one is ruined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sixest (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Which picture are you referring to? -- AuburnPilot^talk 17:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Too long

I added the Very Long template to the article. This article IS getting really really long. Infested-jerk 19:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. With complete respect to those who have dedicated a lot of time to this article, it needs some attention. I came here to get a general overview of George Bush and was greeted with an extremely indepth article on him. Now, I am not suggesting that a lot of detailed information on George Bush isn't good - because it is. However, it might be best to have this article summarise some of the more extensive and less high-profile/high-agenda/important stuff, with links to sub-articles (where such sub-topics can be explained more fully). That way people who want general information can get it and those who want detailed information (perhaps on a detailed subject) can also get it. --Signed by: Chazz - (responses). @ 17:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

First Sentence

... isn't actually a sentence. "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946), 43rd President of the United States, inaugurated on January 20, 2001 and re-elected as president in the 2004 election." Do we want some form of "be" verb in there? Ryanluck 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed that - I guess you're right, our articles generally start with a first sentence that is actually a full sentence, so this only probably should also -- Ferkelparade π 13:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There are still some fragments and faulty parallelism in there, I'll fix it now. --Iriseyes 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

someone fix the part where it says he is the brother of jeb bush, the governor of florida, he is now the EX governor of florida.

His term expires January 2007. ViriiK 11:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld's term

In response to a reversion earlier today, I would like to point out that Donald Rumsfeld has confirmed his resignation, on the day after the 2006 elections. Therefore, I feel it is relevant to this article that we add a link to Robert Gates as he is currently the Secretary-elect.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: 1) Defining Rumsfeld's term as ending in '06 & 2) adding Gates to the table. My problem is with issue #1. We should not end Rumsfeld's term for him. He is still the Sec Def. Issue #2, I couldn't care less about. If you want to add Gates, go for it. I don't see a problem with that. -- AuburnPilot^talk 21:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to repeat what I said a month or so ago:

Everything that I've read says that Rumsfeld is staying on until he is "replaced...and the transition is completed." I don't know if that means he will be there until Gates is confirmed or that there is some other transition that is taking place (if he leaves before Gates is confirmed who's in charge? His Deputy? Gates as an "acting" SecDef?). Further, Rumsfeld is still listed on the DOD website as the Secretary of Defense. --ElKevbo 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Worst President

Enough information now is factually proving that George Bush has been the most incompetant US president in history. When will the Wikipedia article reflect this? Universal reactions to the damage he and his administration are doing to the rest of the world can no longer be considered merely "opinion", and information needs to be placed here so that visitors can be adequately affected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.107.210 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 December 2006

All information on Wikipedia is required to comply with WP:V. We just can't any information we want to an article. It must be confirmed as accurate content.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hell, you can't even try to add that "some people believe GWB to be the worst president in history" with appropriate references without having it reverted.Gzuckier 22:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this must be one of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah he's polarizing. So are most presidents (I guess if they're doing their job, anyway). As an outsider I can safely say that calling him the worst president ever, in an encylcopedic article, is a tad baised. Likewise, saying that "many" consider him the worst has major problems, such as verifiability. So you think he's the worst? Some people say he's the best. In what section do you place that? What about those who think he's fair to middling? Good but flawed? Bad but well-meaning? I could go on. I think the section on criticism, with re-directs to another article focussing on this is sufficient. Criticism is part of politics and you can't deny its place, but emotional attacks, or conversely, blind devotion, which are not based on facts, have no place here. Freshacconci 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought Nixon was the worst President. Or at least I've heard. Maestro25 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Americans would say Jimmy Carter was. Nixon was corrupt but he was effective.Decato 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Carter was more of a peacemaking international diplomat, which is why he was unable to deal with domestic issues in the 1970's. Personally, I think Warren G. Harding was the worst. I mean, he said himself that he didn't know why he was president. He lucked out in Teapot Dome b/c he died right when accusations were being made and Harding was pitied upon by others. Nishkid64 15:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This just in: "June 1, 2006 - Bush Tops List As U.S. Voters Name Worst President, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Reagan, Clinton Top List As Best In 61 Years" [4] Gzuckier 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha. Well people have a way of looking at recent history with too much of a lens. Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon were both pretty lousy, and Herbert Hoover equally unpopular. Anyway, I'm not arguing he wasn't the worst president, but, I'm willing to bet it would be overly POV to put in the article, "George W. Bush is the worst US president ever" :). -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nixon has a number of sucesses including opening relations with China. Watergate was a scandal because of the coverup. Carter failed to take down Iran when the U.S had just cause and he left our economy in shambles.Decato 21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The topic of this discussion is "Should this article contain statements like 'Many consider Bush the worst President ever'", not "Is Bush the worst President ever?". Please see Wikipedia:Talk page and this article's talk header. This is not a place for political debate. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, stick to the topic. No definitive answer could be given to the topic of "worst president." It's too subjective and politicized. The question all along was whether the article should refer to the belief by some that he is the worst president. Yes or no and why? (And Grant and Harding usually get the nod for worst). Freshacconci 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we know it isn't. I was just responding to Decato's comments with my own. Anyway, getting back to the point, most of these polls show different presidents at the top and bottom of the presidental rankings. It's all subjective, and could depend from the type of people you may be asking and the person's knowledge of all 43 presidents. Bush is the most recent, and is not in great shape right now, so it's logical that he would top the list as worst president in some polls. Nishkid64 23:52, 6

December 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush is not the worst president ever. You may have many opinions but he is a good president, he hasn't done anything absolutely terrible yet and no one has any legitamate reason to hate him. Also, we should stick to the topic, Wikipedia is not about saying whose bad and whose not based on your opinions. You could put a section titled "criticism" but you shouldn't go around saying Bush sucks. Cheers!--The Relentless Rogue 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There've been a few surveys of reputable historians that would probably be sufficiently authoritative. I don't think you could add the assertion "George W. Bush is the worst president in US history," which isn't even verifiable. You could certainly add something like, "A panel of US historians convened in 2005 ranked GWB among the worst four presidents in history with Harding, Andrew Johnson, and Pierce" (details I made up, but that's the rough sketch) or something like that. In fact, I could argue it belongs in the lead. Your own opinion isn't verifiable, but the historians' is both verifiable and notable (because they're historians, not random people off the streets). Then it's up to the reader to trust or not trust the historians' opinion. Regards, PhilipR 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of GW Bush, but calling him the "worst president ever" is ridiculous. How many people have sufficient knowledge of ALL the past USA Presidents? Warren Harding, and Calvin Coolridge were both worse in my opinion. Harding only lasted two years. Yoda921 08:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda

Foreign policy

There are currently 2 sections in the article titled "Foreign policy", and I think it would be best if one of them would be changed. I noticed this after editing one section and then right after it took me to the other one (I thought I accidently deleted some info). --Ted87 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear combining the two sections would cause more confusion than they do separately. Each section falls under a different term in office, outlining foreign policy for each of the two terms. -- AuburnPilot^talk 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I’m not suggesting combining the sections. I’m saying one of them should be changed to a slightly different name so we don’t have 2 sections with the same name. --Ted87 21:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Y'all's need a period

In the section "Criticism and public perception," y'all's need a period after the sentence that begins "From time to time,." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.65.175.65 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Statements that will date quickly: "is" president

I have made quite a lot of edits in Wikipedia to try to make it a work of reference rather than a list of ephemera, including in particular a lot of edits to the George W Bush article, most of which have been accepted by the Wikipedia community. The particular Guideline involved is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_statements_that_will_date_quickly, which says:

Imagine someone is reading your words in six months, five, ten, fifty years. Will they still make sense?

Using precise language that will not sound dated if the article is never edited again is considered the best practice.

For some reason, some people seem to object to my changing "George W Bush is President..." to "George W Bush was inaugurated as President on <date>". I don't know why; the meaning of the two forms is the same today, but the latter form will still make sense in the future.

As there is a clear guideline, it should be followed. To say that other articles don't follow the guideline is irrelevant: they also are incorrect and need work. Wikipedia is infested with "recently", "currently", etc. This isn't a case of different opinions; if you disagree with the guideline, start a discussion to have it changed, don't just ignore it because you don't like it.

I don't know why there are so many objections to changing "is president" to "was inaugurated as ..."; perhaps someone would enlighten me on why they think it is so important to use the transient form?

For a much more extreme case of transient language, see the more trivial article on Tamsin Greig before and after my edits.

I write this as I am being threatened with the 3 reverts rule for simply trying to bring this article within Wikipedia guidelines.

Pol098 19:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion about the wording, but this article gets so much attention that the wording "is president" would probably be changed within a day of the next one's inauguration. Guidelines are to be treated with the occassional exception. The most revised article on wikipedia seems like a good spot to make an exception.--Kchase T 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's such a minor edit I don't see what's the big deal. It does not alter the meaning of the intro, it's not incorrect, and it fits the guidelines + will never have to be edited for update. Keep it!!! Dubya "was inaugurated as" president (. . . whether we like it or not).--Evb-wiki 19:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Evb-wiki and Pol098. Firstly, we are in the process of trying to develop a stable version of the encyclopedia to be released on hard copy - this means that it won't need a tonne of editing so that is acceptable for release. Also, I don't think it is very mature to threaten someone with 3RR just for trying to follow rules - its ironic to condemn someone for not complying with Wikipedia policy when you are doing the same also. That means that we have 3 for and 1 against complying with Wikipedia policy. Consensus yet? -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope being threatened with the 3RR, is not referring to this message I left on his/her talk page. In no way was it a threat and to characterize it in such a way is insulting. As I said in the very short message, I know first hand that the rule is enforced, and didn't want somebody who was clearly acting in good faith to be blocked for breaking it. It's time to stop taking things so personally if people believe that was a threat...Now, the point at hand: I personally don't have too much invested in which version remains. I reverted it because I believe the first version (not pols) was more clearly written, but I have no problem with consensus prevailing in favor of pol's version. Let's also remember that this Date info is based on a guideline, not policy. Guidelines are guidelines because there are some exceptions. -- AuburnPilot^talk 23:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw the wording that I was threatened with 3RR, and confirm that the message was "Pol, good intentions I'm sure, but please mind the WP:3RR. I know first hand that it is enforced."

The guideline is in place because it makes good sense, and should only be breached after careful consideration and consultation. Following it constructs an encyclopedia whose wording does not go out of date, and careful wording ensures that there is no loss of meaning. I absolutely don't say that my wording should be preserved, but it should be replaced by improved wording which doesn't assume it's being read now.

I don't know if I've inadvertently started something where saying that Bush ""was inaugurated as" rather than "is" president is considered to be unduly flattering (or insulting?); my only concern is to make an encyclopedia which doesn't become outdated by its wording, but only by developing events. Pol098 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment: Kchase does raise a legitimate point, namely that the relevant page is indeed a guideline and not policy. It also contains, as its very first sentence,

Unless you are writing on pages that are regularly refactored, such as Current events, you should avoid statements that will date quickly.

I happen to agree with the idea behind Pol's revision because we know for a fact that the sentences in question will no longer be true within just over two years. However, calling on policy and saying that a particular person who prefers the other version is not following it is extremely far-fetched. - Che Nuevara 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the opinions to date:

• I (pol098) clearly favour FOLLOWing the guideline
• Kchase T favours IGNOREing it
• Evb-wiki FOLLOW
• Chazz/contact FOLLOW
• AuburnPilott has no problem following the consensus (ABSTAIN?)
• Che Nuevara "agree with the idea behind Pol's revision", but criticises Pol's attitude. Is this FOLLOW?

In discussion in other places regarding the guideline in general (not just this article), nobody considered that it should be revoked.

I suppose this discussion looks ridiculous here, as it is mainly about one sentence. However, there were a great many explicit and implied references to soon, at present, etc., and one that had already become out-of-date, with nobody noticing it. I made a considerable number of changes: see the batch of successive changes I made starting 09:28, 1 December 2006 Pol098

Pol098 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pol, the other revisions are pertinent, but the main sentance is not, since Bush will be in office until the beginning of 2009. Only then should the tense be changed. Keep the other stuff, but the title sentance should stay in the presenty tense. --Iriseyes 16:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a little silly. Anyhoo, let me clarify: I'm not for following the guideline merely for the guideline's sake. It's a minor style issue. WP allows and encourages editing freely. Therefore, in this case, because the edit was factually correct, non-POV and otherwise a legitimate edit, the reversion was unwarranted. We must not prohibit someone's edits merely b/c of a difference in style. If you have additional edits, or want to reword the entire intro, . . . fine. But a reversion campaign in not proper. IMHO. --Evb-wiki 17:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pol: for the record, my objection wasn't to what you were saying, but rather to Chazz, who made the following statement:

Also, I don't think it is very mature to threaten someone with 3RR just for trying to follow rules - its ironic to condemn someone for not complying with Wikipedia policy when you are doing the same also. That means that we have 3 for and 1 against complying with Wikipedia policy.

Sorry for the confusion.

For the record, the phrasing of these present / past tense sentences doesn't really matter to me either way. However, whatever version is slated for hard copy should absolutely be written without the present tense. - Che Nuevara 17:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it appears that only one editor want the article to remain in present tense. Therefore, I think it safe to say that a consensus has been reached and the tense of the article can be changed. I would leave the intro line at the moment though, pending further discussion. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know Che, my opinion was based upon Pol's statements; you will note that I stopped short of accusing you of anything. I hope this avoids any confusion and apologise for any misunderstanding. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 18:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Interesting topic. I came by the page yesterday and changed it to say that Bush "is the current President", not realizing the debates and policy issues behind this.

In my opinion, the use of "current", et al. is preferable, for the following reasons:

1. It provides a clearer, more attractive opening sentence.
2. WP:DATED refers to statements which will date quickly. Bush will be President for two more years, so this is not a frivolous usage of "currently".
3. Wikipedia has had overwhelming success in keeping pages up-to-date and replacing dated words and phrases. I have a hard time recalling the last time I went to a page and found a dated statement. While I could see it being an issue for low-profile pages like music albums or video games, I don't think Wikipedians will have difficulty keeping the U.S. President's page updated. The issue Pol098 and others bring up is negligible in practice.
4. Note also that, if we followed WP:DATED as strictly as Pol098 suggests, we would have to go to all 130,000 biographies of living people, the vast majority of which introduce their subject with a statement of the form "X is Y", and find some way to tiptoe around the policy. I don't think many Wikipedians would agree with such an action.

I realize that, due to the wording of WP:DATED, Pol098 is within his rights to completely disregard my interpretation of things here. I would argue that it's time for a new formal debate on the policy, though, as the majority of Wikipedia seems to be at odds with it. G Rose 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My advise is to change the tense of the article, save that for the intro sentence and/or paragraph. However, it can't be patchy - if you change the tense of one part you have to do likewise for basically the whole article (save the intro, in this case as discussed.. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

G Rose said "I have a hard time recalling the last time I went to a page and found a dated statement."

There were many in the George W Bush article (I made a considerable number of changes: see the batch of successive changes I made starting 09:28, 1 December 2006 Pol098). Amongst many others: "formerly served as" (was); "The Bush administration has withdrawn US support..."; "has pursued"; "has requested less in annual budgets,"; "This budget represents"; "Bush has said that an international peacekeeping presence is critical in Darfur; he opposes referring..."; "Recent large-scale offensives such as Operation Mountain Thrust have met limited success". These things slip in and are not noticed, but there are a lot of them that eventually need correcting (at the cost of untold man-hours of wasted time), but didn't need to be there in the first place.

I won't continue to discuss (or argue, or edit) the first sentence; I think "is" is undesirable and unnecessary in this and the thousands of other similar articles. Even more pernicious are the multitude of unconscious references to an implied present sprinkled through this and many other articles. Pol098 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If a fictional character's living status could be changed within two hours of publication, I doubt George Bush's article will take more than five minutes. --Iriseyes 03:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is, in Jan 2009 when he leaves office I am sure there will almost be a contest to see who could change it the first. PPGMD 04:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Pol, that a large portion of Wikipedia's articles have to do with current events (Bush's article being one of these), and WP:DATED mentions current events as an exception to the policy - for obvious reasons.

Judging by your edits, you seem to think that anything current or ongoing should be referred to either in past tense or, in the case of article introductions, in sentence fragments. On one hand, this does give articles a more encyclopedic tone. On the other hand, many would argue that this makes articles less readable. I guess it comes down to how strictly one interprets the "encyclopedic tone" guideline. Unfortunately, I can't find anything conclusive about this in WP:STYLE.

WP:DATED has a good deal of ambiguity to it as it is. One thing that really damages its credibility in my eyes is that the present and present perfect tense appears regularly even in featured articles like this. I think the policy's going to have to be rewritten at some point. G Rose 06:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that any hard-copy version will have to avoid the use of the present tense, even if it is appropriate for an electronic version. - Che Nuevara 06:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can talk from personal experience, that this is most definitely not a problem. Let me explain: on the day that Donald Rumfseld resigned, we had hundreds of editions to the article within a few hours literally (it was unreal). People must have added in a dozen times in a few hours that he "was" the acting secretary of defense (not "is"); it would have been dozens more, had I not put a ridiculous amount of tags all over the article saying <!-- He's still secretary of defense, DARN IT!!!!!-->. No, after bush is uninaugurated, there will be 8000000 people waiting to change the article. The inauguration is the most important day in years. (Oh yeah, as was already said, it's got 3 times the rate of changes per day as any article on WP).-Patstuart^talk|edits 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that this article certainly meets the importance criteria for inclusion in the release version. As such, it is important to have the main body of the article follow Wikipedia's date policy. However, I am busy at present and will look over it at Christmas. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

September 28 hearing

Following the discussion I started on wording that assumes the date we are reading the article, here is an example of something that got left in even after the event, making the article on this very prominent subject out-of-date. In November I found an old sentence like "A hearing is scheduled for September 28", and changed it to "A hearing was scheduled for September 28; the outcome was ???.[86]"

I thought that the many vigilant eyes would pick up and fill in the ???. but it is still there. Search the article for "September 26" or "???" to find this. Pol098 10:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still there. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ack, it was given another week: [5]. Well, it looks like it was called unconstitutional, but under appeal [6]. That's the best I can do. I'll try to change it, but I'm fairly sure it's outdated. I remember people on both sides of the aisle got really mad at her because she apparently used bad logic in outlawing it. Patstuart^talk|edits 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found it, but I don't have time to add it back in: [7]. The decision was stayed, meaning the action can continue until appeal is over; it will "likely" go to the Supreme Court (I think it's already gotten there, perhaps just not decided yet). Patstuart^talk|edits 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Useful biographical article

I found a comprehensive, unbiased biography of George W. in a 1999 issue of Rolling Stone [8]. It's too early to have had a position on Bush's presidency, and yet has lots of details, especially on his oil company ventures and his investments. Is this useful to anybody who wants to incorporate it into the article here, or just add it as a link? Emiao 02:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider Rolling Stone a relliable source for analyzing a amjor leader. It really is just a flashier People magazine.Decato 21:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Alexander is a notable author who has written biographies of james Dean, Sylvia Plath, J.D. Salinger, Andy Warhol, John McCain, John Kerry and others. That matters more than where the article appeared. [9] - F.A.A.F.A. 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not dismiss popular media so quickly. Sometimes excellent journalism and significant works of literature appear in unexpected publications. For example, Shel Silverstein's work appeared in many issues of Playboy and Dr. Suess wrote articles for Vanity Fair and Life. --ElKevbo 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a hugely reputable source, it's still good enough to reference for the article under WP:NOR. So add it if you want to. Walton monarchist89 10:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting by terms

I suggest that this article be refactored such that the Presidency area is no longer split by term. Following the Ronald Reagan article, I think there should be a section about the 2000 and 2004 elections, followed by a section describing Bush's presidency as a whole. I may start work on that this evening. Jpers36 15:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's probably created this way for historical reasons (i.e., it was easier to write). But someone would have to take up major work to fix it. -Patstuart^talk|edits

'WMD Joke Controversy'

I am just starting to review the plethora of Bush articles. Could any of you who are familiar with them tell me if there is any mention of the 'WMD Joke Controversy' from the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner?

This one:

"Family of Slain Soldier Calls Bush WMD Jokes "Disgraceful""

-snip-

"But the Daily News is reporting that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq are not laughing."

"George Medina who lost his son in Iraq said, "This is disgraceful. He doesn't think of all the families that are suffering. It's unbelievable, how this guy runs the country.""

Thanks! - F.A.A.F.A. 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is all unneccessary information for this article, especially at this time, when it's too long. --Iriseyes 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Not because it wasn't notable, but because everything Bush does is notable, so we have to pick and choose. This is a biography. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That is unnecessary

We all know Bush is not the best leader, but you don't need to crap on it. It's not a toilet. A lot of people knw it's not really him now either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SBKT (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Do you have any specific complaints? Can't really help out inspecific angry comments. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Article length

This article is way too long - 106kB. Clearly moving some of the material into other articles is a task which will need to be done vary carefully - both to maintain an article with NPOV that represents the consensus view on how best to describe Bush, and to avoid being reverted as vandalism! Maybe moving some of the material about the policies of Bush's government; the sections on domestic, economic and foreign policy seem (to me) to be the best targets, and they already direct the reader to Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration; maybe an Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration should be added to make Bush - the policies trilogy? Inner Earth 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed a lot of the modern culture references to the newly created fictionalized portrayals of George W. Bush, yet I hesitate to undertake another project like that at this time. Maybe you could kickstart to information transfer? --Iriseyes 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush never does anything wrong

Just browsing through this article I never seem to read anything that implies GWB ever did anything bad. I know the goodness / badness of George W. is a touchy subject, and I have my own biases, but I really don't think this article is balanced the way it is.
Case in point:

Bush returned to the oil industry, becoming a senior partner or chief executive officer of several ventures, such as Arbusto Energy ('arbusto' means bush in Spanish), Spectrum 7, and Harken Energy. These ventures suffered from the general decline of oil prices in the 1980s that had affected the industry and the regional economy, but he remained active through mergers, acquisitions and consolidations of his firms.

Which sounds to me like he never did anything wrong, that the businesses suffered soley due to circumstances beyond his control and he acted honorably throughout. Which might all be true, but I know there's no consensus about that, I don't think there's overwhelming evidence to support that POV, and there's certainly no evidence cited. On the other hand, the Harken Energy scandal isn't mentioned at all. If the reason for the failure of Dubya's oil ventures is suggested with no supporting evidence, shouldn't the evidence suggesting an accounting scandal at least be mentioned?

The same goes for his time at the Rangers, which was apparently all lollipops and rainbows.

As another example, everything written about his governership of Texas is prejudicial: phrases like "set higher standards for schools" sound like facts but in fact give the reader no information and are the kind of thing you hear in campaign ads. Meanwhile, the only bad move he (might have) made is to let himself be

criticized for allegedly using controversial methods to disparage Richards

(my emphasis.) Why are three separate words needed in the same sentence to make the point that not everyone agrees that his methods were bad?

I'd keep looking for more examples, but my biases are giving me a headache.

Someone went through and deleted everything negative and rephrased everything with euphamistic language straight out of the whitehouse playbook... but it's being slowly fixed now to be more balanced... and not the kind of balance Fox News advertises.

--66.74.223.57 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds more like critical thinking than bias to me. You bring up some good points. I especially like the "criticized / allegedly / controversial" quote - that cracked me up :). I know editing the article on Bush is a daunting task, but I think you have some valuable input. Thanks for posting! G Rose 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Create an account and be bold. The points you raise are important, and I think you're the best one to correct them. You have my support, at least in these two cases. yandman 11:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep biases out of wikipedia, yes it is important to include critisism in an article but keep them confined to a critisism section. This is a neutral, unbiased encyclopedia not a political outlet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.111.43 (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Monkies...

Someone put Bush as monkeys.... can someone fix this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain bingo (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

See below. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

picture of the Bush family is currently a picture of a bunch of monkeys.

Um, I'm not the biggest Bush supporter but that's kinda unprofessional, guys. Could you remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.166.226.42 (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

While that's more clever than most vandalism on this page, it's quite common. It was soon reverted. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Drunk driving should be added

That category has other well known drunk drivers in it such as Joan Kennedy and Mel Gibson. George W. Bush belongs there also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.125.218 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

George Bush Church Information

I have a couple of issues with the information about the Church information in the "Early Life" section of the article, but I'm a new user so I can't change them. Passage in Question:

"Bush also left his family's Episcopal Church to join his wife's Methodist Church. Today, they are members of the congregation of the Highland Park United Methodist Church, near Dallas.[10]"

1. Highland Park is an independant city within and completely surrounded by Dallas, it is not 'near Dallas' but within Dallas. (I'm from Dallas)

2. Numerous Articles state that George W. Bush has not regularly attended any church at least since he has entered office. I can only find one at the moment [10] but I'm pretty sure I've seen others. The reference cited in the article does quote someone as saying, "I go to the same church that the Bushes attend, Highland Park Methodist in Dallas", but she might only mean that they go there when they're in Dallas. None of the Bush clan have ever lived in Dallas as far as I know so why would they belong to a Church there? Also, Marine One definitely is not seen flying over Dallas every Sunday. U.S. Presidents have for some reason been reluctant to visit Dallas for several decades now.

I recommend that the last sentance in the above passage be deleted entirely and if anything be replaced with a note that GWB does not currently regularly attend church. Scmeuguta 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

self correction: I must have had a brain fart. GWB lived and made his fortune in Dallas from 1988 to 1991 when he became part owner of the Texas Rangers[11], so it is very likely that he went to Highland Park Methodist while he lived here. Still, I don't think this qualifies him as a current member of the congregation. Scmeuguta 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll make the first change, about Highland Park. As for the other one, I'll look at it later, if I get back on; but, it is only another 3.5 days. Don't sweat it too much. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(Finally), I have changed The last sentence, "Today, they are members of the congregation..." to read: "During their time in Dallas, Bush and his family were members of the congregation of the Highland Park United Methodist Church, within the Dallas greater metropolitan area."

Because there is no evidence that they are currently members of that church and it is ludicrous to assume so. I'll leave the issue of whether or not he currently attends any church to another time or someone else.Scmeuguta 13:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbusto translated

Doesn't the Spanish "arbusto" translate to the English "shrub"? Hence, many of George W. Bush's critics refer to him as "Shrub."

Herb Evans 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, as far as I know, it translates to Bush...as in George W. Bush. - AuburnPilot^talk 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-Military" reference

This article contains the following sentence: "Bush enjoyed strong support among Americans holding conservative and pro-military views." This is absurd. Every Democrat I know is "pro-military." However, we want the troops brought home, instead of being embroiled in a senseless conflict. Bush lied to the nation about why we needed to invade Iraq---and yet his followers are described as "pro-military." The fact is, there are many "pro-military" people out there (including a growing number of soldiers) who despise Bush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.86.120.67 (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The talk page should be used to discuss suggestions and improvements to the article. With all due respect, your personal observations of who likes or despises Bush are irrelevant here. If you have a reliable source you'd like to use in changing the sentence, please do so, and cite your source properly. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This does seem to be a legitimate contention; what is a "pro-military" view? There are indeed things that Bush has endorsed which could be considered rather unsupportive of the military, and there are very many people who consider themselves supportive of the military who oppose these things. Then, of course, there are many people who feel the exact opposite way. This sentence seems to imply that there is a direct correlation with identification as "pro-military" and support of Bush. - Che Nuevara 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand where he's coming from, but I think he's missing the point. The phrasing was not meant to say "Democrats are anti-military". The phrasing was meant to say that the type that is most pro-military is most likely to favor Bush. And I can't quote anything right now to support that, but I've seen it many times over, from the late-cast military votes helping Bush in the 2000 election, to his welcome enthusiastic welcome after the election, to the conventional wisdom that the military supports conservatives (both in this society and others, e.g., Franco). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patstuart (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I understand what the citation is meant to mean, but it's rather misleading. I mean, to say "pro-military" implies that there is an "anti-military". - Che Nuevara 07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It just means the crowd that heavily favors things of the military. If you can come up with better wording that's just as accurate, by all means do. But that might be rather difficult. -Patstuart^talk|edits 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but "pro-military", to me, as someone who is mortified by Bush but has many friends and relatives in military service, smacks of "supporting the troops" rhetoric, which is, quite frankly, all crap. - Che Nuevara 07:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it should be mentioned somehow, however it's said, although military support for Bush has wained considerably since his inauguration. It doesn't look at all like rhetoric to me, it looks like a well meant statement, that, when understood, is quite accurate. This is nothing worse than is in the newspapers every day, mostly because it's hard to find another way to say it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to admit that perhaps it is indeed my personal bias in this matter -- my vehement dislike for Bush discourages me from making significant edits to this article in order to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But it's my experience that the term "pro" (and by correlation the term "anti"), particularly when applied to groups of people, seems to me to be deceptively and unnecessarily divisive. I definitely would find it appropriate to mention that among military servicepeople he enjoys (enjoyed?) widespread support, as that is a pretty clearly objective fact. I'm just wary of "pro-military" as a rather subjective group. - Che Nuevara 08:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that doesn't sound too bad. The only problem I have now, though, is that the crowd that's, um, usually all about military stuff, even if it's not in the military, is pro-Bush as well. -Patstuart^talk|edits 08:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying (without actually saying it?). Something akin to "among military servicepeople and voters who support a military agenda"? - Che Nuevara 21:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

*ding* - correct. Patstuart^talk|edits 03:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's actually a more accurate and appropriate term. How do you feel about switching that wording in for "pro-military"? - Che Nuevara 03:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you think you can make it sound right. To be honest, no matter how you say it, it will probably come out clumsy, though, "among those especially supportive of the military agenda". Patstuart^talk|edits 03:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it probably won't sound great, but I think it's legitimate to sacrifice a little bit of that for accuracy. - Che 21:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of some particular piece of verifiable evidence -- for example a poll providing a very specific wording to measure who the "pro-military" electorate is -- it didn't belong in a WP article. The prior wording was every bit as vague as saying, "GWB was favored by ignorant people" or "moral people" or whatever. Present wording is much better, but still lacks citations. - PhilipR 03:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that some published exit polling stats from 2004 would suffice. Any idea where to get them? - Che Nuevara 03:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Frogs

I can't see how this edit made by Dicklyon has any place in the article. Why should we care about Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton's story about shooting frogs? I can't see how this warrants inclusion in GWB's bio. I reverted it, but the edit was reinserted with an edit summary saying it is "exculpatory, as explanation for some ways of thinking" [12]. I won't revert again for now, but I don't think this should be included. AuburnPilot^talk 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The implicit assertion that shooting frogs is somehow linked to his Middle East invasions is kind of silly. - Che Nuevara 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Me, three. I can understand why it might be interesting but it appears to need a lot more context. And I don't think it's important enough, even with that context, to be included in this particular (very long) article. I also am a bit wary of including a psychological analysis written by newspaper author. If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized the article, please let me know! --ElKevbo 03:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[13] As far as I know, Bush doesn't advocate putting explosives in juvenile offenders or shooting them. - Che Nuevara 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll move it to the "early life" article that's a lot shorter. Dicklyon 03:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I'm really not trying to be obtuse! But I still don't understand how this one speculative article by one author, even if it is in the NYT, is noteable and worth including in this very long (and ever-growing) article. --ElKevbo 03:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but also don't understand how it warrants inclusion in the separate Early life of George W. Bush article either. Maybe I'm missing something, but the speculation of one person doesn't seem enough to me. Even if it is in the NYT. AuburnPilot^talk 03:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I had looked at WP:BLP#Public_figures before adding it, and in my opinion the verifiable info about his childhood was "notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources" and the context of the article made it clearly "relevant to their notability" (in my opinion; I realize others may differ). There were perhaps better parts of that article to choose, but I thought the frog bit was most interesting for the insight it gives (make your own interpretation). Dicklyon 03:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Words of the Year

Did anyone happen to notice the Merriam-Webster words of the year for 2006 [14]? They all seem to be relevant to Bush, in varying degrees (OK, google is a stretch unless you count his googlebombing, but the other nine are pretty relevant). Should something be said? Dicklyon 03:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

The opening paragraph is very harsh on him. Whether you like him or not the lead paragraph is no place for irrelevant details like a 'a self declared war president'. The lead should only include general info, there is plenty of room to include all sorts of interesting stuff and even trivia further down. Please can the native editors clean up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FrummerThanThou (talk • contribs) 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN VANDALIZED!

Someone has written a ridiculous paragraph about George W. Bush at the beginning of the article. To the best of my knowledge, though, the rest is fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.7.3 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

unfortunately, that's more common that I'd like to admit. It's usually removed within a minute or two at most, though. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bush Is a Majority President

Over the last few months, a few editors have begun to protest whether George Bush was the first Presidential candidate to receive majority backing. Some even going so far as to delete the information from the article. Please note that at 50.7 of total votes cast, that George W. Bush, was the first President since 1988 years to receive more than half of the votes cast. Please stop deleting relevant, factual, and thoroughly sourced information from the article. Thank you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fact that Bush received a majority of the vote. But that's because there were only 2 viable candidates. While it is a fact, its inclusion implies that such a fact is significant when it is anything but. Also, remember that he only received a majority vote in 2004, despite 2000 only having 2 viable candidates. --kizzle 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When something occurs that hadn't occurred in over a decade, whatever the reason, it is significant. The edit only states that a) he received a majority of the vote and b) he was the first to do it in 16 years. Anything further than that is an editor reading bias into the quote where there is none. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, I agree with its inclusion. Such a fact is worthy of mention. AuburnPilot^talk 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Those of you who are suggesting that the fact be cut are letting your politics get in the way of the article. If the conservatives who worked on this article had their way, that inflammatory (and reference-lacking) paragraph listing controversies would be cut. --Iriseyes 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For those that want the "majority president" bit to be included in the intro, I'm assuming that you think it's a significant piece of information because it "hasn't occured in over a decade, whatever the reason." I would also like to add another fact to the intro, something along the lines of:

Bush is also only the third president in U.S. history to be elected without a plurality of the vote, the only two other occurances happening in 1876 and 1888.

If we are going to qualify election results in the intro paragraph, I would think that if we are going to use your test of significance as rare occurances ("hasn't occurred in over a decade"), that a lack of plurality that has only happened 2 other times in the history of the United States would merit inclusion in the introduction. --kizzle 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you believe such an addition should be made, make it. Be bold. AuburnPilot^talk 04:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Just want to run it through first, as I know this is a contentious article. I will make the change if there isn't any opposition. --kizzle 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to go ahead and add it, but ran into a problem with a blacklisted link at oneworld.com. Here's what I recommend, after someone fixes the blacklisted link:

A self-described "war president," Bush won re-election in 2004 after an intense and heated election campaign, becoming the first candidate to win a majority popular vote since his father did so 16 years earlier; by contrast, in the 2000 election he was only the third president in U. S. history to be elected without a plurality of the popular vote, the two other occurances happening in the 1876 and 1888 elections.

Dicklyon 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the offending link by breaking it. Now I'll add the above. Dicklyon 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dicklyon, I had the same problem but thought my computer was infected with spyware, thanks for the followup :) --kizzle 08:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All manner of technically true factoids can be added to articles, but that does not mean they are meaningful. Important things to consider:

• Would George W. Bush have had a majority if there had been a third-party candidate as viable as Ross Perot? Would William Clinton have had a majority if Ross Perot had not run? (49.2% of the vote in 1996)
• Was the 'mandate' of Bush in 2004 greater than the 'mandate' of Clinton in 1996? Does this sentence not contradict the notion of a "divided country" prevalent during this time?
• How is NewsMax a reliable source? How is the article in question a news story and not more of an idle musing (quote: "a development that, by Democrat standards, makes him the first 'legitimate' president in 16 years.") Is there any other published source that even put this in a one paragraph blurb?
• "hasn't occurred in over a decade" may sound important, but it is only 3 elections, each of which are unique events; factoids of "the first president in x years to do or have y" are irrelevant to an encyclopedia article.

—Centrx→talk • 09:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. If it were up to me, I'd rather have neither factoid up. Just because something is true does not mean it's appropriate. We went through this like a year ago and decided to remove both points, I'm much for going back to having neither factoid rather than both. --kizzle 10:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that both facts are relevent and merit inclusion, although I'm not so sure that they belong in the opening paragraph. Theories as to why they are true (or speculations as to what would have happened if so-and-so had or hadn't run) seem more to be the perrogative of political scientists and astrologists than an encyclopedia. Personally, I think that Clinton would have lost in '92 if Perot hadn't run, but that doesn't negate the fact that Perot did run and Clinton was president. The fact about winning w/o even a plurality of the popular vote is, also, a fact and perhaps more relevent. However, to eliminate both facts simply to resolve partisan bickering seems to be a cop out. Lordjeff06 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this couldn't be relevant. There's no claim for a mandate here; they both ought to be included (being a minority president is extremely relevant). Perhaps we could state outright that he won a majority as president, which isn't rare historically, but hasn't happened much recently. Also, there are many sources for this info, and we can find another one if RS is the problem. -Patstuart^talk|edits 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are sources that he won more than 50% of the vote, but I doubt there any reliable sources that give any importance to the factoid that he is the first president in 16 years to have won the majority vote, and the implication of that statement—an implication which is the purpose of the NewsMax editorial—is contrary to the many other sources that describe the election and the political environment as one of a "divided country". At the very least, it is a woefully inaccurate summary which does not belong in the introduction, but at most as a minor blurb of one of the sections or the presidential elections article, if at all. —Centrx→talk • 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The information is fact. The statement should be included and the content of NewsMax is completely irrelevant with the exception that it states GWB was first in 16 years to win a majority. If you can find a better reference, please do. AuburnPilot^talk 04:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - it's an important piece of information, and clearly verifiable. Walton monarchist89 10:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Gubernatorial Election

Texas Gubernatorial election was in 1994, not 1990. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperhobbit07 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

If you are referring to the first sentence of the first paragraph under the section Governor of Texas, 1990 is referring to the Texas gubernatorial election prior to the one GWB won. While Bush was elected in 1994, the first part of this paragraph is referencing speculation that he might run in 1990. According to the Legislative Reference Library of Texas, Ann W. Richards won the 1990 gubernatorial election. AuburnPilot^talk 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes.... The way it was worded was somewhat confusing...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperhobbit07 (talk • contribs)

I'll see if I can reword it to be less confusing, without losing the meaning. AuburnPilot^talk 03:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Much better!!! thanks so much!

)

Central Intelligence Agency reports asserted that Saddam Hussein had tried to acquire nuclear material

What? As far as I know, that was a forged document which the CIA asserted was forged and told the Bush Admin repeatedly was false. Unless someone can cite a credible source that says the CIA said this, I am removing this within a week. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DerwinUMD (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

First off, there were two documents. The documents supplied by the Italians that were blatantly forged and the one by the British aka The British White Paper which was credible. The documents that Joe Wilson claimed were a forgery which was correct however he lied to the American Public since he never saw the document itself at all and it wasn't in American hands until 8 months after the Niger trip. The CIA wasn't basing their argument on the Italian document at all. Where is this? In the SSCI report. [15]

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

Now remember, Wilson was under oath in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee and to say otherwise would be an act of perjury just like in the Court of Law. He can say whatever he wants to the public but he cannot lie under oath. If you remove this information, I will revert it. ViriiK 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the White Paper that was based on pre 1999 CIA reports or are you talking about the White Paper which was based on a student's PhD thesis? In Britain neither are considered credible and Blair is taking a lot of heat for having considered them as such. So where is this evidence? Please POINT to it. If you wish to say something on wikipedia that makes such a claim, cite it, or that claim will be removed. DerwinUMD 5:04 December 18 2006 (UTC)

The evidence I pointed to was the SSCI report. You claimed that the assertions were based on the Italian document which was false. Thank you. ViriiK 19:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are thinking of two different SSCI reports, but the only one I know of with regards to Iraq and Uranium is only about the Nigerian "yellow cake," based on the now-know-to-be forged documents. So like I have said repeatedly, please point me to this source you are citing (URL please). Thanks. DerwinUMD 2:20 December 19 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about two different SSCI reports? Where is this assertion that the intelligence was centered around the Italian Document?

REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ gives you what I'm talking about.

This is where I got my quotes from that you seemed to have missed

Also is this from the report which you can find here (U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

I'm done discussing this with you. If you remove that line you disagree with, I will revert it. ViriiK 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Locked for how long?

Dear fellow readers -

I'm pretty new to the "factory floor" here on Wiki. How would I determine: 1) is the GWB page the "most vandalized" in the history of the site? 2) how long it has had protected status?

Thanks! Sincerely,

Steve Grant

It is hardly considered the most vandalized article on the site but it is definitely one of the most frequently vandalized articles (see Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages). As far as how long it has been protected, it has been regularly protected and unprotected in attempts to reopen its editing to more users, however its most recent re-protection reflects under this edit: 21:20, 12 December 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) m (Protected George W. Bush: are you insane! [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) . Hope this helps.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush was one of the two pages listed by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales as a page that should essentially always be protected: [16]. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is currently semi-protected, which means that the page cannot be edited by anonymous users or people who have only recently created an account. It can be edited by anyone with an account after a few days.

As mentioned above, on the log for the page, semi-protection is shown as "autoconfirmed", while full protection is shown as "sysop".

If you have an account, sign in to edit this page. If you don't have an account, it only takes 2 seconds to register (and it's free). --h2g2bob 17:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)