Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

DO NOT DELETE

The next person who decides it's a good idea to delete 25,000 edits, locking the database, and mixing previously deleted vandalisms back into the history, just to hide PUBLIC INFORMATION will get the privilege of explaining to brion why the database just exploded. Have a nice day :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-14 03:52

I didn't do it, but hey, I guess we can give this article the honor of "Page that gives Wikipedians the most headaches". Perhaps we should create a Vandalism barnstar for Willy/whoever is doing it? Deckiller 03:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:BEANS? Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Lol... Deckiller 02:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed the rather silly notice at the top of this page (not least 'cos there's no certainty anyone woudl read it before hitting Delete while looking the whole project look like it's run by a bunch of monkeys). I think anyone we make an admin knows why deleting articles is a Bad Idea (tm). That said, I ain't going to delete it. Frankly we need a better technological solution to removing unwated page history pages. The Land 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the CVU template for testing purposes. Previous unsigned comments by Cool Cat, 11:27 (UTC), December 16, 2005

Removed. There are many objections to the talk page. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected this article. Protection of this article should never be undertaken lightly, and there should never bee any reason to protect it for more than a few hours.

Also could whoever keeps disabling editing of sections please stop. I consider this to be very, very close to vandalism, because of its effect of hampering editing of this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please scroll up. We have #NOEDITSECTION_Seems_to_work discussed this already. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 18:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

we have already discussed this. the noeditsection thing cuts down vandalism. it needs to stay.--Alhutch 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The NOEDITSECTION appears to have helped reduce vandalism, please do not remove it. Hall Monitor 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There is strong statistical evidence favoring NOEDITSECTION. Firefox users can acquire a patch for searching the edit box for specific small edits, just as I did. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:12, Dec. 15, 2005

Where are the statistics that this is true...the edit history doesn't show a marked reduction in vandalism, aside from during times when the page is fully protected.--MONGO 21:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If it works at all, it's bu rendering this article extremely difficult to edit at all, let alone vandalise. The cure is worse than the disease. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it. Having NOEDITSECTION is not a real solution, whether it works or not. It is a pain for real editors and goes against the whole point of having section editing in the first place! wangi 14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism resumed

I hope everyone's got this page on their watchlists - it would be really embarrassing if they started messing with the pictures again and a reader saw it. Izehar (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Redlinks to legislation.

Regarding the back-and-forth over whether redlinks to obscure legislation should be listed, TexasAndroid has now posted those redlinks in List of United States federal legislation - which is where they should be, not necessarily here. I will contend, however, that almost any piece of legislation enacted by a vote of the Congress and signed into law by the President is encyclopedic, especially in a non-paper venue such as our own. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It there must be a link, can't there be a link to List of United States federal legislation? Izehar (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Red links on this page

And now for a non-vandalism, non-POV related discussion. :) (Wow. Can we actually have those on this page? :) )

I edited out several red links in the Legislation section. Two of them were put back in by one user (Jengod) and then removed by Izehar. Be nice to talk about this here before a revert war starts on such a trivial subject. (I mean, of all the things to have a revert war about on the GWB page, red links? :) )

Jengod called my removal of them nonsense. A bit harsh IMHO, but I've seen worse here on WP. For those who don't want to dig through the edit histories:

Me: "Unlinked four red links in the legislation section. If they do not have WP articles, no reason to have the red links"

Jengod: "nonsense. redlinks exist specifically to entice people to write missing articles"

Izehar: "yes, but it doesn't look good to the reader - they are on such obscure subjects anyway that it is not likely that an article on them will be written; the LRA 2002 isn't even finished yet"

While I agree with Jengod that he has given one reason for the existence of red links, IMHO they are equally there to warn user that the link is disfunctional. That going there will get them nothing useful. And also to possibly warn that the link either needs to be fixed or unlinked, because it's not a useful link as is. And, on a high, high profile page like this, the last reason is the most important IMHO. I think that this page should be a showcase of what WP can do for a living, breathing encyclopedia. And as such, the page should be one of the most perfected pages we have. It'll never be perfect, that's impossible. But this page should be held to a higher standard than most others for appearance. (And content, but that's outside the scope of this comment) To that end, IMHO once again, red links detract from the appearance and utility of this page. - TexasAndroid 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with TexasAndroid in this case, which is particularly rare (the situation, not the agreement!) - of course, another alternative would be to start articles for those four pieces of legislation... bd2412 T 20:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

One side note to this. A quick count shows that four red links remain on the page currently. Three are to people, one is to yet another peice of legislation, this time in the article itself. I've place the legislation onto List of United States federal legislation, as I did with the first set at BD2412's request. But I'll hold off touching any of the links on the GWB page itself until this discussion can move a little more foreward. - TexasAndroid 20:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In general, there are way too many links in this article. It's very distracting.

Warning Label at top of edit field

Is the warning label necessary? Has anyone done a survey to determine if this has actually reduced vandalism significantly enough to overrule the potential that it may be discouraging useful editors from participating?--MONGO 21:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• See above. Kappa 21:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, repeatedly. The warning label combined with the NOEDITSECTION drastically drop the number of vandalisms. We were getting about one every 2-10 minutes, and now are at about one every 20-60 minutes, or more. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 21:37
• It works, see above.--Alhutch 22:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Search in edit box

For those who use Firefox but feel hindered by not being able to edit sections, you can use this Firefox extension (tested in 1.0.7 and 1.5), which allows you to search in edit boxes: Wikipedia:Tools/Browser_Integration#Search_within_Textarea_Extension. Make sure you restart Firefox after installing it, and make sure the mouse has been clicked inside the edit box. Then do CTRL+F. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-15 21:40

FINALLY!

Finally! Thank you people! I was so annoyed and pis*ed of from the moment that neutrality dispute was added to the George W. Bush article. Finally those bloody Comrades have shut their bloody Communist traps and have left this poor, ravaged Wikipedia article in peace. I am a hell of a lot happier now. Thank you, SO MUCH!

Pattern?

It seems that WoW (or whoever he or she is) comes around between 20:00 and 22:00 EST....pattern? Deckiller 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the prage should be protected only then ;-) Izehar (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been temporarily protected to deal with an influx on trolls vandalizing. Harro5 01:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

7 hours unprotected and how many times vandalised? The sooner that semi-protection feature is prepared the better. That way, only the dedicated trolls can vandalism, as they will have to make 50 constructive edits through each before vandalising ;-) Izehar (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Should we re-open for business? Harro5 05:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have done so. Happy editing, everyone!--Sean|Black 05:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit request

Could some admin change the word "averred" in the section of GW's religion to some synonym? (Not that I know what any synonym of such a ridiculous word might be--"implied", maybe?) I'd do it myself, but following Wikipedia's apparent philosophy of letting only the popular users edit popular pages, I can't. Thanks! Matt Yeager 04:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd insert a link to Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy, but it seems the proposal has passed now... Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ulterior motives?

Who thinks that this whole business with the Jimbo personal information, is just some POV warriors underhanded way of assuring that the article stay locked? and un-editable--205.188.116.10 05:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not me. See also TINC, and specifically WP:TINC.--Sean|Black 05:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't like to make a legal threat, but this nonsense has got to stop. Surely there is a way to track this individual or group of individuals down and make this come to an end.--MONGO 05:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree on that point. This person(s) is clearly out to damage our encyclopedia, and should be blocked on sight.--Sean|Black 06:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I say if that same edit summary is used by anyone (the M.O. if you will), then it is an automatic indefinite block for trolling. No warnings, no 24 hour blocks, but gone for good straight away. At least they might get sick of it then. On a related note, everyone thinks this might be Willy on Wheels. Didn't I read a messgae once with him vowing to move on? Harro5 06:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, on the mailing list. Funny thing is, we had three notifications on WP:ANI today about pagemove vandals.--Sean|Black 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the concensus for not blocking the page from anons and such. Its clear it would stop vandalism, and its also clear we could keep updating the page with information anyway. I don't see why we leave the page broad-open to the WWN, and then people complain about vandalism. Why not just block..? -MegamanZero|Talk 08:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the concept of blocking the page from unregistered users violate the principle of Wikipedia to begin with? It's one thing to punish those who vandalize the page, but to pre-emptively block those who've done nothing is an overstep. (For the record, I also believe the word is "ulterior," not "alterior.") - AWF

Should every have to post up their social security number to make an edit too? That way we can ding their credit report if they vandalize... -- Jbamb 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Note about protection

The protection notice is at the top of the page but the page isn't actually protected! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.123.201 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, we know. Makes absolutely no sense. -MegamanZero|Talk 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That is what happens when it is move-protected. I think there is an open bug-fix request for that. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Health section

As it stands now, the Health section is entirely devoted to HIV/AIDS. There is no mention of the fact that the number of uninsured Americans has been rising under Bush's administration. Either the section should be renamed HIV-AIDS or additional information be added, revealing Bush's health care policy.

==No edit box == — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 21:52

Why is this there ? Is this article somehow so special that it should not be edited? Refdoc 17:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Uh, it's NOEDITSECTION, which disallows section editing. There's plenty of discussion on this page why this is a good or a bad idea to have. Please discuss rather than revert warring. android79 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Take note that this article has been vandalised at least a dozen times all in the space of 5 minutes, upon looking at my watchlist. So, yes, this article is "special" as you put it, and nevermind the NOEDITSECTION, the article should be blocked, and the opposing IP addresses as well.-MegamanZero|Talk 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is quite clearly no consensus on this matter wahtsoever - A number of well respected editors and admins above have protested too. I do not think it is right to have such a feature without a high level of consensus. I am no vandal and this is not edit warring. Refdoc 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• You reverted repeatedly without discussing this beforehand, while this has been discussed thoroughly in the archives of the talk page. Based on the drop in vandalism, this appears to be the best option, without protecting the article. If this option is not used, the article will ultimately be protected due to excessive vandalism, as has been the repeated result in the past. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 18:10

If you look at the history of this page - there is a large group of users and admins who do not agree with this measure. I am but the last one in a row of editors who has removed it. I simply do not care whether this is a great measure of stopping vandalism. It is also a measure to stop useful editing - and this is what I do care about. Such drastic measures require overwhelming community support. Before you emply them it is up to you to demonstrate this being there. The edit history of today seems to suggest that it quite clearly is not there. Refdoc 18:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Refdoc, for the sake of arguement, can you please show us this "no consensus" that you speak of? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Anything that reduces vandalism while still allowing legitimate edits should be seen as a good thing. NOEDITSECTION should not be removed until some semi-protection policy can be implimented. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:21, Dec. 16, 2005

• This is all a mistake. Simply protect the entire article and be done with it. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• How does this stop useful edits? Anyone can search in the text for their section title and start editing immediately. It adds at most 5-10 seconds to the editing process. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 18:24

• Please stop removing the NOEDITSECTION header, it appears to have noticeably reduced vandalism, see Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_35#NOEDITSECTION_Seems_to_work. Hall Monitor 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Can I chip in my $0.02 here? (sorry, couldn't figure how to insert cents, unless I'm missing it...) I must have missed the original debate, but I'm worried about this removal of edit sections. Progress shouldn't be stemmed or hindered just for reducing vandalism - that means you're giving in to the vandals. The article is by no means perfect, and until it reaches such a non-existant state of utopia, editing shouldn't be restrited in any way. By not allowing section editing, progress will be effectively stopped - it's an extremely long article, and if a user wants to rewrite something, most won't look through the entire article just to find that section. True, there's an extension for Firefox and IE already has a search feature for text boxes, but most casual users will not go to such depths to write or fix something. We're losing contributions and potential Wikipedians here. In other words, we're sacrificing progress and the chance to improve this article and move forward in order to reduce vandalism. Something seems wrong about that. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, but granted, this article is an acception. Its being vandalised to the extreme, and I have yet to see any anons contribute to it in a positive manner. Therefore, that concensus isn't really valid in this situation, and in my opinion, the whole article should be blocked.-MegamanZero|Talk 19:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone is on the same page as far as the vandalism goes here..it's absurd, but I too question whether the noedit section is actually making that much of a difference...is there anyone who feels like doing a comparison between when it has this label and when it doesn't? If the reduction isn't realtively obvious, then I say it needs to go.--MONGO 19:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we're all missing something here. From past discussions, people have been discussing the levels of vandalism. What about the levels of progress being made on this article? Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the vandalism is so bad that no one cares to do much real editing...you have sucha great chance of incorporating vandlaize material. But, good observation, as there has been much more discussion about the vandalism than there has about content.--MONGO 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No we are not. Please look at at exactly whom has been making these levels of progress. Its been logged in, resgistered wikipedians, and anons have yet to make any positive contributions. Looking at the history, its obvious only anons have been vandalising. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I already did this comparison! Please read the previous discussions linked above. One day without the notice or NOEDITSECTION: 80+ vandalisms. The next day, with just the notice: 45 vandalisms. The next day, which added NOEDITSECTION: 24 vandalisms. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 20:42

Okay, I see, but we need to look at it on a week to week basis because the hours can fluctuate greatly anyway due to # of edits.--MONGO 20:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How can we look at it for a week when people keep removing it for unfounded reasons? Why is everyone so afraid of experimenting with different methods of reducing vandalism? Of course it is easy to dismiss any change; how about making an alternate suggestion? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 20:52

That's my point - we've all been comparing the levels of vandalism. What about the levels of progress before and after the change? I'm not disputing that this has lowered vandalism, but at what cost? For the sake of progress? We're not afraid of making changes; we just need to analyze the affects of this change. Alternate suggestions, you say? I see two clear paths to take now - either keep the NOEDIT, or remove it. In my opinion, it should be removed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What loss of progress? It takes 5-10 more seconds to edit a page now than it does with [edit]. Why is everyone so outraged by this?? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 21:00

How? Most people stumbling upon Wikipedia won't bother to look through an entire article just to edit a section. I'm not outraged by this; on the contrary, I think it's a good idea. However, I'm concerned with its implications - hindering progress in an effort to stop vandalism. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Have you looked at the history of the page while NOEDITSECTION is off? Most people do edit by section only. Now they just have to copy the section title, go to Edit, and search for the title. How hard is that? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 21:30

(after two edit conflicts and second comment) What if people don't think of searching for section title or can't search for the section title (yes, I know there's a Mozilla extension)? The point is whether this change has more benefits than detriments. I agree that this has reduced vandalism, but I think that it has also stopped progress on this article. We're sacrificing progress to stop vandalism, which I think is wrong. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Alright, I've added a short explanation of how to edit a specific section. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 21:34
  • It's not 'hard' at all (except for those who use Firefox without the textbox search plugin), but there is still that little problem where it doesn't always work. The REASON that 'NOEDITSECTION' reduces vandalism is that it makes edit conflicts more likely... making it more difficult to EDIT the page, whether that edit is vandalism or not. This, along with protection of the page, is obviously contradictory to wiki-philosophy of encouraging active editing. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I disagree. You're saying we should cator to the constructive edits (minority) rather than give attention to the vandalism (majority)..? -MegamanZero|Talk 21:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I think NOEDITSECTION works because everyone is forced to read the notice at the top, and they realize what a waste it is to vandalize the article. If it was creating edit conflicts, the number of vandalisms would probably still be relatively high, since it takes little time to blank an article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 21:49
    • I also disagree with the ridiculous notion that we should cater to this "wiki philosophy". We are an encyclopedia first, a community second. Presenting useful content to readers is the main goal. It is not the goal to adhere to the "philosophy imposed by the software", which lends itself to editors, not readers. We use the wiki software to make an encyclopedia. We do not make an encyclopedia to promote the wiki software. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 21:52
    • Although we may never know why it works, I agree with what Brian0918 said. The NOEDITSECTION marker effectively requires that all editors read and understand that this is not the proper place to make new user tests. Not too long ago, we had warnings against vandalism commented within each and every section of the article, with NOEDITSECTION we only need to do this once, and ensure that everyone who attempts to edit the page will see it, regardless of what paragraph(s) they are editing. In my opinion, that is a small price to pay to cut vandalism to the number one most visited (and vandalised) article on Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 21:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • (after edit conflict) How is that philosophy ridiculous? True, we are an encyclopedia first - that's why we should encourage people to improve the article. Right now, with the NOEDITSECTION, we are giving in to the vandals and discouraging progress and improvement. Without people to improve and edit the articles, there wouldn't be an encyclopedia. The instructions for "section editing" don't really accomplish anything - it helps, but it still discourages editing. Also, we shouldn't require people with Firefox (myself included) to download something just to edit Wikipedia sections. By the way, I know this was considered earlier, but is there anything wrong (besides being redundant) with placing the warning on all sections? That would be acceptable to me. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That was done before, and people complained vehemently just as you are now. When it was changed to NOEDITSECTION, people liked it better because the notice wasn't in 20 different sections. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 22:11

(after edit conflict) Since it seems like we won't agree, how about if we start a straw poll to determine if there's consensus to keep the NOEDITSECTION? Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Because polls are evil, and should only be used to show where everyone stands, never as a final determination. Also, because "consensus vote" is an oxymoron. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 23:05

I have been accused yesterday of editwarring for removing several times the "no section edit" tag. It is quite clear from teh above discussions that there is not the slightest bit of consensus - not on whether any protection is needed, nor on whether this form of "protection" is the right one. I therefor can only suggest that this odious measure is removed until a consensus is found. Refdoc

Vandalisms to date

Vandalism-related (red), Non-vandalism-related (green), perecent vandalism-related (black)

Looking at the full history of this page, which I wouldn't recommend anyone else do (my browser was taking up 480MB of memory after the page loaded), I counted various vandalism reversion terms, and came out to just over 6,000. Assuming that each vandalism consisted of only one edit, that comes out to be (after some tedious calculation) over 12,000 edits related only to vandalism. This article has nearly 26,000 edits to date. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 22:28

Additionally, over 10,600 edits were by anonymous users, leaving 15400 for registered users. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 22:34

More fun facts: 249 edits were made in 2002, 555 in 2003, and 5533 in 2004. In 2005, we're up to 19,630. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 22:39

Hey, nice work on the calculations! Deckiller 22:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The most recent samples which have taken snapshots of the past 250 edits demonstrate that anywhere between 93–97% of all edits to this article are either vandalism or the removal of vandalism. It would be interesting to measure how vandalism to this article has increased over time; ~50% vandalism doesn't sound so bad in comparison. Hall Monitor 22:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. Why is this situation being flaundered around more than it should be..? I humbly request that someone explain why this article isn't protected in full.-MegamanZero|Talk 22:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Give me 5 seconds :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 22:55

Would it be possible for a system to be set up...say, a page is protected, and users can submit suggested changes to an administrator or someone? Deckiller 22:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Something like that is coming in January. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 23:04

That reeks of content review. Are admins going to blanket OK anything that's not overt vandalism?--kizzle 05:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean "content review" like what all other encyclopedias have? I hope so. It depends on the admin, but they'll probably revert anything that isn't obviously positive (spelling fixes), or isn't sourced. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 05:46

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean and exactly why I have reservations about it. Having admins judge issues beyond spelling, grammar, syntax, whether its vandalism, and manual of style for inclusion into the "reviewed" version is unacceptable. --kizzle 05:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So far in December, about 600 vandalisms and 600 reversions = 1200 total edits related to vandalism, out of 1700 edits. In November, this total is 1700 out of 2600 edits; in October, 1700 out of 2900; in September, 1000 out of 1700; in August, 700 out of 1600. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 23:03

Cool graph coming up. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 23:05

Hey, that was more than 5 seconds. :-) But we're focusing on the total number of vandalisms, when what I'm concerned about the total number of "good" edits - from the data Brian collected, 500 in December, 900 in November, 1200 in October, 700 in September, and 900 in August. What say you all to a straw poll? Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You have to look at percentages, not total. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 00:05

• I concur; all this discussion has gotten us nowhere, and we need to reach concensus soon...-MegamanZero|Talk 23:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why soon? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 00:05
• These figures (71%, 65%, 59%, 58%) are signficantly lower than past surveys which took a sample of 250 edits at a time. How are you calculating good vs. bad edits? Hall Monitor 23:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I counted the number of edit summaries that contained one of these (case insensitive): "Reverted edits by", "RVC", "rvv", "rv vandal". Assuming 1 vandalism for each reversion, I doubled each of those numbers to account for all edits related to vandalism. Of course, not all vandalisms are just 1 edit at a time. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 23:58

I've added a graph for 2005. "Vandalisms" means anything related to vandalism, including reverting vandalism. Everything else is "not vandalism". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-16 23:58

Am I the only one who has noticed the current vandalism? --The1exile 01:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the commie vandalism as well, but I was busy trying to figure out what the Communist Vandal template was. ^_^ Deckiller 01:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that was quick. Forget that last comment then. --The1exile 01:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet more vandalism. I have reverted but I don't see why we just dont stick protection on it and edit it every month or so when the protection can be lifted for a few days. --The1exile 12:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we need a poll?

Do you all think it's time that we finally made a poll--and followed its conclusion--in an attempt to reach some sort of consensus about what we should do, protection-wise?

The reason I'm asking is because pretty much all the information is already out there, and the current situation (a perpetual flux between full protection, varied forms of semi-protection, and no protection) is intolerable for the long term. Persuant to WP:POLLS, I'm going to float the basic idea first and see if we all agree to a poll.

Here it is: we have everyone vote whether or not the page should have ANY sort of non-move protection. (Obviously, move protection has reached a consensus already that it's appropriate and should be kept.) Should the "protection" voters win, we can then have a further poll on what type of protection should be used (have a public, protected page with a secret editable one? full protection? 50-edit protection? etc). I would also suggest that a simple majority of non-sock puppet accounts should determine whether or not to keep it--ideally, there should be a clear consensus one way or another in order to do anything, and an unclear majority should result in keeping the status quo; however, there really isn't a status quo to keep here. Everything's a mess.

So, I'm soliciting opinions here--do we all want a poll on whether to offer any sort of non-move protection on the George W. Bush page? Matt Yeager 00:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• As I said above, we should not poll, "because polls are evil, and should only be used to show where everyone stands, never as a final determination. Also, because 'consensus vote' is an oxymoron." Its been discussed thoroughly, and we should continue discussing it. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 00:03
  • True; however, at some point, the endless discussion MUST reach a head and give a result. There does need to be a consensus, eventually. I think that all opinions have been clearly laid out, we have a clear choice of options, and that an eventual decision must be reached. A poll is simply the simplest, clearest way of determining consensus. (Saying "'consensus vote' is an oxymoron" is not only untrue, it doesn't even make sense, as far as I can tell.) Right? Matt Yeager 01:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • A poll would assume that all people involved have read all of the past, archived discussion that other people took part in. I doubt very much that this is true. A poll basically says "screw discussion, and any productive results from it, we're going to enforce with a mob." — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 01:21
      • Let me get this straight - we're having a poll about whether to have a poll or not? That seems a little bit excessive. True, while that meta page, m:Polls are evil, has often been cited, polls are a good way to see where the community stands on this issue. And please assume good faith and assume that people have read the entire discussion, as I have done so. There's no reason to assume that educated Wikipedians will ignore prior discussions and just vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't fret, Semi-protection just passed 103-4-2 along with Jimbo's blessing and input from several developers. Help is on the way. --kizzle 01:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed. That's why I didn't understand the need to hurry this along. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 01:49

• • The page states very explicitly that semi-protection should not be used for long periods of time or permanently, and I've brought up concerns about using semi-protection on this article there, where I've received assurances that semi-protection should not be used to semi-protect this article for extended periods of time. Also note that a poll was conducted over there to gauge the amount of public support. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I wasn't referring to the semi-protection system. There's another feature coming in January that will alleviate all of this. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 01:54
      • What's coming in January? Broken S 02:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • (after edit conflict) Really? That's the first I've heard of this. Would you mind enlightening us? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Tim Starling's cool feature that lets admins set a "last good version" for an article, which will remain the visible version, while the real version can be edited behind-the-scenes.

Admins can set new "good versions" as good edits pile up. I thought you said you read the discussions on this page? :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 02:08

• • • • • • • Ah, I see. Thanks! I did/do - just the ones pertaining to editing, though. I must have missed it. Which archive is this in? With that coming, I'm happy with the way it is now. And nice discussion with you, Brian. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Semi-protection will still be applied and regularly taken off to see if vandalism continues. --kizzle 01:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Any attempt to make it more difficult for editors to alter this article will of course fail. It's a wiki, and its purpose is to produce an encyclopedia. We cannot do that by pretending that the articles are finished and must not be edited. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

A little edit

I just edited out the part "and former governor of Texas" because it's touched upon in the second paragraph. Deckiller 02:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I also increased one of the pic sizes just slightly; the notes were the only thing hanging (on my computer, at least...it probably makes little difference on most computers). Deckiller 02:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who's noticed?

I look up George W Bush, and what do I get? This bozo. This is Bush JR!!! Emphasis on the "Jr." This article should be placed under the appropriate heading, which would be "George W Bush Jr." Looking up "George W Bush" should bring up is father, the 41st president. (Yes, I know now that Bush Sr. is under the article for "George H W Bush." That doesn't change the fact that this article is for Bush Jr, and should be labeled as such.) ethernaut

You're wrong. The "Jr" suffix is not supposed to be used in cases where the son's middle name(s) or initials differ from the father's. This is why Ronald P. Reagan is not referred to as "Ronald Reagan Jr", as his father's middle initial/name was different (W for Wilson, in this case). Therefore, as George H.W. Bush has different middle initials to the current president, the Jr suffix is not used, and the current form (of expressing the middle names as single initials) becomes the formal style of naming. — Impi 11:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I've used quite a number of search engines and websites, and, aside from "Jr," I cannot find anything seperating Bush Sr. from Bush Jr. Would you care to provide a site that proves that Bush Jr. doesn't actually have two middle names like his father? (Common knowledge need not apply. I have two middle names myself, but I use only one initial.) Thanks for any help. I'm trying to clear up several arguments. ethernaut

The article is under George W Bush because that is what he is referred to and most commonly known as. Bush Sr, meanwhile, is best known as George HW Bush, and hence the article is there. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This took a couple of minutes via Google: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] — Impi 10:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

NSA

How should we praise the current NSA scandle? I think it should be included. Watsonladd 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm actually surprised it's not already in there. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 16:36

Analysis of rollbacks on this article suggests that vandalism continues to increase

This is a raw count of reverts (which is a measure of vandalism) from January this year.

select 'Vandalism reverts',count(1) from revision where rev_comment like 'Reverted edits by%to last version by%' and rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20050101000000 union select 'Total edits',count(1) from revision where rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20050101000000;

+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts | count(1) |
+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts |     4699 |
| Total edits       |    19733 |
+-------------------+----------+

So overall this year, from January 1st to date, about 24% of all edits on this article were reverts.

And since October 1:

select 'Vandalism reverts',count(1) from revision where rev_comment like 'Reverted edits by%to last version by%' and rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051001000000 union select 'Total edits',count(1) from revision where rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051001000000;

+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts | count(1) |
+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts |     2021 |
| Total edits       |     7227 |
+-------------------+----------+

Up to 28%.

And for since December1:

select 'Vandalism reverts',count(1) from revision where rev_comment like 'Reverted edits by%to last version by%' and rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051201000000 union select 'Total edits',count(1) from revision where rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051201000000;

+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts | count(1) |
+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts |      552 |
| Total edits       |     1771 |
+-------------------+----------+

Up to 31%.

How about the period October-November?

select 'Vandalism reverts',count(1) from revision where rev_comment like 'Reverted edits by%to last version by%' and rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051001000000 and rev_timestamp <=20051201000000 union select 'Total edits',count(1) from revision where rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051001000000 and rev_timestamp<=20051201000000;

+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts | count(1) |
+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts |     1469 |
| Total edits       |     5456 |
+-------------------+----------+

About 27%.

This suggests a significant jump in reverts during December--the period during which we've had NOSECTIONEDIT directive in this article.

Okay let's look at October and November individually:

select 'Vandalism reverts',count(1) from revision where rev_comment like 'Reverted edits by%to last version by%' and rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051001000000 and rev_timestamp <=20051101000000 union select 'Total edits',count(1) from revision where rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051001000000 and rev_timestamp<=20051101000000;

+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts | count(1) |
+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts |      748 |
| Total edits       |     2890 |
+-------------------+----------+

Average for October was 26%

select 'Vandalism reverts',count(1) from revision where rev_comment like 'Reverted edits by%to last version by%' and rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051101000000 and rev_timestamp <=20051201000000 union select 'Total edits',count(1) from revision where rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20051101000000 and rev_timestamp<=20051201000000;

+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts | count(1) |
+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts |      721 |
| Total edits       |     2566 |
+-------------------+----------+

Average for November was 28%.

So there does seem to have been quite a jump in December so far, from 28% to 31%. If making it difficult to edit sections has helped vandalism, the figures don't show it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

So in other words we'll have to "evolve" with th conditions and develop new defences. Izehar (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The link marked "new defences" above actually links to a proposed semi-protection policy. While this might help in cases of serious vandalism, the idea that this particular article should need much protection seems unsustainable. It's on nearly everybody's watchlist, and it's being edited almost constantly, so any form of protection, or "semi-protection" whatever that might be, would be most inappropriate, because it would prevent this editing happening.

No, what the statistics above show is that making it more difficult for editors to get at sections means that some of those edits don't get done at all, while vandalism continues. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• This has become sickening. Can someone explain why we cannot simply lock the article for the time being..? Its not as if we need to document Bush eating dinner, going to bed, etc. Why not simply lock the article and make requests and some sort of interval periods to edit..? This is being made harder than it should be. On the other hand, I am looking foward to semi-protect... -MegamanZero|Talk 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Locking the article would prevent it being edited--which is the purpose of having a wiki in the first place. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but why do we need to edit the article now..? There's nothing happening in Bush's life right now that worth writing about. :/ -MegamanZero|Talk 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean we shouldn't improve the article? Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, semi-protection will not and should not be used for extended periods of time on this article - that was part of the policy. However, Tim Starling is working on a feature that will allow an "approved" version to be shown while edits can be made on another version. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't show anything

Vandalism-related (red), Non-vandalism-related (green), perecent vandalism-related (black)

Your statistics have nothing to do with the addition of NOEDITSECTION and the notice, which only came in December. Look at the graph, notice the drop in % vandalism in December? Care to explain it? Your reasoning is bogus. On the whole, of course the vandalism has risen over the year, but we didn't have NOEDITSECTION or the notice for this whole year. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 20:52

My statistics show that there has been a jump in vandalism in December, using rollbacks as a proxy to measure vandalism. How did you compile the results in your graph? If you can explain how you compiled your figures, then we can discuss why they differ so markedly from mine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I explained it quite thoroughly on the image page. If you want to replicate them, go for it.— ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 21:03

Your statistics also ignore edit summaries like "rvv" "RVC" and ";rv vandal". — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 21:02

My statistics show 31% for December. It's true that I ignore rvv, rvc and rv vandal. I'll repeat them using those proxies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My count was also case insensitive. Are you saying my results are bogus? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 21:06

(after two edit conflicts) Guys, please. Let's at least stay civil here. Can you two figure out which statistic is correct? Also, I'm not disputing that NOEDITSECTION has decreased vandalism - instead, we should be focusing on the decrease of "good" edits. On your graph, Brian, there's also a significant drop in the number of "good" edits, meaning that progress has been hindered since the addition of NOEDITSECTION. Tony's statistics also don't show a decrease in vandalism - 28 percent vandalism stays constant. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No, we're only through December 16th. That's half a month. The percentage of vandalisms has dropped, so the percentage of good edits must have increased. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 21:13

(after another edit conflict) OK, so why don't we put this debate on hiatus until January, when we have the complete data and possible more technical features? For right now, though, how about a poll? There's no harm done in having another poll. That way, we can judge more community input. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting until I've convinced everybody. The figures are pretty clear. There has been a marked increase in the number of vandalism reverts as a proportion of all edits during December so far, when one takes into account rollbacks, and edits containing the character strings 'rvc,'rvv' and 'rv vandal', and I'm confident that if we keep suppressing the editing of sections matter cannot improve. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

To make it plain, Brian, I'm making my queries against a mirror of the live database, and the figures I'm getting out are repeatable by anyone else with access to the tools server, simply by repeating my queries, the source of which I have listed.

If there is an error in my queries, please show this and I'll fix it and rerun. I'm not saying your figures are wrong, just that they don't match mine. You may convince me that my method has weakenesses, please feel free to show your own working and how you arrived at your figures. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected, yet again

Protected. The defamation vandal has struck again, thankfully only three times. android79 21:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect this page. Jimbo's address and phone number are already public knowledge, and people are not going to trust the edit summary and believe that he (or Bush) rapes small boys or offers rimjobs to people calling his home. We can just revert the vandalism as it happens. As soon as this page is protected, the vandals have won. —Guanaco 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope-too soon. Apply again tommorrow.--File Éireann 02:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that we have waited long enough. I am challenging the original reason for protection. —Guanaco 02:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's unprotected. Thanks, Splash. —Guanaco 02:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You see, that there is the wrongness of protecting this and waiting for the vandals to go away. Come back tomorrow? Will they all be taking a day off tomorrow? I can easily understand protecting against the semi-bot-like vandal for a couple of hours a day, since the rate of edit conflicts might otherwise become disruptive, but it should be unprotected quickly after that. And we shouldn't operate on the principle that something might be different tomorrow! -Splash^talk 13:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Using rollbacks, rvv, rv vandal and rvc shows an even more marked jump in vandalism in December

For the whole year:select 'Vandalism reverts',count(1) from revision where (rev_comment like 'Reverted edits by%to last version by%' or lcase(rev_comment) like '%rvc%' or lcase(rev_comment) like '%rvv%' or lcase(rev_comment) like '%rv vandal%') and rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20050101000000 and rev_timestamp <=20051231000000 union select 'Total edits',count(1) from revision where rev_page=3414021 and rev_timestamp>20050101000000 and rev_timestamp<=20051231000000;

+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts | count(1) |
+-------------------+----------+
| Vandalism reverts |     5631 |
| Total edits       |    19743 |
+-------------------+----------+

This is about 29%, January to date.

Since October, the equivalent figure is 2355/7245, 32%.

Since the beginning of December, it's 637/1784, 36%.

For October alone, it was 872/2890, 30%.

For November alone, at was 844/2566, 32%.

This shows an even more marked jump for December than just counting rollbacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that I had to revert (not vandalism) here. Ugh, I hate Bush. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedist, I don't quite get your comment. WOuld you mind clarifying? OK, there's only got to be one correct statistic. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Finally. The page has been protected. Thank god for that.-MegamanZero|Talk 21:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, it wasn't important. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

*edit conflict* You know, NOEDITSECTION may even encourage vandals. They may see it as a challenge - the libel vandal/WoW certainly has. Once a page gets this much attention, then it attracts chronic vandals such as him. Most other vandals seem to be unrelated except in their common dislike of Bush. It may even be chance that the vandalism levels have increased. Izehar (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. So why not let them attempt to "challenge" the authority of a blocked page..? See how for their insolense will go then.-MegamanZero|Talk 21:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... maybe because it's Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopaedia - that will make it the "unfree" encyclopaedia. Also, the vandals will probably "migrate" to another page. Across the Atlantic to Tony Blair perhaps. Izehar (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't understand how NOEDITSECTION could be expected to prevent vandalism. My figures suggest that it has had no such effect. What it definitely does do is make it extremely difficult for a casual editor to edit a section, and this alone could well account for an increase in the proportion of vandalism to non-vandal edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

NOEDITSECTION could increase vandalism, decrease it or even have no effect whatsoever. Does it make any difference whether it's there? Can't we just have a vote? Izehar (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Since I was originally trying to ballpark the estimate, I rounded all the numbers up, and in this case it appears that this resulted in an apparent drop in December which may not actually have occurred. Until someone counts the actual number of vandalisms, we will never know. However, since NOEDITSECTION is particularly directed toward new users, and not the persistent vandal who has made 75 vandalisms this month (and zero edits any other month), it is clearly effective in that instance. This is the first time we've had such a persistent vandal on GWB. Nothing but protection is going to stop him. NOEDITSECTION is about stopping the new users from vandalizing. In any case, next month we will have article validation, so all of these problems will be solved and all of this bickering has been for nothing. Enjoy doing whatever you want with this page :) — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 21:37

You know, I bet the libel vanda/WoW reads this talk page (how sad). Look at the name of this sockpuppet: User:Around between 20:00 and 22:00 EST. Ring a bell? Didn't Deckiller say:

It seems that WoW (or whoever he or she is) comes around between 20:00 and 22:00 EST....pattern? Deckiller 01:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's probably why he/she's targeted this page - because he/she knows we're concerned about it. Izehar (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, Wiki gets more popular, people hear about it, they hear they can go and edit any article about any thing, and if they're liberal Bush-haters, they come here, don't understand how much effort real people put into maintaining this page, and they vandalize it. I'll bet the vandalism rate of this page is actually a good metric for the growth of Wikipedia in general, whereas substantive edits (because there's prettymuch everything that can be said about Dubya already on the page) are more difficult to make, and so are not as related. Just my crazy theory. Does this help solve the vandalism problem? ... No, though it does suggest solutions involving pages that you, say, have to log in and have been a Wikipedian for a week before you're allowed to edit. JDoorjam 00:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Straw Poll

OK, here goes: a straw poll. I have no clue about how long it should last, but we'll see. :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-enable section editing

1. Prevents progress and has not signficantly decreased vandalism. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Makes it harder to vandalise by making it harder to edit. That's unacceptable. --SPUI (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
3. It has only decreased vandalism by a slight margin, and gets in the way of normal editing, especially as this article is 96kb(!).--Sean|Black 21:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Much of the vandalism is blanking or involves editing the whole page anyway. Why make it harder for good users to edit? the wub "?!" 22:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
5. 24.224.153.40 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
6. A few comments (sorry, I tend to be long-winded). This appears to be a hack of security by obscurity, and such hacks are in general frowned upon because they do not address the core problem. It's funny that you guys have been talking about "wiki philosophy", since the original wiki actually made quite intensive use of security by obscurity, by being generally hard to navigate, geeky and ugly (people in the wikisphere touted this as a strength, to limit the site to a closed circle). In Wikipedia and MediaWiki development, we have always taken the opposite course, trying to be as user-friendly as possible. So one could say that this is not so much a violation of wiki philosophy, but of Wikipedia philosophy.
   
   When I wrote the section editing code, it was with the full intention to make Wikipedia more usable, and I do not agree that searching inside the textbox accomplishes the same effect. You have to find and type a uniquely identifying search phrase, and you have to think of doing so. The full page has to be loaded into the edit box instead of the subset and posted back, which will take longer if either your connection or the Wikimedia servers are slow. You will not get an automatic (gray) comment in the edit box explaining which section has been edited, and linking to it. When saving the page, you will not automatically be put on the part of the page whcih you edited (a quite neat hack which was added recently). Finally, when editing the article for the first time, you will be confused by the lack of edit links. In short, you are sacrificing quite a bit of usability for questionable gain.[*]
   
   This article is under very serious attack because it is one of the most exposed pages in Wikipedia. It highlights the fact that at the scale we're operating on now, immediate visibility of edits by anyone is no longer practical. The chances that you will see a bad version are too high. Vandals and spammers have an incentive to vandalize and spam. The stable version or delayed editing feature (whatever form it will take) will disincentivize them. The other proposed idea, semi-protection, is a "hard security" mechanism which is also workable without completely sacrificing our openness, though it is vulnerable to gaming.
   
   Instead of using hacks, I think you should make the urgency of the issue clear to our developers as well as the Wikimedia organization. Wikimedia has a paid CTO, Brion, who is fully capable of and willing to change the software. Once the changes have been made, they can generally go live immediately. Instead of using and arguing about a temporary hack, your time is more wisely spent by bugging Brion and Jimbo and explaining to them the urgency of the situation. In the meantime, I would find it perfectly appropriate to protect this article, but with a notice that "This article is protected from editing until new software features to deal with rapid vandalism have been implemented." This, in my mind, would be a more honest response than a temporary hack which will not buy us much, and confuse regular editors. Yes, the situation is FUBAR. Let's not pretend otherwise.--Eloquence* 22:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
   
   [*]Contrary to popular belief, section editing has nothing to do with edit conflicts, however, other than by perhaps decreasing the likelihood that two people are editing in the same space -- in any case, the merge algorithm is always run in case of conflicts, regardless of whether you are editing in section or full page mode.
7. User:Eloquence has spoken quite eloquently on the issue, and I would agree with him. Further, although it designed to reduce vandalism, Image:GWB vandalisms.png demonstrates that perhaps its benefits in this regard are minimal compared to the loss of utility of the section editing function. Enochlau 01:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
8. —Guanaco 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
9. Deckiller 02:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Only make legitimate editing more difficult, even to vote on this poll I had to append &section=25 to the edit link to edit just this section. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 04:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
11. Although we can hope that semi-protection will be here soon, until then, I prefer to see normal editing abilities enabled.--MONGO 08:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
12. As per Eloquence, well said. Thanks/wangi 14:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
13. I dislike straw polls and don't think this one will demonstrate anything. My analysis of the tools database, which currently carries a near-live replication of the English Wikipedia database, suggests that adding NOEDITSECTION in December has not reduced vandalism; vandalism so far this month is running at a higher rate than in November, and substantially higher than October. My methodology is to measure vandalism reverts, which are recognised by the edit summaries containing "reverted edits by...to last version by...", "rvc", "rvv" or "rv v". I list the results alongside the complete source code, in Guile Scheme, on this page:

    User:Tony Sidaway/Dubya vandalism --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

14. As per Eloquence. As a user on an ADSL connection, it takes me about 15-20 seconds to upload this page. This is a major pain when I am reverting someone, or making a quick change. -- Pakaran 02:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep section editing disabled

• # Yes, if it can be proven that this actually helps reduce vandalism. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• # Yes, make editting for vandals as difficult as possible. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

1. me too — Dan | talk 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
2. It has worked. It is a choice between this or constant edit wars, reversions, deletions, protections, etc. Yes it is alkward but far less alkward than constant protections. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
   1. I agree with Eloquence that we need a more longterm solution. There has however been a dramatic drop in vandalism since this solution has been tried. While there has been periodic bursts of vandalism for the most part it has been relatively quiet (or at least compared to the chaos there was before it was introduced. At one stage it seemed as though we were having a reversion a minute constantly. Now it is much less frequent in large measure because vandalism has been made more difficult. Those criticising the command may not realise the sheer chaos the page was in before it was introduced. Many people had had to spend their entire time on WP reverting and protecting the page minute by minute. It would be wrong to put wikipedians back in that position. We should leave the no edit command there until we have something better. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

      Shortly we will: Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy--MONGO 08:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

3. As per User:Jtdirl.--File Éireann 01:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't Care

1. It will all be moot in a few weeks. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-17 21:58
2. Amen. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
3. .ואמן Izehar (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
4. I would say to leave __NOEDITSECTION__ there, but to be honest, we've wasted a lot of time yelling at each other, time we could be using doing something better. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 02:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
5. I'd agree with my colleagues. Once semi-protection is implemented, vandalism is going to almost cease on this article. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 13:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
6. There are some disputes as to whether this NOEDITSECTION help or hinder the editing process, and it looks like this will all be irrelevant soon with the introduction semi-protection. Our developers can code a fancy real-time fundraiser graph perched above every page, so I hope they can get this feature brought about soon as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
7. Nevermind NOEDITSECTION templates, the article has been vandalised to the point were I think it in our best interest to protect the entire article. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

I started this, feel free to enrich. Izehar (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Pros

• Could discourage first time vandals.

Cons

• Gets in the way of normal editing.
• Could encourage vandals who want to "challenge the administration".

Adding information on secret spying

The article is currently protected right now, but I think a sentence or two should be added to the article about the recent revelations that Bush has repeatedly re-authorized spying on U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil without a warrant since 2002. This is very important news and speaks a lot about President Bush's views on privacy. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 22:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "spying" is POV in this context. We shouldn't add every little revelation about Bush to this article. But if we choose to add this one, we should do it using neutral language. Rhobite 22:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And it would have to be verified with reliable sources.--Sean|Black 22:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Are CNN or The New York Times good enough for you? --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 22:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they're fine, but you didn't cite anything in you initial post- I didn't mean to accuse you of lying.--Sean|Black 22:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What word would you suggest rather than "spying"? It's an accurate term for what has been ordered. It's even being used in the CNN and New York Times articles. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 22:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Eavesdropping or surveillance would be fine. CNN and NYT don't exactly have NPOV policies. I'm not going to accuse them of being biased sources, but they are among the more left-leaning media outlets. Rhobite 22:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Fox News uses "spying", too. JDoorjam 01:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How about "domestic surveillance"? It seems less emotionally charged than "spying". – ClockworkSoul 22:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. If anyone disagrees with Bush or says he's spying, they're "left" leaning. Give me a break. I'm a conservative, and Bush SPIED on the American people, and I'm with Arlen Specter regarding an investigation. I'm sick of using passive words to somehow soften everything this idiot does. He spied, the word is being used everywhere, NOT just left leaning sources. Please don't waste my time calling me "unpatriotic" because I don't care for Bush either. That isn't the point.

By the way, everyone can read these posts. You are giving people ideas about how to vandalise this site, by letting them know every move you're about to make. Go to the sysops and have them do something. Way too much time is spent talking about things, with no solutions forthcoming. It's like listening to Congressional hearings. I've been watching this site for two whole months, and this conversation never changes. It just takes up archive space that could be used for something else. 142.151.143.157 04:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

For what? The thing about the spying is that, according to the law, a court was supposed to rubber stamp a warrant. It bothers people (left and right) that the President didn't bother to obey that law. The Times sometimes doesn't capitalize his title. Some guy here insists on including Mr. Bush in his category - drunk drivers. Apes throwing shit don't look dignified, but if you don't get hit I guess it can be fun. Don't get too close, keep a tally of whose aim is better, and do not yield to the temptation to scoop some up and heave it. Metarhyme 05:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias

The section on gaps in Bush's military record is too biased against him. Stating: "Skeptics contend that many of the official records can no longer be found, and that the matter is at best ambiguous. Barring the discovery of additional documents that are either exculpatory or incriminating, the issue is unlikely to be settled conclusively." implies a likely 50/50 split between the suspicions being fact or false. On the contrary, all documents found have corraborated the president's story. The wiki article should reflect that.

Additionally, stating: "Several months later the statewide manual recount of all counties was completed by a group of newspapers and it was determined that Al Gore had won in Florida under four counting standards and had lost to Bush under the other four counting standards." is deceptive, and does not reflect an unbiased summary of even the articles quoted. This quote strongly implies that there was an even chance for Gore to have won the election, and that it was simply a matter of which of eight recount methods were used. On the contrary, most of the proposed methods that resulted in Gore winning were standards that would be *illegal* to use -- for example, assuming that a person that voted for both Gore and Buchanan was a vote for Gore, something no county in America allows.

The NORC study is also not the best study to link for on the subject. A better link would be to the consortium of Florida newspapers that did a manual recount after the election is over. They found that using the most commonly accepted standard for recounts, Bush won. There were variant counting methods by which Gore could have won, but there is a general consensus that he would have lost even if the third recount hadn't been blocked by the US Supreme Court.

Links: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm http://www.democ.uci.edu/resources/virtuallibrary/vote2000.htm

--Wkerney 23:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush's popularity

Much as I'm vehemently against Bush and his policies, I've got to say that the chart of his approval rating seems a bit misleading, as it only charts the range between 35 and 90%. It looks as if his approval rating had fallen to near 0% (if only!), the way that this chart construes things. If someone wants to fix this, or find a chart that reflects this, please do. But I do think having the chart is better than having no chart at all, since his declining popularity is certainly noteworthy. Aislar 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I adjusted the graph and extended the numbers through december. In the future, just read the image description and it will direct you to my talk page if further changes are needed. --tomf688^{talk} 04:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY!

Although I will say I am not a Republican, the neutrality of this article is not completely neutral. There are many adjectives that carry negative connotations that are used far too liberally (no pun intended). Also, personal takes on the article are glaring "Nation building with MIXED RESULTS". What do you guys say?

Michaelzhao 05:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Michaelzhao

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of edits by 24.29.84.114

This afternoon, 24.29.84.114 (talk · contribs) inserted the following text into the article:

Our continuous presence in Iraq has been questioned by many within the US due to the fact that Saddam's regime has been successfully overthrown, he himself has been captured, and three democratic national elections have since been held. Many US citizens often wonder why the US is still fighting, and when the troops can finally return home. President Bush and his administration have explained that although the former dictator is gone and Iraq is free, there exist many Saddam loyalists ("Saddamists") and rejectionists who make up the insurgency that is preventing Iraq from living in total peace and functionality. These insurgents are being aided by remaining members of Al-Qaeda, led by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, whose overlord is the wanted Osama bin Laden. While combating such enemies, United States and coalition forces are helping train the Iraqi military so that it may eventually defend their newly liberated country on their own. President has stated that "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

There are a number of problems with this. Firstly it refers to "our continuous presence", presumably this is written from the point of view of the United States of America. Secondly it suggests material assistance provided by Zarqawi to other factions without providing a reference for this. Thirdly it suggests that only this insurgency prevents Iraq from living in peace (ignoring the disaffected Shias, Sadrists, etc). I have removed this text in its current form but a rewritten version may well belong in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor, minor issue

Why is there larger space, between the title and the body text of this article, than other articles? It's kinda irritating to anal people like me; I'd understand if it's a necessary byproduct of some measure against vandalism, though. --Apostrophe 02:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• It was an artifact created by the leading HTML comment intended to disuade vandals. I just collapsed the last line of the comment into the first line of the article into one line, which has taken care of it. Others may see fir to undo it for some very good reason that I'm not aware of, of course. – ClockworkSoul 02:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I see, thank you very much for fixing it. --Apostrophe 03:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Drunk Driving Category

This is an absurd category to even exist on wikipedia much less be used to start linking people too. It provides no value and is simply there to continue the smear. Let's vote on who wants it to stay and who wants it to go. --Jbamb

This conversation does not belong here. If you disagree with this category, take it up with WP:CFD. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Something is wrong

It seems wrong to me that the He-Man article has been protected for the past 48 hours with little vandalism, and the article for the President of the United States has been nothing but vandalized for the same amount of time. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• He-Man was "vandalized" in Penny-Arcade. That's probably why. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• (after edit conflict) The difference, as I see it, is that the situation at He-Man is temporary and vandalism will most probably stop once the cartoon is off the main PA page, while vandalism on this article is a constant problem. So it makes sense to place a temporary protection on He-Man, but temporary protection of Bush wil get us nowhere - unless we want to permanently protect this article (which, as you're probably aware, has been discussed numerous times already :P ) -- Ferkelparade π 10:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• The main problem with this article, it would seem, is that __NOEDITSECTION__ has been removed, and now only people who click the edit button at the top of the page will see the warning notice. Vandalism has jumped significantly since that feature was removed. When it was first added, the vandalisms/day rate dropped from 84 vandalisms the day before it was added, to 24 vandalisms in the day after it was added. It would seem that only people unfamiliar with patrolling this page for vandalism would be against such an effective feature. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-19 23:19
  • Brian0918, I hate to be blunt, but I don't appreciate you insinuating that people who differ from your views on _NOEDITSECTION_ don't understand the situation or don't help revert vandalism on this page. The opposite is true. And regarding this debate - as I've stated above, I am not disputing that NOEDITSECTION has reduced vandalism. Instead, what we've been arguing above is that it hinders progress on the article. Didn't you say above that you didn't care? :-) Anyways, I've also noted people saying that semi-protection will be used on this article once it is available - the semi-protection policy makes it clear that it should not be used either for long periods or permanently. Thus, semi-protection will not be used on this article. However, I note that an article validation feature will be available soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Incontrovertible evidence of my being an ass on occasion. I apologize. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-21 02:51
    • To clarify, I believe if GWB continues to be vandalized after semi-protection is routinely taken off, if vandalism continues, it should still be applied. The semi-protection policy page prohibits semi-protection for an extended amount of time, but it does not mean it should be taken off and left off if vandalism continues. Weekly removals (if not sooner) of the policy should be sufficient, and if vandalism discontinues, then we can leave it be altogether.--kizzle 03:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Missquote?

In one of the televised debates in the 2000 Republican primaries, all participating candidates were asked to name their favorite philosopher. Bush responded by stating "Jesus Christ", because "he changed my life".

I remember him saying "Changed my heart" not "life".

Here is at least one article that supports my recollection:

http://archives.cjr.org/year/00/4/hanson.asp Vegasjon 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/religion_9-1.html Vegasjon 00:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush/Robin Lowman Abortion Issue

A number of authors and commentators have alleged that Bush secured an abortion for his girlfriend Robin Lowman (now Robin Garner) in 1971. Although this allegation remains unproven, it ought to at least merit a mention on Wikipedia's entry for Bush. After all, the Bill Clinton entry is filled with unproven, wild allegations (such as the completely discredited bogus tale of how Clinton was somehow connected to the "murder" of Vince Foster). Until this happens, it's going to be obvious to a lot of us how Wikipedia is demonstrating a clear pro-GOP bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.35.134 (talk • contribs) 04:08, December 20, 2005 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to grant us a source for that allegation? By the by, if you think there's stuff in the Clinton article that shouldn't be there, you should take it out of that article yourself (being bold and all). Thank you for your time. Matt Yeager 06:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a source that describes the allegation: http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159 I understand that anyone who has reported or investigated this allegation has been subject to threats from Bush operatives (I know of one reporter who received numerous death threats from right-wing nutcases; he eventually backed off the story). I just hope Wikipedia doesn't cave in to pressure on this issue.

Hey hey, come one, come all conspirators! This is a fun read guys, keep it up. Harro5 10:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I get 'the page cannot be displayed'. Evidently I'm not in the Cabal. The Land 10:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

democrats.com doesn't really seem like a non-partisan or credible source from its main page. Harro5 10:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, right: yeah, it's a "baseless" conspiracy, right? This is rich, coming from the GOP, home of people like Rush ("Clinton killed Vince Foster") Limbaugh. And of course, the Bush White House has NEVER retaliated against any opponents. Yeah, right. I'll notify Valerie Plame.

Can someone please mention this (actually quite credible and certainly newsworthy) Bush/Robin Lowman Abortion Issue on the Wikipedia/Bush entry. Either that, or, for balance, remove that garbage about Clinton "murdering" Vince Foster from Clinton's entry on Wikipedia. Either that, or Wikipedia needs to just go ahead and formally incorporate as an official affiliate of the Republican Party.

If it can't be verified, I'm all for taking it off the Clinton article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush's lastest fumblings

"In the late 1990s, our Government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone and then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak," Bush said.

Why does he have to repeat something already said in the sentence.

"And guess what happened. Saddam ... Osama bin Laden changed his behaviour. He began to change how he communicated. We're at war. And we must protect America's secrets."

Even his speech is incoherent.

NPOV - Perception section

This are all, basically, current event "scandals" against Bush. Aside from a few sentences that he enjoyed wide support after 9/11, is there nothing anyone can find anywhere that indicated 40 some odd percent of the American people think he is doing a good job? -- Jbamb 23:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• He keeps getting contradicted by facts. One higher truth is that domestically he is deterring bomb-suicides and has diverted them away from the United States. I don't know how an absence of bombs going off, or any other accomplishment, could be worked into Perception, which is about scandals. Concealing truth and assertion of dictatorial power are effective, customary Presidential actions in wartime, but if there is no major conflict they aren't. Could the section be relabeled Leaks to the press? Metarhyme 19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'

This stretches the bounds for having a NPOV, but it does seem to be authentic. If someone can confirm that this is true, it would make an interesting addition to our Wikipedian entry. [10] - AWF

I don't know if you can trust that site. Here on its main page, for instance, he refers to the president as "Prince Dubya". It's just a random blog dressed up as a reputable online news site, I think. Matt Yeager 01:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonauthoritative source. I'm sure it would make an appearance somewhere before an op-ed first if he really said it. -- Jbamb 04:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The source is bogus. I've seen Capitol Hill Blue before, they make stuff up. They're the ones who wrote about Bush running around the White House ranting and cursing about how everyone was out to get him. Rhobite 04:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a progressive and very anti-Bush, but I agree that CHB is a shit-rag. What they do is write stories that progressives enjoy reading, but almost always turn out to be wild fantasies. There's plenty to hang Bush with using reputable resources. And we already know he hates the Constitution, even if merely judging from his plainly illegal spying on Americans. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

fuzzy math

Carbonite changed this paragraph

Bush obtained a statistically insignificant increase in support from African-Americans during his presidency. He only got 9% of the black vote in 2000, and he received 11% in 2004.[11] A marginally significant increase in Ohio (from 9% to 16%[12], each ± about 5%) may have helped give the victory to Bush over Kerry.

to read

According to a CNN exit poll, Bush's support from African-Americans increased during his presidency from 9% of the black vote in 2000 to 11% in 2004.[13] An increase in Ohio (from 9% to 16%[14], each ± about 5%) may have helped give the victory to Bush over Kerry.

The explanation was "reword to eliminate some POV and to more clearly cite the source." Carbonite's version is factually incorrect.

It is not POV to say that a change is statistically insignificant or marginally significant. These are precise terms of art that mean a difference that is less than the margin of error or equal to it. Scientific journals, news articles and encyclopedia entries commonly use these terms.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

It is a factually unsupported statement that "support from African-Americans increased." The data is consistent with a decrease, an increase, or no change. You can only say there was no significant change or that there was a statistically insignificant increase.

It is also factually incorrect that all of the data comes from the CNN exit poll. The 2004 data does come from there, but CNN used 2000 data from the defunct Voter News Service. This detail would be distracting to include in the main article. The CNN reference provides no real information, since the real story is in the footnote. It would be best to just stick with the footnote.

At least the current wording is better than what someone else tried to change it to say. They said that the change was "statistically significant for a Republican," as if the laws of mathematics are different for Republicans:-)

--RichardMathews 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My only suggestion regarding this is that we allow the reader to decide what is significant, or not, when it comes to these percentages. Arkon 06:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Anything that is hovering within ±1% of 10% is definitely low, by any standards. I think saying "Bush has had low approval ratings from African Americans" after citing those numbers is not POV in any extent. The Ohio bit is more interesting, though, so it might be better if that one stayed. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't really responding to that point. I was responding to the original line of "Bush obtained a statistically insignificant increase in support from African-Americans during his presidency. He only got 9% of the black vote in 2000, and he received 11% in 2004.[22] A marginally significant increase in Ohio (from 9% to 16%[23], each ± about 5%) may have helped give the victory to Bush over Kerry." Arkon 06:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, if it is statistically significant (and you can find the correct wikilink for that), it might be ok to include the marginally significant increase line. But the statistically insignificant is not necessary, that is an understatement. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this, but the annual deficit is measured in billions. Everywhere the article mentions the deficit, it says "trillion". 71.251.26.244 20:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Anonymous

Impeachment

No point in including this except to advance a POV. The crowd pushing this has always been fringe. -- Jbamb 06:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I will disagree with the aforementioned statement. Impeach Prez or put him in prison. I don't care, just do it. --Bumpusmills1 00:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Check out the succession - if not Cheney it gets worse. Metarhyme 08:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The crowd pushing for impeachment is larger than that who pushed for Clinton's impeachment, according to Gallup polls. Kevin baas 15:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • When there are Articles that get submitted somewhere, we can talk. -- Jbamb 15:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There have been articles submitted - resolutions of inquiry. And btw, [24] Kevin baas 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not sure about the NPOV of including a poll of regular citizens about impeachment, if it is included, leave out comparisons to Clinton. This is not his article and the content should remain focused on Bush. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If polls of "regular citizens" on the government's actions are not noteworthy then nothing is noteworthy. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there haven't been a widespread group of companies that have done a poll on this issue, so one or two polls out of the dozen that could be sampled, don't help us with determining the viability of putting this in the article. If there had been several polls with virtually the same line of questioning, then it would have more to go on.--MONGO 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The standard for including information in an article is interesting, important, accurate, and relevant, not how many polls were done. Kevin baas 19:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Three paragraphs of polling data might be a bit much, but I'd support keeping the first paragraph and eliminating the comparison to Clinton. Carbonite | Talk 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I found something quite interesting: [25] Kevin baas 16:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Also: n:House_raises_impeachment_issue

The first one is a blog spot and has little credibility. In the second US Representative John Conyers (D-MI), a regular petitioner in favor of impeachment will once again end up looking like an idiot. He managed to get nowhere with the Downing Street memo, and that's about how far he'll get this time. But the link, in itself, to his new resolutions are fine...tag the section with current event.--MONGO 16:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So state the Conyers introduction, but blogs are a highly suspect source for information. That part of your comment does not stand on rock. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• This impeachment is no where. There were people talking about it the day he was elected. When it becomes a real issues, then we'll have it, until then, there is no reason to have this in here. It's purely hypothetical speculation. -- Jbamb 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly...it's a pipedream...there are no grounds, and the effort to unseat the President because he may have misled the public about the need for going to war in Iraq have already come and gone...no new evidence has recently been unearthed. Most major pollsters don't even bother to ask the public questions about impeachment. From Frank Newport, Editor in chief of Gallup: "the general procedure Gallup uses to determine what to ask about in our surveys is to measure the issues and concerns that are being discussed in the public domain. We will certainly ask Americans about their views on impeaching George W. Bush if, and when, there is some discussion of that possibility by congressional leaders, and/or if commentators begin discussing it in the news media. That has not happened to date." [26] and this blog goes on to say that a google quiry on "impeach Bush" turns up 723,000 hits...but then fails to substantiate that these hits are blogs and opinion pieces primarily. As Frank Newport states, when it become regular fodder in the mainstream, then they'll poll on it...--MONGO 16:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... the first is not a blog. The first is the most comprehensive resource for statistics on blog discussions available. It is the most reliable resource for information regarding discussion on blogs i am aware of it, and it is far less suspect than anyone's opinion. If you can find a more accurate measure of blog discussion, then post it, otherwise, your criticism is overreaching. I was not suggesting it be included in the article. I was just pointing it out here for anyone who found it interesting. I surely did. (and yes, i know wikipedia isn't a blog - it was also to confront false criticism that impeachment is not mainstream)

Conyers only looks like an idiot to certain demographics. He has a very strong following both in congress and in public. He got far with the downing street memo, in spreading awareness and asserting. He did a lot. It is not his fault that the Republicans are in the majority, and he deserves no credit or criticism for their actions.

To include anything new in the article, I would suggest the [Rasmussen poll]. Kevin baas 16:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The blogpulse piece is NOT relevant. It shows nothing. Based on your view of blogpulse, this shows that impeachment is on its way, despite so much slavery that people are really, really happy about. We don't know if those "impeachment" hits are from pro-impeachment blogs or if the are "people who think impeachment is coming are retarded" blogs. It is just suspect. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

you are making a straw man. Those are not my views on blogpulse. And you also did not read what I wrote; "I was not suggesting it be included in the article. " 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I was just showing that your link doesn't mean a thing. I know you weren't suggesting that we include it in the article, I guess I just don't understand why you even brought it up. Why did you? What blogs write about are irrelevant, no? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1. i just found it interesting that there was such a surge, when that has been so flat for a long time, even during events where one would expect it to jump. Surges like that are usually related to a news event. What people write in blogs is a sample of public discussion, like what topics newspapers choose to publish articles on - it's a different aspect of public discourse. That's why it's relevant - as a measure of public discourse. which brings me to 2.: as one resource to demonstrate that impeachment is a significant part of public discourse. Kevin baas 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Except there is no way of telling if those hits are for "Impeach Bush now" type blogs or "Can you believe the idiots calling for Bush's impeachment" type blogs. The hits aren't qualified, and are therefore unreliable and irrelevant. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in knowing which types of blogs the hits are from, or whether it's critical or supportive, then the numbers are of no use to you. If, on the other hand, you just want to know the aggregate frequency; the rate of discourse in general; the activity level, then the numbers are insightful, relevant, and as reliable as they come. If you are interested in a different type of data, I don't know where to refer you. Kevin baas 18:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I know it shows an uptick in hits for "impeachment", but it really has no bearing on anything. I don't really care which type of blog they are, I just think it is reckless to assume that since it appears more often, more people are discussing it as a real possibility. I am not fighting you on this, I just think it was a little silly of you to bring it up. For me it is a red herring. I'm done discussing this. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, you may have your opinion, but this is not the forum for discussing opinions. Kevin baas 16:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Nor is a forum to cite your far off fantasies...no impeachment proceedings will commence...mark my words. Conyers got nowhere with the Downing street memo..it's not even in the news anymore. A surmation of what the blogs are talking about is, well, bloggish.--MONGO 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, this is not a forum for discussing opinions. And you certainly don't know my fantasies because I have never stated or cited them as you imply. Kevin baas 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Jbamb, the section that this is to be included in is public perception - and the content being addressed is not as you say hypothetical speculation, but public perception and purely that. Where do you see speculation? Where do you see anything hypothetical? (besides the poll question - "...if...", which i agree could have been better without this.) Please cite the specific sentences or fragments that you are refering to. Kevin baas 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Once Articles of Impeachment get introduced and debated, we'll talk. There is no evidence, exactly NONE, that this is anything other than blustering. I can't cite because you can't prove a negative. It's up to you to prove this is more than hot air. Polls can be cooked to show anything, and there is lots of reason to believe the Rasmussen report is flawed (starting with the fact it was commissioned by an organization with the stated goal of impeaching the President). There is no impeachment. When there is, you can include it.-- Jbamb 16:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If this wer a section on impeachment, that might be an appropriate litmus, but this is not a ssection on impechment, this is asection on public perception. and this particular aspect is significant and substantial in regards public perception. polls cannot be cooked to show anything. polls can have sampling bias, and the information can be presented on skewed graphs. However, this poll did not have a sampling bias, and the results are not presented on a graph. if you are more interested in the polling company, you can do some research on them. If you really don't think that polls should be in the public perception section, well, that would be taking out most of the section, including the little picture on the left of bush's approval rating. That is quite a separate discussion altogether. Kevin baas 16:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The poll did have sampling bias, but that's another story. His approval rating? Fine. (We should update those numbers with the latest). His rating on handing specific things perhaps, like the economy or the war. Fine. His rating in a hypothetical circumstance is irrelevant. If you read the Rasmussen report, those numbers are essentially created by all Democrats. So his political opponents want him impeached. So what? Did you expect his opponents to want to build monuments in his honor? -- Jbamb 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You used the word commissioned. Do you know what that word means? What is the hypothetical circumstance? Did you expect his political supporters to want him impeached? When people want a political person impeached, it is their political opponents who want them impeached. Duh. You are right that the distribution of the results among political demographics is just as one would expect in any circumstance and therefore insignificant. So what's your point? Is it normal to have 32% (with a sampling error of +/- 3%) of americans support the impeachment of their president? Does this happen to all presidents? Kevin baas 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And sampling bias is certainly not another story - it is a serious accusation. Kevin baas 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a serious accusation I level because that's what I think, and that's what I think the evidence shows. I do know what commissioned is, please be WP:CIVIL. If you want to get at the big picture, you can talk about the divided electorate. The impeachment is a factor of nothing more than the fact that partisans are bitterly divided and really don't want to work together. The impeachment is nothing more than a fantasy of those partisans. When there is some shred of reality to go along with it, we can include it, until then, it's a partisan pipe-dream. If you want to talk about the big picture, fine. Let's not litter the page with pigeon-holed issues. -- Jbamb 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What you think merely reflects your bias, and is no basis upon which to level a serious accusation. Commisioned means that they payed a third, neutral, and expert party to do the thing, independantly. The distribution in regards demographics of the polling results do not affect the aggreggate result, which is what is of importance here. You may speculate and hypothesis as to the causes of the public perception, the perception itself is a plain fact and for the sake of NPOV must be taken as such alone. Kevin baas 17:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, let me point out that that statement by Gallup is inaccurate, and it was certainly irresponsible of whoever said it to make an inaccurate public statement. Kevin baas 16:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Frank Newport is the Editor in Chief of Gallup...the most respected pollsters in the U.S. I'm sure they'll have a poll with those questions if it ever becomes likly that there may be impeachment proceedings...and probably long before...but Gallup doesn't deal with the hypothetical.--MONGO 17:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Gallup is company that conducted the poll that Jbamb is calling hypothetical. I know who Frank Newport is. It is a shame that such a respected source made an inaccurate public statement. Kevin baas 17:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, stay away from those blogs...they'll warp your mind. Newport is correct in that impeachment simply isn't in the mainstream press, nor Conyers going to get far with his resolution.--MONGO 17:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I don't know what you're refering to. I don't read blogs. I just like to track the stats on discussion occasionaly. I agree that Newport would be correct if he has said that impeachment simply isn't in the mainstream press, and/or Conyers is not going to get far with his resolution. (however, the latter is much more subjective - more of an opinion) Kevin baas 17:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say the poll was hypothetical, I said that impeachment is hypothetical. It isn't happening and doesn't appear that anyone is moving forward on it. Impeaching the President is hypothetical, or more accurate, fantasy. -- Jbamb 17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Pulling our troops out is hypothetical. Banning gay-marriage is hypothetical. Polls are usually hypothetical in that way. That's just what a poll is. They are used to guage sentiment among a populace. Kevin baas 17:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really, Jbamb. No matter what you think of Conyers, he is introducing a motion to impeach so they should probably be noted... no matter what the outcome. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

When it hits the hopper, we'll talk. -- Jbamb 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

We will take when it becomes a significant aspect of public perception of the president. Kevin baas 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, three such resolutions were introduced Dec. 20, 2005, as mentioned in many places, like the Drudge Retort's 'Impeachment Getting a Lot Closer':

H.Res.635 would create a select committee - modeled after Sam Ervin's Watergate committee - to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, and retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.

H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 would censure, respectively, Bush and Cheney for failing to respond to requests for information concerning allegations that they and others in the Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for the war, countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in Iraq, and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of the Administration, for failing to adequately account for certain misstatements they made regarding the war, and in the case of President Bush for failing to comply with Executive Order 12958.

These two efforts are complementary - H.Res.635 seeks accountability for the Bush administration's monumental crimes, while H.Res.636 and H.Res.637 seek accountability for their cover-ups. H. Res. 635 H. Res. 636 H. Res. 637

Well, Senator Barbara Boxer and former Nixon counsel John Dean have used the 'I' word. Not exactly fringe POV-pushers. Here's the text of a letter sent by Senator Boxer to a number of constitutional scholars, reposted from an article at a right-wing blog, 'Free Republic' [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543710/posts] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized

the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a

public discussion that covered many issues, including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was

President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is "the first

President to admit to an impeachable offense."Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand

the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of

American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am

writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer

United States Senator

• Great, she asked if it's a possibility, that's it. The impeachment word has been used since inauguration day 2001. What's your point? This is not a collection of various polls, this is an article about George W. Bush. Fantasies about throwing him out of office do not belong here. It's just that simple. If you don't like it, let's just take it to arbitration already. -- Jbamb 18:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Nay, that's why we have a discussion page...we are nowhere in need of arbitration.--MONGO 18:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

My point is simply that the issue of censure and impeachment has now been raised by numerous noteworthy individuals including a Congressman and Senator, as well as a former counsel to President Nixon, making it a valid topic that may deserve inclusion in Bush's biographical article not solely justifiable on the basis of 'POV-pushing'. That's all. Hope I have made myself clear without offending - it's not my intent. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If you or Kevin wish to state it in the article, no problem with me, so long as it's cited. Just don't cite the blog:)--MONGO 19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Since this is relevant to the NSA scandal, I'm moving the impeachment stuff there. It's not independent of the wiretaps at this point. -- Jbamb 23:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It slithers in there neatly enough, but as you have said - unrealistic. Metarhyme 03:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I readded the statements by several former presidents that wiretapping is legal for national security reasons. I think that the point of view that Bush should be impeached and the point of view that this wiretapping is legal should be both included for NPOV reasons. Both points of view have a significant number of supporters. Andrew_pmk | Talk 18:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted back my edit - the issues is wiretapping against Americans without warrants. That's why the Bush situation is so unique. it's not about pro- or con-wiretapping - I think this section needs to be very specific in that regard. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, in the latest Barron's full text paid link -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Early Life / Reorganization

Is it necessary to give to billing to the theories that Bush screwed the National Guard and that he's a coke head? Can we say nothing else about is family and early life? This should be expanded greatly. For examples, see the John Kerry article that has a substantial bio without giving top billing to the detractors. -- Jbamb 14:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article is somewhat of an attack piece at times on the current President, but he does have only about a 40% approval rating and that coinincides with the pervasive negativism of this article. Not to mention that he also has a historically low approval rating outside the U.S. and this is, afterall, a multinational encyclopedic effort. The best thing to do, is locate accurate information that rebuttals that which you see as negative and incorporate that into the article.--MONGO 15:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to remember who edits these articles. There will almost always be bias (positive or negative) inserted, consciously or unconsciously. The best bet is to try and balance the article if you find it POV. But remember to remain NPOV yourself, not pushing it in the other direction. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying negative stuff shouldn't be included... but he has essentially no biography and it goes straight into the cocaine/National Guard stick. No family info? No school info? No background? I'm not saying the data shouldn't be there, I'm saying how about we start with a biography (as in John Kerry) instead of starting with scandals that are less than solid. -- Jbamb 16:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There used to be more on him personally...check the editions a few months back to compare.--MONGO 16:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Page Locked Again

Why is this page vandalized so much? What are the motives exactly? People inserting email addresses followed by vulgar comments are just waisting their time. 68.103.149.210 03:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected

It's something new. This is the first attempt at using it. Read up on it at WP:SEMI. Essentially, anyone with an account older than about 4 days can edit the article. Newer accounts and anons cannot. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

My test a moment ago suggests that it actually restricts only anonymous editing, and even a brand new account can edit through semi. This seems accidental given Brion Vibber's description of the feature. Can someone who knows how let him know? -Splash^talk 10:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

OKay, is semi supposedly up and running? I can report any problems to him if needed.--MONGO 11:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I've tested it as an anon and as a new account, User:Splash-testing. -Splash^talk 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think we might be wanting to keep semi-protection on this page as it vandalised so much, and not because it's linked to from elsewhere etc. So I've shrunk the warning to a version that doesn't look too in-your-face. Dan100 (Talk) 12:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This may be what you think, but it wasn't what was agreed during discussion, and should be agreed to somewhere before we go amending the way this was intended to work. So I changed it back. Given the recent discussion on AN/I which roundly condemned permanent full-protection, I don't think you can infer support for permanent semi. I changed the tag back, pending discussion. -Splash^talk 12:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Is "while George W. Bush is in office" permanent? I hope not! ;-) --Eloquence* 13:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

      NO, the goal is to apply this new semi protection feature only as needed and only in dire circumstances, such as here. It was never intended to be anything close to a permanent feature on any article.--MONGO 13:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that makes no sense. This article has been a vandalism target for a long time and will continue to be one. Are people suggesting that sprotection is actually going to be removed any time soon? If not, we need to get rid of such a butt-ugly notice. Dan100 (Talk) 14:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to bring the question to a wider audience here. Dan100 (Talk) 14:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I just logged out and then tried to edit this article...instead of the edit tab, it says view source, but then when you hit that it states that "This page is protected and can only be edited by administrators"...don't we want it to say something else, or does this not matter?--MONGO 13:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd raise that at Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy, as that's a global issue. Dan100 (Talk) 14:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this semi-protected? I see no extreme circumstances at this point. If it simply because this is always vandalized alot, I think that is an abuse of the semi policy, it was and is not intended to be used indefinitly. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection notice

• User:Carbonite and User:Dan100 subst in the template and shrunk it down and whatnot. I have reverted back to the {{sprotected}} template. The template as it stands was designed thinking specifically about pages like this.wangi 15:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not too concerned about its size, but it doesn't make sense to have the "or request unprotection" text in the message (for this specific article). The reality is that requests on WP:RFPP aren't going to get this article unprotected, especially during this initial period of testing. This article is exceptional because of its level of vandalism and it's reasonable to have a unique protection notice instead of a standard template. Carbonite | Talk 15:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well there's little point in editing things during the test period - the text reflects how the template will be used. Also the plan isn't to keep this page semi-protected for ever, so it is very much valid to link to a page on unprotecting it. Thanks/wangi 15:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree here. On any other article, I'd agree with you that we should use a standard template. But there's nothing wrong with making exceptions for a exceptional situation. This article is, by far, the most vandalized article on Wikipedia and shouldn't be treated as if it's just some random vandalized article. The notice should reflect the reality that a simple request for unprotection won't get this article unprotected. Even during this testing period we shouldn't have inaccuracies in the notice just for the purpose of including a standard template. Sometimes "one-size-fits-all" doesn't quite fit. Carbonite | Talk 15:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but you seem to be under the impression that this page will be {{sprotected}} from now until the end of time - that's certainly not the impression I get from WP:SEMI. If you feel semi-protection should be unlimited in time then I'd discuss that there, changing the template here to reflect what you think will happen or want to happen isn't the best approach. Thanks/wangi 15:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
          • While I wouldn't entirely oppose permanent semi-protection (should the testing phase show a sharp decrease in vandalism), the duration of protection isn't really the issue here. The issue is whether a standard template should be used in a non-standard situaiton. What I'm proposing seems entirely reasonable. All I'd like to see is the "or request unprotection" part of the notice removed (by substing and editing the text). While I believe this text would be appropriate for any other article, it just doesn't fit here. We shouldn't be encouraging users to make a request that almost certainly won't be honored. What will be accomplished by having new users or anons making requests on WP:RFPP to unprotect this article? It obviously would have been protected for a good reason, thus a few requests won't affect a decision to unprotect. To summarize: I'm talking only about this article and referring only to the text that directs users to request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Carbonite | Talk 15:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
            • I thought it was agreed on at the policy page that semi-protection would not be used for long periods of time or indefinitely? This is exactly what I was afraid of: once the feature is set up, people will clammor to semi-protect this article virtually forever, and I strongly oppose doing that. Semi-protection should only be used as a last resort and probably shouldn't ever be used for longer than 24 hours (unless there's something special going on, like a presidential election involving him, which is impossible). The policy states that semi-protection is not meant to "prohibit anonymous editing in general", and by applying semi-protection for long periods of time, that's exactly what it is doing. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm doing a terrible job of getting my point across, so I'm going to back up a bit. For right now, let's ignore the issue of how long this page might be semi-protected. It's important to understand that I'm not just referring to this intial protection, but any future protections. Whenever this page is semi-protected, there will be a reason for it. Usually this reason will be an especially high amount of vandalism.

OK, so now we have a semi-protected page. How does the page get unprotected? Do we want anons and new users making requests at WP:RFPP? Or should it be up to admin to take at look at how the page has been protected and decide "OK, that's long enough, let's unprotect"? In my opinion, it should be the latter. That's why I oppose directing people to WP:RFPP to request unprotection. If any requests are to be made, it should be on this talk page, not somewhere else. Keep in mind that I'm only proposing such a process for this page, not for any other semi-protected page. I'm not saying that we should never unprotect this article. I just think the notice should reflect the reality that when or if this article is semi-protected, telling users to make requests at WP:RFPP isn't especially helpful. Since this article is unique in the amount of vandalism it gets, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have a special semi-protection notice just for this page. Carbonite | Talk 16:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Pages that are protected for vandalism are generally not expected to need requests, since it's very temporary and the admins will take care of it. Semi-prtection is meant to work the same way. But there's no harm to RFPP. It's admins at RFPP too, not just anons and new users. I'd expect any admin patrolling there to acquaint themeslves with the situation. I think on any protected page it's okay to request unprotection on RFPP or the talk page (and we could change it to say that), but most articles simply aren't watched enough for that to be feasible, so we have the central discussion page at RFPP. I don't see how directing someone to RFPP is directing them to the wrong people though... Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh...I wish people had tried to address protection creep rather than keeping it simple early on. As it stands now, GWB should not simply be slapped with semi-protection and left on. However, this does not mean that it shouldn't be applied multiple times over the next few years. Remember, semi-protection should be applied where protection used to be applied in cases of extreme vandalism, and thus its usage patterns should be similar. On this page, it was not protected indefinetely but protected many many times for a variable period of time. If we apply it on a weekly basis and remove until the next vandalism wave starts, then we will be in good faith with using it as a response rather than a pre-emptive measure against future vandalism. In other words, if we are not going to apply time limits within policy to curb protection creep, semi-protection needs to be lifted regularly in order to justify it remaining for such a length of time. --kizzle 21:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember that what one admin does another can undo. This page will only remain perma-semi-protected if none of the 740odd admins are prepared to unprotect it. If it reaches that point, then something is probably wrong elsewhere. At present, there are enough admins making unprotectional noises that I don't think we need to panic. -Splash^talk 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Effect of semi-protection on this article?

It'll be interesting to see what effect semi-protection has on this article. I've adapted my vandalism script so that it's capable of resolving down to the level of one week (any smaller period would probably be too prone to noise), and it's possible to see that vandalism has fluctuated greatly this month, rising to 38% during the week beginning December 5, but falling sharply the following week, and apparently staying steady so far this week.

• Vandalism on George W. Bush

Note: strictly speaking I'm measuring vandalism reverts, so the level of vandalism-related edits is about double that. If 38% of edits are vandalism reverts, probably around twice that proportion of edits are either vandalism or reverts--in that case, 76%. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • With semi-protection in place, can we get rid of the noeditsection? bd2412 T 22:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would say that it is safe to do so, but if we are going to have a test of the semi-protection, changing another variable (noeditsection) would cause statistical errors in the analysis. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, didn't noeditsection get removed a while back? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit semi-protection

Is this going to be permanent, or at least until he leaves office? If so, can we consider moving the template to the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not going to be permanent. But perhaps it should be moved to the talk page. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Under what circumstances might it be removed? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to know. It's not like those vandals are going away any time soon... - Ta bu shi da yu 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Under the same conditions as {{vprotect}}ion, it will be used only to dissuade particularily difficult waves of vandals only, and then unprotected at another admin's discretion. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you guys seem to wany to get some stats on how this effects (affects?) vandalism, I'll leave it protected for now, but I fully intend to unprotect this after a week. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection is good for fairly long times(full protection--hours to a few days at most/semi-protecion--a day, up to a week). We really are not losing anything by having this semi-protected, unlike full protection.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't see it as a bit contradictory to the wiki that our most high profile article is not free to edit. I hate to use a slippery slope, but eventually if we keep adding new restrictions, we'll have a system where only highly regarded users / admins can make changes. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with that concept, the semi protection straw poll passed 104 to 4 in favor of implementation. We are trying it out, per se, to see how it is working. Nothing in the semi protection guidelines suggests that any article should be semi protected for any period longer than to get past a vandalism wave.--MONGO 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. But this article gets a constant wave. Perhaps it is a 3 year wave :-). A week is the maximum SP time that is reasonable, as long as admins agree. Admins like Splash will likely unprotect earlier in this cases than I would, but that perfectly fine with me, as so many admins watch it that new waves will quickly be stopped by SPro again if needed. But I do think that Spro is generally better when applied slighlty longer than full Pro, as that is the point: to stop recurring new user vandals that just keep coming for days.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Bingo! That's exactly the problem: this article is almost permanently being vandalised! When do we determine that it has stopped, and when it is determined it has stopped, when do we determine that it's started again? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The article isn't losing anything I should say. New users will notice, and I dont want every article linked from the main page to be protected either, as that would cause noticable trouble for newbies. I think GWB being SPed is OK, even for a week sometimes.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 06:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It amazing to look at the article's history and to see edits from well over 24 hours ago. Without semi-protection enabled, it's wasn't uncommon for there to only be 4-5 hours of edits on the history page [27] (using the default 50 edits/page). It will take a few days before we have any reliable stats on the effect of semi-protection, but thus far it's been a great success on this article. Carbonite | Talk 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Too large!!!

This article is about 94KB! What can be done to reduce it in size? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a very important article, and many of the sections have been forked into daughter articles. There really isn't much we can do besides giving a more consise summary of sections with their own article. I'm not ready to sacrifice important info to cut down on the size. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Secret Prisons -- was known in an article on totse.com back in 2002

Secret Prisons -- was known in an article on totse.com back in 2002
Yes, this whole news thing was known since 2002 and ignored. Before I spend time to dig the article back up, is it worthy of getting bits of information on it put up in this wiki? DyslexicEditor 23:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

you guys don't even know what totse is, i was actually on that way back in the day when it was a bbs. so there. and by the way, its not exactly the most reliable source of info. --kizzle 03:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Repeat vandal has moved on to Jimmy Wales

I can confirm that the vandal who has been flooding this article with vandalisms from multiple accounts recently moved on to Jimmy Wales and vandalized there repeatedly as well. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-23 03:13

WTF?!?!? His name always used to be User:Jimbo Wales before. DyslexicEditor 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Um. Still is, buddy :). That's not Jimbo's user page, it's his article. I'm pretty sure Jimbo Wales redirects to there, though. I think use of the name "Jimbo" would be unencyclopedic. --ParkerHiggins ^{( talk contribs )} 17:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandals can still get at this page

Can't they just edit any of the templates that link to dubya?

Most of these are not protected--13:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 07:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's not be paranoid. If those templates are vandalized then they can be dealt with as and when. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Holy WP:BEANS, batman... --W.marsh 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the above list as we already know how to excess it and I don't want vandals to see it.

I think we will be OK though, the templates.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I always have a wee laugh when someone brings out WP:BEANS... It's just like security through obscurity and thinking closed source code is more secure than open source code in IT - daft! Thanks/wangi 18:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Security based upon obscurity is bad, however obscurity is a valid level of security, as long as its not the only one. --kizzle 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Most vandals are the drive by kind anyway. Most of them don't know that to access the templates you have to type Template: first and then the template name into the address bar and then it will be really funny cause the article won't be updated until the next person legitamitley changes the article and he will get blamed for replacing george bush's head with a penis. They don't know any of that so it won't do them any good. yeah.--God of War 03:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right zoe, You should not edit other people's talk page post--God of War 03:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, we can protect (or, now, semi-protect) templates as well as any other article... bd2412 T 03:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, all this is so silly. Remove information about problems (that need to be fixed of course) from talk pages, I assume to keep these vandals from getting ideas. Yet of course its an odd idea to think that the vandals that would read the talk page wouldn't read the history. If people want to try to kiddyproof wikipedia, go for it. How about we try to fix the problems too. Arkon 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving of Section 7.3 "Outside th U.S. to it's own page

I am looking to get feedback on moving the Outside the United States section to it's own page. I believe it should be moved from the Bush Main Page. If you go to the leaders of the other English speaking nations (Blair, Howard, Martin & Clark) there is no section devoted to what people in other natons think of them. I would argue that the whole reason this section exists on this page is to let people who live outside the U.S. take shots at Bush. If anyone thinks the posting of that Daily Mirror photo on Bush's main page is anything less than that then they are mistaken. I am all for bashing politicians but it doesn't jive with the NPOV. It should not matter about the size of the US or his unpopularity. If no other leader's page has it then his should not. Even if I go to pages on Schroeder, Vicente Fox or Chirac there is no section devoted to what people in other nations think of them. You do not see Americans lining up to create sections ridiculing the German, Mexican or French presidents. It would be more appropriate to put a link to a 'Opinions Outside the US' in the 'See also' section.--Looper5920 05:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly, this is en-wikipedia, not um-american-wikipedia. foriegners can go get their own wiki--172.156.115.13 05:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not what I was getting at. Never meant it to be taken that way. I am just trying to keep the NPOV.--Looper5920 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with that. The reason why there's no "what the world thinks of President-for-life Zrdfsrk of Kzbrzrkia" section is because the world doesn't think of him very often (or even realize he exists). George W. Bush on the other hand is a global player who matters to the entire world. It's entirely appropriate to have a (scrupulously NPOV) section about public opinion among major world nations. -- Curps 05:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm strongly against moving this from the article. It's been marginalised enough already. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That is why I intentionally did not mention leaders of small nations that are not really global players. The U.S. is not the only "global player". Why doesn't Tony Blair's page quote that same Canadian/BBC poll to let us know what the people in the Phillipenes think of him? As for other global players , the president of China has nothing at all on his. Not one opinion poll of any kind from outside of China. Is not China the new global superpower?--Looper5920 05:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• lol--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 05:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I am totally opposed to moving the section from the article. No way is that NPOV. The international perspective on Bush is a vital part of the article. Moving it is a non-runner. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Bush is probably the most criticized person in the planet, and not mentioning that would be by itself POV. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How is the international perspective on Bush "vital?" From reading your personal page I can see you have very strong feelings about the man, but how are they vital. While he may generate intense hatred around the world it apparently has had no effect on his policies. Also, it is not the not the international community that voted to put Bush in office. This is not a pro/anti bush thing but if no other leader in the world has a section like this then something has to be off.

I am not going to beat this to death because I can see that I am going to lose this argument but the section just doesn't belong. .--Looper5920 06:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Your opinion--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 07:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Jon it was just that, my opinion--Looper5920 07:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC). Thanks for the reminder.

Looper, I read your comments and went back and read the article. Here's what I think.

• You're right—Bush is getting treated differently than other leaders.
• Your suspicions, I believe, are correct. Namely, that this section exists primarily to serve as a forum for the demonstration of anti-Bush commentary, disguised as NPOV reporting.
• The section (and this is my opinion, not only of this section, but of many other articles on Wikipedia) is inherently non-encyclopedic, that is, it's currency is so much a part of what it has to say, that it is too fleeting to justify inclusion in any type of "encyclopedia".

Having said that, and having considered it (for a full 20 minutes), I think that the section should remain. Why? Because the United States—not Bush—is unique in today's world. The incredible dominance of the United States on the global stage makes its leader—whoever that is—a figure in every country's news and policies. Think about how US news regularly runs on the front page of other G-8 nation's newspapers, whereas news from France or Germany rarely touches the average American unless the news directly concerns the US (e.g., France and Germany's defiance of Bush's plans for Iraq) or makes for really good media imagery (the Concorde crash). In US media, even major elections in Europe are largely reported as to the way such elections will affect relations with the world's most powerful state. Germans will be following the New York Senate race next year, but how many Americans have even heard of the Bundesrat, let alone be able to name any of its members?

I guess what I'm saying is that Bush is the leader, not only of the free world, but in a way, of all the world. His policies affect everyone, and everyone accordingly is accorded the right to have an opinion on him, and that opinion should be a part of any record of his presidency.

Of course, this may very well change someday. Some of us may live long enough to see the Chinese put an end to the monopolar power structure of today's world. When that critical mass is reached, where the leader of China will be perceived to have as much an effect on the world outside of China as the president of the US has, then I would expect to see a similar section in his Wikipedia article. Unschool 07:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Another important factor is that protracted wars and military campaigns are inherently guaranteed to generate controversy, and this is the defining issue of his presidency. Economic policy, immigration policy, even capital punishment... none of these other issues come close. So it won't be enough for China to become a superpower... they'd have to invade New Zealand or something. :-) -- Curps 08:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What about a nascent Uygurstan? Or will the world ignore what China does within its borders, as it generally does of authoritarian regimes? Unschool 23:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Polls

You know, if there's one thing I would take out of the article, it's the endless updating of polls. Geez, if someone wants to know Bush's (or Congress') poll ratings from five minutes ago, is an encyclopedia the place they should be looking? I mean, isn't that what CNN.com is for? Unschool 07:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

hightraffic

We need a {{sprotected}} solution to folk adding {{hightraffic}} to the article page! Almost as many rv's for that! wangi 16:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I was so conflicted about it, I even entered a revert war with myself over the {{hightraffic}} tag. Seriously, in my opinion it really just clutters up the article and should be placed on the discussion page instead, as it is. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Hightraffic}} should not be placed on article pages, as it is mostly an editorial template, meaning that the average reader won't give a penny whether Slashdot talked about this article or not. Talk pages are for these kinds of things. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Clinton, Carter, Reagan

Hi there. Made a fairly bold edit. The 'Clinton and Carter did it' talking point has been thoroughly refuted. We're talking about wiretaps on Americans [28].

The RNC asserted that Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both authorized comparable forms of "search [or] surveillance without court orders."

The RNC quoted fragments of Clinton's Executive Order 12949, authorizing the attorney general to "approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information," and Carter's Executive Order 12139, authorizing the attorney general to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

The Clinton and Carter orders, which were published, permitted warrantless spying only on foreigners who are not protected by the Constitution. Bush's secret directive permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on the overseas calls of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."

Not sure where the Reagan stuff came from, but it seemed out of place all by it's lonesome. Also removed a paid site link to the Chicago Tribune, and added the Dean quote from Boxer's site. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

After my edit was reverted, I've reverted it back (and won't do so again, to help avoid a revert war). The issue that is contentious is not wiretapping - it's wiretapping in the U.S. of Americans without a warrant. The information mentioned only clouds the issue at hand. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I disagree with this method, it's just not realistic to think it will work. Legitimate new contributors cannot add info. Please re-investigate. --Goulcebrynn 19:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

We have plently of contributors, many of which are fairly new, that update this article. New users and IPs just add BS and vandalism by and large (like 97% of the time). So we are not loosing anything by Semi-Protecting this article.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, what info were you looking to add? Carbonite | Talk 19:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Legitimate users are losing the opportunity to contribute, and therefore wikipedia is losing itself legitimate contributors. Is this protections supposed to be permanent? That's not what WP:SEMI implies. Kappa 19:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it is not permanent. Right now, we are using the article to collect data, but it won't be semi-ed forever. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont think that limiting IPs and very new users from editing this one article, out of 860,000 is really going to kill off all of our new users.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 19:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see anyone suggesting that it would kill off all of the new users. Losing any legitimate contributors is a problem. Kappa 19:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Thus far, semi-protection on this page has been an amazing success for reducing vandalism. You can see 48 hours (!) of edits in the history right now (compared to 4-6 hours before SEMI). Of course we should make every effort to avoid losing contributors, but openess is simnply a means to a end (creating an encyclopedia). In exceptional situation, such as this article, slightly restricting how open it is to editing is entirely reasonable. Carbonite | Talk 20:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I consider myself a 'fairly new' contributor, and I think this is fine. When I started contributing, I only edited 'minor' articles. I stayed out of the 'biggies'. There's no harm in making this an official policy. It should also help cut down on newbie-contributor accidents. When an article gets vandalized as often as this one, it needs SOME kind of protection. While I think keeping only anon users off would work, this is an acceptable compromise to me. Ehurtley 20:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Being unable to keep up with our current contributors is a problem with far greater immediate impact. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:06, Dec. 25, 2005

I edit anonymously for a variety of reasons, all of which I feel have merit. I'd prefer to keep it that way. "Semi-protection" is a true assertion, but "temporarily restricted" is a falsehood. Those who pushed this policy through are certainly focused on keeping protection of this type "always-on" at various political articles. 67.15.77.183 01:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not anonymous, you are editing under an IP address, which can be traced. You are more anonymous after creating an account, since your IP address is no longer disclosed, and doing so does not even require setting an email address. So, what are your reasons?--Eloquence* 03:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Some comments to those opposed to permanent semi-protection of this article:

• You say that we risk loosing new contributors, but how about thinking about the old and new contributors we scare away if we allow this article to be vandalized, and we force people to use time on reverting vandalism.
• Permanent semi-protection is only relevant for very few articles - and in those cases contributors will just have to wait 4 days. This is a price worth paying for avoid having to deal with all the vandalism. Also, constant vandalism of an article makes real contributions more difficult.
• IMO the permanent semi-protection is in line with policy. The idea of semi-protection is that it should only be in effect as long as the article is under attack. Unfortunently, that is "always" in the case of this article.

Thue | talk 19:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't edit sections

Semi protection is great and all, but one of the unintended side-effects is that I can no longer edit sections. For an article as long as Dubya this is awful since I can't use the browsers search function for a text box. Can someone please fix this?--God of War 07:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, you must be using Firefox... Internet Explorer automatically searches both within the page text and any editbox text. I'm not sure about other browsers (Opera? Safari on Mac?). -- Curps 07:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I was just going to say something about this, and yes I am on Firefox. This article is way too long to scroll through, can someone look into this? SandBoxer 21:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a bug report, see bugzilla:4385. Blackcap (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)