Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Florida 2000 TV network call

Added an external reference to the panhandle problem where the Central time zone section of voting cost Bush approximately 12k votes because of the early TV call of the state.

science section and polling data

A user reverted my edits in the science section and the public perception section claiming they were not NPOV or were unnecessary.

My feeling is that in the science section, this is a highly relevant report, and its relevance is due in large part to the respectability of the signatories on that report (especially as we had an earlier criticism of the report suggesting that the signatories might not be respectable).

The polling section--what, do we not want up-to-date polling information here? I thought that's what the section was for: current information on public perception. I will agree that perhaps the disapproval rating might be unnecessary, so I did not replace it. I also tried not to push a POV with the obvious remark that the latest numbers are 32%, a low point for his entire presidency, and instead took an average of all the listed polls from the month of April. If you think it's not necessary to have so many timepoints for approval ratings, then I would suggest the logical ones to include are the high point (post 9-11, at 85%+), the low point (32%) and the current (32%).

Can we have a discussion rather than an edit war if there are issues here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Le sacre (talk • contribs) . (tej 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

(sorry for forgetting to sign the above). My understanding of wikipedia ettiquette is that when someone requests that their edits be discussed before being reverted (again), that request should be honored. I want to split the two apparently controversial edits apart (science section and polling section) and treat them separately.

In the science section dealing with the Union of Concerned Scientists report, we had a previous (justified) criticism of the trustworthiness of the report based on not knowing the credentials of the signatories. It is the fact that these are many highly respected experts in science that makes the report worth mentioning, in my opinion the most relevant part of this section on Bush's policies in regard to science. Can we please discuss this before reverting again? Thanks! tej 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• THe practices of such an "elite" organization of scientists such as the UCS has its own charges leveled against them. I personally don't mind that the line LeSacre wants to add lending credibility to the organization be included. However if this whole Union of Concerned (extremist group) Scientists should be included in this encyclopedia entry, the truth about THEM should be told as well. I have a lot of criticisms of Bush myself... but this is not a valid one. The UCS group has a proven history of distorting science to their own agenda. It's my opinion that either the UCS debunking stays, or the whole UCS section gets deleted. If you want to delete my quote, I don't mind, as long as you delete every other reference to this extremist group that doesn't really belong here.--FairNBalanced 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The encyclopedic value of the number of signatories is questionable considering that anyone can sign if the pay the entrance fee. The UCS itself is a questionable source on science as it has an obvious political objective. Your comment adds objectivity to the "8,000" signatories and should be kept as long as UCS is used as a source. --Tbeatty 02:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I was the one who did the original revert on this, and I apologize for doing so without properly discussing it. Nevertheless, I stand by my belief that the petition information had POV problems. By listing the qualifications of those who signed the petition, it makes it appear that the weight of scientif professional opinion was brought to bear against President Bush, and no balance was given. I can see this has become the subject of a bit of an edit war...personally I think the entire thing should be cut down to a phrase mentioning that there was opposition to president Bush's policies in this area from some sections of the scientific community, and that this criticism itself has been held up to scrutiny. The deatils of the UCS, its policies and political nature just lead to too much non-Bush-related matierial. Schrodingers Mongoose 23:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing the "prominent" adjective in the sentence that describes the 62 signatories of the original UCS report. This is not POV (as has been claimed by FairNBalanced when removing it) . There should be no dispute about the fact that the signatories are prominent. And this fact is relevant as it adds legitimacy to the report. You may not like the UCS, you may not like what the report says, but the prominence of these scientists stands alone as a fact. There is no more reason to call the inclusion of this adjective POV than there is for other adjectives used elsewhere (e.g. in describing the UCS as "activist"). - Hayne 09:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• The only group calling these scientists "prominent" is the UCS itself. Many of the colleges and Universities associated with the signatories could be referred to as "prestigious" but this isn't to say that the scientists involved are more interested in politics than science. I'll leave the word "prominent" (a word that could also be used to describe the hairy protuding wart at the end of a witch's nose), but I added some other clarification to the UCS organization for the sake of not misleading the viewers.--FairNBalanced 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up one of the references you added (the Capital Research link) but deleted the other reference and the sentence accompanying it. IMHO, it's simply a very poor source. It cites few sources itself and is clearly very biased. More importantly, it contains only a vague mention of the particular document you referenced. I'd be perfectly okay with adding the sentence back if you can find a better source. It would be ideal, of course, if you could reference the document itself and not an article about the document (the more layers of reporting we have the more likely facts will be misinterpreted, intentionally or accidentally).

It would also be most helpful if you followed the same basic pattern for the existing references in this article if you add any additional ones. If you don't know how to do that, please ask and we'll be happy to help! --ElKevbo 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr.Kevbo for your assistance. I started attempting the proper reference method, messed up a couple times, but I think I've got it now :) I put the 'activist cash' reference back in, but merely as a point that UCS has not gone unchallenged as they would like to present themselves. I agree- the activistcash site is biased; but so is the UCS. To say activistcash is not a source because of bias, that would also mean we'd have to delete the UCS info as well. Despite that, exclusion of the UCS bit could be rationalized solely based on their lack of relevance (despite support from so many "prominent" scientists). However I am not an exclusionist, so I'm honestly for keeping it in, if the other people want it included. However, the idea that UCS is an organization that is neutral and advocating for the consumer is a flat lie. The UCS happens also to be against GMO's... GMO's that have fed millions of people and saved lives. The UCS is against GMO's and the science clearly does not back them. And we don't even need to go into the Global warming debate here :) I think you're a fair person, ElKevbo, I look forward to dealing with you in the future.--FairNBalanced 07:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the references! A full reply/objection to your recent edits to the science section are below in the "UCS Report" section. I'd appreciate a response as my objections have not been asnwered. You may have missed my objections when I originally posted them - this is such a busy Talk page! --ElKevbo 19:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

public perception section--why object to current polling data?

The version that keeps getting reverted to is inaccurate. It suggests (by use of the phrase "continue to show...40%" that the approval rating is considerably higher than it is (latest numbers 32%). I don't understand how having the latest polling information can be considered non NPOV. Can we please discuss this here instead of maintaining an inaccurate representation of the reality? What reason could there be for not wanting current information in the section on public perception? Thanks! tej 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• you should try and cool down before posting again, hostile edits are not likely to be approved by the community--Capitalister 21:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Capitalister? Kevin Baas^talk 21:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC) It is common modus operandi for the republicans to simply generate lie numbers. You have to forgive the footsoldiers, they are good enough at doublethink that they perpetuate obvious lies without allowing themselves to consciously know that they are doing it.

As an aside, my theory on this article is that as much as i think that george is the most evil and vile president ever to get into the office, and while i think that the only reason he is there is that the elections were rigged, my belief in the fairness of presentation concept leads me to think that this article should remain essentially unmarred by the assorted political arguments, and be a factual article about this person outside of the context of political situations. Articles such as the "Movement to impeach" and "Rationales to impeach" are the appropriate places in my mind to explore the political "analysis" side of George Bushes actions.

It seems like this article is being drawn into the political fray, and that seems unfair in my opinion. To put it another way, until and unless George Bush logs on to Wikipedia, his NAME as an article ought to have some of the same priveledges as his hypothetical user page. It should be about him, as he might be likely to present himself, were he limited to facts. Prometheuspan 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read up heavily on Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines. "Common modus operandi for republicans to simply generate lie numbers"? First of all, why would they generate poll numbers like the one Bush is in right now? Second of all, do you have a source for that claim that doesn't link to democraticunderground.com? --kizzle 22:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC) In the last election cycle, it was blatantly obvious to both myself and others that certain polls were being fallaciously manipulated, because other polls with better safegaurds had wildly different results. I didn't post this on the article page, i posted it on teh discussion page, and looking for references on this issue isn't on my list of things to do. Anybody willing to bother to run a google search engine could probably find hundreds of references to manipulated polling, and so if you are curious, i suggest that you start there. Prometheuspan 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's "blatantly obvious" you shouldn't have any trouble finding reputable sources claiming bush's poll numbers are "lie numbers." --kizzle 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to using the RealClearPolitics average if a current approval rating needs to be cited? It is simply an average of the latest major polls, and pooling the polls together creates a larger sample size and reduces MoE. The current RCP average is 35.2%--RWR8189 22:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it. --kizzle 23:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC) I have no objections to start with, but i might go look at the resource to see if it is biased if i have the time. Prometheuspan 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you right now that the people who run the site probably have a conservative bent, but you won't find a major poll they leave out of the average.--RWR8189 23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence is unclear:" Polls conducted in early 2006 showed an average of around 40% for Bush, up slightly from the following September, but still low from a president coming off of his State of the Union Address, which generally provides a boost." How can an early 2006 poll be "up from the following September?" How about http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/ as a statistical combination of all the various polls? The current "Bush Index" for the second half of April is an approval rating of 34.5, the average of 7 national polls.Edison 04:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"'source' provided does show this statement"

http://www.activistcash.com/ you're kidding, right?--205.188.116.138 03:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes "watchdog groups" themselves require "watchdog groups"--FairNBalanced 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• absolutely not a source, no matter how many times you blank and/or reinsert, it's still not a source of anything other than unintentional humour--205.188.116.138 07:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• and sometimes a source should be at least as credible as The onion, otherwise it's just a joke, the difference being when the The onion calls Jane Goodall a grave threat to the american way of life, they're being funny on purpose, activistcash.com seems to do so in a serious tone, which is much less amusing--205.188.116.138 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

my turn to issue ultimatums

were i to respond tounge and cheek to this nonsense, i could add this source to the Second term section to explain that geroge bush is actually far too liberal to be the president of the united states, and insist that either the entire section gets deleted, or my link stays, but I'm not going to do that, and do you know why? oh yes, becasue unlike one of us, I'm not an overtly passive aggressive sockpuppet designed to make other people seem more reasonable compared to me--205.188.116.138 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Dear anonymous I.P. that keeps getting ban warnings (i.e. maybe you should get your own login?),

    Thanks for the tirade,  I needed a good chuckle :)  --FairNBalanced 06:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the personal attacks, your last few socks were so boring, this one has flare--205.188.116.138 07:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've got a sockpuppet coming after me from nowhere calling me a sockpuppet. Hmmmmm... very interesting. Why not sign in with an I.D. Mr/Ms "Anonymous IP" Sock-Puppet? Or are you afraid of something? Like.... the truth?--FairNBalanced 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please, stop feeding the trolls! Kasreyn 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My last sockpuppet is currently getting crusty in my drawer. Thunder Cat 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia of FACTS, not conservative, "Nazi-Ass-Oil-Paid-For" OPINIONS, so best to keep it FACT-BASED. If it doesn't go that way, please continue DELETING opinion-based drivel. Thank you!!! --CALIFORNIAN

New Question

-Hi, I saw on Ronald Reagan's page a link referencing songs about him. George Bush Jr. has also been the subject of many songs, so I thought it would be interesting to include a page with references about George Bush Jr. in songs and maybe in popular culture in general. After all, he has been depicted in numerous tv shows, animation series, comics, books, films, sketch shows, songs and been imitated by numerous comedians and so on. I would be happy to write this page if here is consideration that it would be an interesting new part to information about him. And to calm down George Bush Jr. 's supporters: positive depictions may be included too, naturally...

- I think this would be a very interesting idea due to the very large selection of songs. Perhaps start a list to be added here?

I dunno... maybe something along the lines of List of popular culture references to George W. Bush? Just a thought. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this list might be large enough to put in another article, since it is about references to the President in the media, not the President himself, which this article is about. ---Idiot with a gun 01:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq fourth most failed state

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4964444.stm

I think that it should be included in the article that George Bush's policies have objectively created the world's fourth most destabilized, ineffective state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.189.4 (talk • contribs)

Interesting...the Insurgency, by different estimates anywhere from 20K to 200K, consists of less than 1% of the total Iraqi population (25 million). The majority of Iraqis, 80% Shia and Kurds who were oppressed under Saddam's regime, are now in the process of establishing a new government, and finally, 2400+ Americans have been killed in 3+ years since the Iraq War began...a total which is 13,600+ less than the 16,000 which are killed (murdered) by other Americans here in America every 1 year and about the same number of Americans who were killed in 1 day during WWII.... Jeravicious 19:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As if Germany wasn't regarded as a "failed state" after WWII, or South Africa was in a fine state in the years after the dismantling of Apartheid. Iraq, as a state, had objectively failed long before the Coalition's troops walked on Iraqi soil, and it'll take a number of years to correct that. Granted, the US has made mistakes in Iraq, but to suggest that everything must be perfectly alright only three years after the deposal of Saddam Hussein is ludicrous and extremely naive. It took Germany four years after the end of WWII just to agree to an interim chancellor, yet everybody proclaims endless doom when the Iraqis take three months to form their first democratic government. — Impi 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Only facts are included in articles. BlueGoose 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

First 3 failed states

• Louisiana
• California
• New York

--mitrebox 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone produce a scholarly opinion either for or against this statement? If not, they are Original research --CTSWyneken 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the information is important, but not to a George W. Bush page; this information will be changed (for good or for ill). Its place is on a page about the conflict, not about the leader behind it. --Randvek 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this information is merely a political debate. This appears to me to be just "Bush Bashing". It is my opinion that this information not be included. Athenon 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Section titled "ism"

I don't know what the title of this section was supposed to be, but I'm fairly certain it isn't "ism."--DCAnderson 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it.--DCAnderson 21:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

UCS report

FairNBalanced: I object to your removal of the sentence "Since that time, more than 8,000 signatures have been added to the UCS report, which includes 49 Nobel laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and 171 members of the National Academy of Sciences" on the rationale that it "...reads like an advertisement for UCS." The deleted phrase has little to do with the UCS as it specifically describes non-UCS signatories to the report. What you have left in the article makes it appear that the report is entirely and solely supported by UCS members and lacking widespread non-UCS agreement. That is dishonest and misleading and that is why I object to your removal of the phrase. --ElKevbo 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it would help if you would not characterize FairNBalanced as dishonest and misleading.

Second, can anyone find a citation that says these additional scientists signed the statement? If not, I'd support its deletion. If so, it should stay while we ask if it belongs in the article. I'd like to know how the whole paragraph is relevant to a biography of George Bush, to be honest. --CTSWyneken 19:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there friend! I certainly didn't characterize FairNBalanced as dishonest and misleading. I characterized that particular edit in that manner. Namecalling isn't going to get us anywhere and I certainly hope I don't appear to be engaging in it! My apologies if it appeared otherwise! --ElKevbo 21:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The citation was originally in the article, but it got removed. I reinstated it. Kevin Baas^talk 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The whole fuss about the nature of the UCS is largely missing the point. The important point is that so many well-known scientists have chosen to put their names on this report. The fact that the report was organized by and published by the UCS is not terribly important. If the Heritage Foundation (just to pick an arbitrary example) were to publish a report that attracted the support of so many prominent scientists, it would be just as irrelevant to concentrate on the nature of the publisher. This is also why it is not a good idea to have so many words in this section about the nature of the UCS. This is not an article about the UCS. Readers should be expected to go to the UCS article to find out more if they wish. - Hayne 19:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt the report is important. But why is it important to an encyclopedia article on George Bush? --CTSWyneken 19:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If the article on GWB includes discussion of controversies over WMD and Iraq, then it doesn't seem out of place to also have mention of the fact that so many scientists are appalled at the non-respect for science shown by this administration. It is an important criticism of GWB.- Hayne 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this section to be invaluable to the bio. This statement collapses a variety of significant incidents into a tidy summary. While the report itself includes various references as to what the organization and its signatories deem relevant, this is also a nice, general paragraph that captures the tension between some in the scientific community and the Bush administration--without delving into alleged incidents of overtly political, underqualified appointees to the FDA's Reproductive Health Advisory Committee[4], or allegations of political tampering at NASA.[5]DBaba 20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a perfectly valid point and worthy of discussion. But *if* it's going to be included then it needs to be "properly" included and its relevance and impact fairly documented. I have no opinion one way or the other about the inclusion of the article itself. --ElKevbo 21:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you all want to keep it, that's fine by me. Let's fully cite the thing and carefully. If it's going in, then perhaps we need to ask: what was the White House's reaction to it? Do we have a citeable source for that, too? Are there scientists of note that take exception to it? --CTSWyneken 21:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are looking for. The reaction by Bush's science advisor is already noted in the article (and cited). - Hayne 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

~

• Kevinator, your apology is accepted. There is nothing dishonest about trimming the UCS section, other than portraying the organization. Regardless of non-UCS signatories, the UCS wrote the report. There is enough anti-Bush sentiment in academia these days that politics trump science. The report was looked at by the administration, and dealt with appropriately. The report is highly biased, politicized. Pres Bush certainly has made questionable appointments in his time, but even after Bush is out of office in two years, the UCS will still be around wreaking their own havoc.

Several users essentially stated the CRC link should be deleted because it is run by "right wingers". How about deleting the UCS report since UCS is run by left wingers? No? Hypocrisy.

Deleting activist cash because of poor referencing? How about use of the word "prominent" regarding the 62 scientists? The only people calling these scientists "prominent" are UCS, and this is clearly POV. Do any other references say "prominent"? No, just those referencing the UCS. Have you ever heard of any of the 62 scientists? No. Will you delete it? No? Hypocrisy.

Deletion of activistcash and CRC on the grounds they are lobbyist organizations. THE UCS IS A LOBBYIST ORGANIZATION!

How about trimming this section down due to lack of relevance? How did the report achieve its goal of influencing the current administration? When the UCS came out in favor of the Kyoto protocol, something that would affect EVERYONE, OISM.org started a counterpetition gaining more than 10x the UCS petition signatures. So why is there no counterpetition to their current anti-Bush petition? Because nobody wants to waste their time on it. The UCS document achieved nothing. There's no need for widespread debate on this report because it already failed in its task by itself. The libs here seem to love it because it is anti-Bush, but the quality of the report is itself questionable. I can understand why you are anti-Bush, but the hypocrisy stands that UCS distorts science for their own agenda EXACTLY as they claim about Bush.

In fact, the way the UCS section reads according to the POV pushers here is like a wiki-Bono-edit. What's that you ask?

From the Bono page:

News reports state that in March 2006 a group associated with Bono has started a campaign of altering articles about politicians whose attention they want to attract at Wikipedia. [6], [7],[8].

These stories are referring to these edits: [9], [10].

Honestly, the UCS section should be a little snippet at MOST, because as Commodore pointed out, there is a UCS article here in Wikipedia that people can go to for more information. Bottom line, there are a LOT more than 8,000 scientists in this country and around the world. The fact that they only have that many shows it's just an example of the most extreme politically biased. Bottom line: the UCS report is political horsepoop.

Does anybody remember the "prominent" scientist who was on the public record that HIV doesn't cause AIDS ? --FairNBalanced 23:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

^^^

The UCS article here is a good place for people to find out about criticism of UCS, including the false claim that it is run by "leftists." (I frankly don't see how Bono is involved, but if you can establish his connection to the UCS through published sources, that might be a good place for such material as well). The article here should have the information relevant to Bush only, including the material you deleted, that points out that the UCS report was signed by many prominent scientists besides members of the UCS. The criticism of the UCS belongs here only if it is directly relevant to this report; it does not seem to be, which is why it was appropriately removed.--csloat 23:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I almost agree with you on the word "prominent", but the authors included Nobel Laureates... If the laureates aren't prominent, then what scientist is? Would you prefer to eliminate the word "prominent", and instead indicate that Nobel Laureates contributed to the authorship of the doc? Has Activist Cash garnered similar support from among the most decorated scientists in the world? This isn't about UCS--this information would not be included if not for the overwhelming support the scientific community has accorded the petition... A petition that is not "anti-Bush", but rather anti-politicization of science. DBaba 00:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bono -- Sorry, I hoped it would be easy enough to figure out, but perhaps it requires some explanation. I'm not saying Bono is anywhere involved with UCS or GWB. I'm talking about a news story that Bono's staff made Wikipedia edits with the sole purpose of influencing politicians. It's this style of Wikipedia edit that's suspiciously similar to the UCS snippet in the Science section.

The report went nowhere, accomplished nothing. This Wiki article, however gets a lot of pagehits. Lots of people see it. UCS doesn't deserve a soapbox here. If they really want to know about it, they can go to the Union of Concerned Scientists page. BTW, the claim that UCS is run by leftists is not "false". They do, however, try to portray themselves as neutral. That's part of why I have no respect for them. At least the activist cash site is honest and says they are committed to "providing detailed and up-to-date information about the funding source radical anti-consumer organizations and activists." At least you can say they are honest about their agenda. The UCS is dishonest and misleading when they characterize themselves as an "independent nonprofit alliance" and "citizen advocacy" group, as if they represent all citizens. There is no way that you could honestly look at the history and leadership of the UCS and think they were "not leftist" (specifically leftist environmentalists).

DBaba, the version per my last edit was honestly the most NPOV version. I don't think it needs any more or less words than how I left it. I have a problem with UCS and their falsely presenting consensus of the scientific community. The phrase you used above "overwhelming support of the scientific community" indicates they have accomplished their goal of making people think their viewpoint is the one accepted by all scientists.

48 Million people in the last election didn't vote for George Bush. (That doesn't include people who didn't vote who are against Bush.) With all those people, they could find only 8,000 scientists to sign a biased report.... There is no counterpetition for one good reason- a counterpetition is not necessary. But if there was one, I would bet my life you'd be able to find more than 8,000 scientists, including Nobel Laureates, who'd agree the UCS report is a meaningless pile of horse manure. --FairNBalanced 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, you'll have no problem starting such a petition; once you get over 8,000 signatures, including Nobel Laureates, I'm sure you'll have no trouble getting that original research published in a reputable source. At that point in time it would be appropriate to add this claim to Wikipedia. As for Bono, I can assure you that Bono did not ask me to make any edits to Wikipedia, unless it was through some kind of subliminal suggestion hidden in a U2 song. I wouldn't put it past him, which is one of the many reasons I don't listen to U2. In any case, until your petition is finished and your original research is published, the article should refer to the UCS report and to the signatories of prominent scientists besides those in UCS.--csloat 01:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• C_Sloat - to be honest, I prefer dealing with ElKevbo. He's not a smart-ass, AND he understands the points that I try to make (even though he may not agree). Let me lay this out simpler, since my prior explanations were obviously insufficient. Bono has nothing directly to do with you, or me or this particular article. He was used as an E-X-A-M-P-L-E. There was a recent event that gained some notoriety for Bono. A member of his staff (allegedly) made edits to a congressperson's WIKIPEDIA entry in a deliberate lobby attempt. They wanted more money from the U.S. Budget spent on Africa, and made an edit to Jim Nussle's page because he is Chairman of the House Budget Committee.
• On the same token, I'm not saying the person who edited in the info on the U.C.S. report to GWB's page here is affiliated with U.C.S. in any way. What IS clear is that certain people who edit Wikipedia agree with the report, AND their inclusion of all the "prominent" scientist garbage, meanwhile whitewashing UCS controversy is very soapbox-ish. The report was looked at, and appropriately discarded by the administration. The UCS report only means anything to the anti-Bush-Bots, and unfortunately focus on this type of crap distracts away from REAL criticisms of the president (such as out-of-control spending).
• So no, Commodore, I have no interest in starting a counter petition. Neither does anyone else. That's the point. The U.C.S. people have gotten way more time devoted to them than they deserve.--FairNBalanced 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on the Bono thing; what is it an example of? Never mind, I'm happy to drop it if you are. As for the UCS thing, if you're not interested in a counterpetition, you should stop pretending that the report should be rejected out of hand. The only issue of concern here is what belongs on this page. A criticism of this particular UCS report might be useful here. A blanket criticism of UCS on another issue from a right-wing lobby group really isn't.--csloat 04:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I missed the White House reaction to the report already being in the article. That should do. Do we have anything on the reaction of other scientists? (That is, citeable material)

Another thing to be clear about. We're not here to catagorize, comment upon, etc. what sources say or who they are. That is the place of articles about the sources. What we are to do is use respected sources. So, for example, if we don't like what C. Everett Koop says, we can find something about him from Jocelyn Elders or in reverse. --CTSWyneken 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right CTS. The UCS is a biased left-wing-lobbying organization. So I found a biased right-wing-lobbying organization that attacked the credibility of the UCS. But most editors here are left sympathizing and just deleted the right wing site. Believe it or not, I emailed the right wing site asking for better references for their material, we'll see if they respond. --FairNBalanced 04:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The UCS is a respected organization of scientists that has been around for decades. This isn't about left wing/right wing; it's about keeping this page about George W. Bush. Take your UCS-bashing to the UCS page.--csloat 04:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

FairNB, you've got to understand, I don't agree or disagree with the report. But how can you accuse these pre-eminent scientists who've attached their names to the document of being politically motivated in doing so? There's absolutely nothing to substantiate that assertion. It's not about UCS. These are Nobel Laureates. You've tried to hide their sponsorship, and you're now trying to change the subject. I'm all for agreeing with you and working to consensus here, but you're not even addressing the actual issue. It's not about UCS or your AIDS-HIV doctor or about Bono or about the budget or about "libs", it's about Nobel Laureates, with very specific criticisms of administration policies, alleging political tampering with government-funded science. Again, the same criticism that has surfaced elsewhere, and has come from several high-ranking NASA officials whose names don't even appear on the petition. DBaba 05:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's stay calm here. First, everyone has an agenda, even including the most respected scientists. Second, it does not help to characterize one side as liberal and one as right wing.

To be honest, I do not see the relevance of the report to a short bio of George Bush at all. It would be appropriate in a larger one. The problem is this: we need to be sure that all viewpoints are represented. The question here is do we have some scientists that disagree with the report and, if so, do we have enough of them to be worth the mention. --CTSWyneken 07:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the question of relevance already above when you first asked this question. The science policy of the GWB administration has attracted much criticism. This article is (obviously) not just about GWB the man, but is also about his policies. - Hayne 09:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing the "by 62 prominent scientists" from the article. This fact about the authors of the report is more relevant than the fact that it was UCS who published it. FairNBalanced in particular has been going on and on about the supposed bias of UCS and how too much attention is given to UCS in this GWB article. Given that point of view, it would seem more reasonable to remove the words "Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report" and just say "a report by 62 prominent scientists alleged ...". I.e. the most important thing is that many generally respected scientists are complaining about GWB's treatment of science. I think it is appropriate to keep mention of the UCS but it isn't appropriate (in this article) to include extended criticism of the UCS itself, anymore than it would be appropriate to have criticism of the New York Times in an article that mentioned something published in that newspaper. - Hayne 10:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC) And just to point out that the complaints expressed in the UCS report are widely supported, here's a few articles from mainstream physics publications as well as another mainstream publication not usually considered left-wing:

• Physics Today
• American Institute of Physics
• The Economist

- Hayne 10:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read your first link, and if anything it supports my position more than yours. The report was written and arranged by the UCS. There is NOT scientific consensus on global warming. These are facts.

If you hate Bush with all your heart, that's great. I've been disappointed with him myself, but regardless, the UCS report is a pile of horse turds. Listen to yourself, my Canadian American hating friend... You DON'T want opposing viewpoints. That should send up a red flag.

If you'd like to advertise for this UCS report, you should pay for advertising with some advertisers. Otherwise your attempt to puff up this report as if it is meaningful (it has already gone nowhere) is shameful, at best. My issue here is not that it is an attack on GWB. My issue is that it is free advertising, obvious POV for a radical left organization.

Re-read the article you claim to have read; the only voice in there supporting your position is Marburger. This is not advertising. The statement of prominent scientists accompanied the UCS report. But it was not the same as the report, and you have to attribute the statement to its signatories, not to the organization who may have brought it to their attention. Of course, your claim that "there is not scientific consensus on global warming" is nonsense, but this isn't the place for that conversation. This also has nothing to do with hating Bush or Canada or advertising UCS or whatever else you are on about. --csloat 20:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, please assume Good faith. Rhetoric like that you use above just makes people defensive. May I suggest you join me in backing a moratorium, such as below? --CTSWyneken 21:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is harder to assume good faith when editors start using "rhetoric" like "my Canadian American hating friend". I have no idea where that came from. Yes, I am Canadian, but I don't hate America. And my edits are always done in good faith and with best regard for the truth. It seems amazing to me that FairNBalanced thinks I'm "advertising" when to me the truth of the matter regarding the scientific community's opinions seems clear and thus I think it should be strongly presented in this article. - Hayne 22:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Moratorium

May I suggest a moratorium on editing the UCS sentences in this article? It is very difficult to discuss our way through to a text everyone can live with in near edit war state.

So, everyone, please calm down! If we cna't do this, I'n going to request the semi-protect go to a full blown block.

I'd like to ask that we also cease debate and try an exercise. (You can suggest I go jump in the lake. It'd be good on a day like this! ) Would folks be willing to comment on the subjects below without directly commenting on each other's words? Let's do this for two days or so and then make proposals here.

I think the GCS report belongs/doesn't belong

• Doesn't Belong at all because it is a minor chapter in the presidency of George Bush. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Could Belong but mostly irrelevant. The report failed in its task. The UCS is clearly a biased organization, as is its report --FairNBalanced 22:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Belongs; represents culmination of widespread antagonism between administration and scientific community, antagonism drawing from factors ranging from ID controversies to allegations of political tampering with staff and data at NASA and FDA (also, in effect, makes noting said allegations within this bio unnecessary, IMO). May have precipitated Bush plan for advancing math and science among HS students, as per 06 State of Union speech.DBaba 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Belongs, but should be shortened. It is important, but not vital enough to warrant that much space. I think it should be reduced to a sentence or two. Certainly no more than a paragraph. --Randvek 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it stays, I'd like the article to:

• State in one sentence what the report is, in another what the White House response was and in a third how other scientists responded to it. All of this should be done in a neutral way and each sentence cited from responsible sources. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• if it stays, I agree with with CTSWyneken above. The UCS snippet should not read like an advertisement for U.C.S. (and its biased agenda). Referring to scientists as "scientists" is NPOV. The U.C.S. petition does NOT represent "scientific consensus". 8,000 scientists is a small fraction of the total number of scientists eligible to sign the petition. The lack of a "counter-petition" doesn't mean scientitsts wouldn't sign one. Rather, the lack of a counter petition only signifies its insignificance and irrelevance. The U.C.S. petition, despite its affiliation with "prominent" scientists, rightfully failed in its task.

I used to be an "environmentalist" and even protested alongside the EarthFirst group. Eventually reality kicked in. The truth is that most of the environmentalist movement has more to do with a political agenda than implementing policies that actually help people and the planet. Do you know who Patrick Moore is? --FairNBalanced 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I had to take the tiny url link away, since the spam filter blocked it.

This article is not about Earth First, who have nothing to do with the UCS or GWB. It is fine for you to have a POV about the UCS but it is not OK to insist on portraying the situation falsely, as if the only people who have a problem with Bush's science agenda are a bunch of SUV-vandalizing commie tree-huggers. The fact is that many prominent scientists have been outspoken about how uncomfortable they are with Bush's science agenda. The suppression of facts and scientific opinions to promote the Bush agenda was the topic of a Congressional investigation that "found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings." That noted organ of communist subversion Physics Today describes the petition attached to the UCS report as the "independent" statement of 62 "prominent" scientists.[11] The journal describes in detail why this belongs on this page:

Perhaps carrying more weight than the report itself was the accompanying statement signed by 20 Nobel laureates, several former federal science officials, and many other scientists. The statement charges the administration with manipulating and misrepresenting science for political gains. Like the report, it describes specific incidents. On the issue of global warming, for example, the statement says, "In support of the president's decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large." In comments made when the statement was released, one signatory, Neal Lane, President Bill Clinton's science adviser and a former NSF director, said, "We are not simply raising warning flags about an academic subject of interest only to scientists and doctors. In case after case, scientific input to policymaking is being censored and distorted. This will have serious consequences for public health." (emph. added)

-csloat 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Really FairNBalanced, you were an environmentalist? That's so great!! Maybe we could talk about your background, Bono, HIV, and Patrick Moore in some more appropriate forum... In the interim, I rescind all objection to FairNB's partisan legerdemain on the basis of his once having been an environmentalist, a historical fact that clearly and with authoritative finality undermines the credibility of all Nobel Laureates living and dead, not to mention all environmentally-interested organizations.

DBaba 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• LOL :) _ You're the one making logical fallacies, not I, my Baba friend. I never said association with U.C.S. undermines credibility of ALL Nobel laureates (as you just implied that I did). I'm saying that a person winning a Nobel Prize does NOT mean they are above bias or politically motivated attacks. Surely you can find such a statement reasonable? I know you're an intelligent guy (or girl)... Nobel laureates have obviously mastered something in the field they are awarded their prize. Well, not OBVIOUSLY, (i.e. Yasser Arafat & Kofi Annan). But anyway, being a Nobel laureate doesn't make them god-like, and it doesn't make their political opinion any more valid than someone else's. {{User Chuck Norris}} --FairNBalanced 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP! This exchange of ad hominems does not resolve a thing. --CTSWyneken 11:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I really, really don't want to get involved with this dispute, but I'd just like to interject here that while a scientist's having won a Nobel Prize certainly doesn't make them infallible it does certainly make them "prominent". (I do seem to recall a recent edit war over whether they were "prominent" or not.) I can't think of any other distinction that's as certain to win immediate respect from a listener from either side of the political fence as "nobel prize-winning scientist". Cheers, Kasreyn 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• In deference to FairNB, omit 'prominent' at beginning as long as end context remains citing Laureates. In fact, all 62 authors probably cannot each be 'prominent', as they are not all Laureates, making this adjective errant. Current edit includes Physics Today quote citing Laureates and final sentence doing the same, and this redundancy constitutes a slant, IMO.DBaba 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the "edit wars" here have been caused by a difference in understanding of just what is meant by the term "prominent" in regard to scientists. Someone had said something like "Have you heard of these scientists" as if that was a pre-condition for them being called prominent. But I think the term prominent is merely indicating that these people are prominent within their profession. They aren't movie stars or baseball players. But just calling them "scientists" (without adjective) is misleading by omission. These are not a random selection of scientists. They are indeed (at least on average) prominent. See for example the Scientific Integrity in Policymaking article where I have listed each of those 62 signatories. Look at how many of them already have their own Wikipedia page. That would indicate prominence to me. - Hayne 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... could we not actually discuss the issue? I'd like to have us all list what, in a perfect world (if we got everything we wanted... ;-) ) we would like to say about this issue. We can then review what folks would like and the case they've made. We may discover we're not as far apart as we think... --CTSWyneken 22:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

CTS, I think you nailed it in your first comment in this sub-section --FairNBalanced 23:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

citations needed

I ran a search through the article for "citation", and found everything marked "[citation needed]":

• He trained in the guard for two years, where he was among the last to learn to fly the F-102, a plane not used in Vietnam and due to be retired.[citation needed]

Done. I changed the sentence slightly to accurately reflect what the source actually says. I also removed the sentence immediately following the citation regarding Bush's promotion to 1st Lieutenant as it doesn't add anything to this very long article.

• Bush was later honorably discharged in 1974, having fully completed his required time in service obligations. However, critics have argued that he used a considerable amount of drugs during this time, including cocaine and alcohol.[citation needed]

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine - I think this article has some good points regarding the cocaine debate. If you were to integrate the information located in the aforementioned article with less emotionally charged language, you could add credibility to the claim, while maintaining that it is not fact. In addition, you could review the sources used by realchange.org and cite them. Also, I think this is too controversial to be presented as fact, rather, it should be represented as a controversial statement, stating both positions in the manner. What do you guys think? I would not remove the uncited statement all together because among those who wish to believe the worst is true about George W., this could bring some speculation backed with logical reasoning to radical anti-bush fanatics. My English is poor, so I hope you understand.

• In the televised Republican presidential debate held in Des Moines, Iowa on 1999-12-13, all of the participating candidates were asked: "What political philosopher or thinker do you most identify with and why?" Unlike the other candidates, who cited former presidents and other political figures, Bush responded "Christ, because he changed my heart." His decision to name a religious figure generated some criticism, even among some neoconservatives such as Alan Keyes [18] and Bill Kristol.[citation needed]
• During his Presidency, Bush has also hosted celebrations at the White House for non-Christian holidays such as Ramadan [19]. He also took a stand to retain the White House's main "Christmas Tree."[citation needed]

I tried looking for evidence of this about a week ago and didn't find anything. I don't think it really adds anything and since it can't be supported I'd like to remove it. Objections or discussion? --ElKevbo 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not since the 1888 election had a winner failed to receive a plurality of the popular vote.[citation needed] It was the first since the 1876 election in which the Supreme Court affected the decision.
• Less than three months later, however, the administration released budget projections that showed the projected budget surplus decreasing to nothing over the years to come. [citation needed]
• Currently a debate on the legality of President Bush's domestic surveillance program has led to public debate on the limits of executive privilege and some fractions within his own party. [citation needed] (boston globe, on impeachment)
• Bush's imposition of a tariff on imported steel and on Canadian softwood lumber was controversial in light of his advocacy of free market policies in other areas, and attracted criticism both from his fellow conservatives and from nations affected. The steel tariff was later rescinded under pressure from the World Trade Organization, although the lumber dispute is ongoing. [citation needed]
• As a percentage of GDP, however, the deficits are lower than those experienced during the Reagan Administration.[citation needed]
• In January of 2002, Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy as chief sponsor, which aims to close the achievement gap, measures student performance, provides options to parents with students in low-performing schools, and targets more federal funding to low-income schools. Critics say schools were not given the resources to help meet new standards, although their argument is based on premise that authorization levels are spending promises instead of spending caps. [citation needed]
• In December 2003, Bush signed legislation implementing key provisions of his Healthy Forests Initiative; environmental groups have charged that the plan is simply a giveaway to timber companies.[citation needed] Another subject of controversy is Bush's Clear Skies Initiative, which seeks to reduce air pollution through expansion of emissions trading.

Done. Not the best source, but good enough for now. Please add a better one if you find it. --ElKevbo 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• On 2004-01-14, Bush announced a major re-direction for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration[citation needed]. Known as the Vision for Space Exploration, ...

Done. See below. --ElKevbo 06:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Bush administration has threatened presidential veto of legislation on several occasions, usually resulting in a compromise report from conference committee. However, Bush has never yet vetoed a bill. If this continues, he will become the eighth president to serve without ever vetoing, and the first since James Garfield in 1881.[citation needed]
• The magazine TIME named Bush as its Person of the Year for 2000 and for 2004.[citation needed]

Done. --ElKevbo 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Along with the criticism on issues of foreign policy, President Bush has also taken criticism for his domestic policies, such as his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, which many considered slow, or his involvement in the Terri Schiavo controversy, for which he was harshly criticized by both the left and right for the perceived intrusiveness by the federal government in state matters, and for allegedly exploiting an emotional drama. [citation needed]
• As of late 2005 and early 2006, considerable criticism has focused on points such as the CIA Secret Prison controversy and the NSA domestic monitoring of communications.[citation needed]

Kevin Baas^talk 19:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

==Requested citation found: New Vision for Space Exploration Program==

The Whitehouse website contains a press release covering Bush's remarks on the New Vision for Space Exploration Program, see [12]. It would be nice if someone updated the citation.

Rmckeeth 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks so much for finding this! --ElKevbo 01:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That addresses the issue nicely. Got any more? 8-) --CTSWyneken 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Way to go, ElKevbo!

Thanks for doing the slog through references. As one who does this for a living, I can appreciate the work. Good work! --CTSWyneken 22:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed?

"During his presidency, there have been three federal executions (however, it is notable that all three were convicted and recommended for death sentences by jury before Bush came into office).^{[citation needed]}

Does this really need a citation? There is a List of individuals executed by the United States linked in the sentence which gives the dates of the three executions. Evil Monkey - Hello 08:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

While a reasonable person could infer that anyone executed in the US around 2001-2003 was probably sentenced at least 6-8 years prior, thus preceding the current administration, it is not unreasonable to ask for citations in an encyclopedic article. Rexmorgan 08:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Added citations; removed Citation Needed category above. Rexmorgan 09:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In a hotly contested article, it is always wise to cite a source outside of the wiki for neatness sake. Thanks for doing that! It improves our work here. --CTSWyneken 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Waxman Report

In some manner it needs to be noted that the findings of the Democratic staff are not endorsed in any way by the Government Reform Committee or the House of Representatives.

The report is unofficial and independent from the committee.--RWR8189 05:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries to Science section & UCS report

Commander Sloat, this article is about GWB, it's not a soapbox for the UCS. You want the report info included, but you don't even care about the rebuttal? How can you even pretend to be NPOV?

Or is the fact that the rebuttal dismissing the report is totally correct too much to handle?

And not ALL of the scientists were "prominent", to say all 62 are prominent is a flat out lie. --FairNBalanced 06:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

and about the misleading edit summaries- you made 2 edits regarding "purported" and "unofficial"... neither of which related to my edit of Marburger's rebuttal. --FairNBalanced 06:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dbaba, please... gang reverts without cause should be discussed on the talk page. --FairNBalanced 06:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't appear to have proofread your reverts. You seem to have corrected your errors on the Boston Globe side, but should still be more even-handed with the rebuttal(superfluous facts like Marburger's PhD and alma mater, laying down two paragraphs to offset the half-sentence of UCS comment). Good rule of thumb: proofread a version at least once before reverting to it three times. You seem to agree with me that the Boston Globe para needed work or deletion, despite the fact that you re-appended it three times within an hour's time. I didn't realize you'd stick it on a second and third time without ever once reading your own reversion.DBaba 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

FnB - my apologies for the Marburger deletion; that was unintentional. I am still not sure how it happened. The two edits were all I intended to make (and I re-made them). Again my apologies; I don't agree with you that the White house response is "correct," but I have no intention of censoring it.--csloat 07:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (also, for the record, I made a third edit too, getting rid of the silly "some of whom are prominent." The 62 scientists are recognized by Physics Today as "prominent"; I think that is reasonable enough.--csloat 07:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks, could we use more diplomatic language about each other?

I think we need to work to have a final product that mentions there is a report out there, any dissenting scientific voices, the White House reaction and whether it made an impact beyond all of that. Four sentences. Full cited. Reputable sources.

Do folks think we have that now? If not, please say so here without leveling charges of propagandizing against other editors. It would also be helpful to characterize our sources "spin" or "POV," and nothing more pejorative. On the wiki, they are allowed to have a POV, as long as opposing POVs of note are also logged.--CTSWyneken 11:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "prominent scientists" discussing science and "people who thing intelligent design is science" discussing science? (j/k) Kevin Baas^talk 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... that would be a POV. Like saying, Scientists who think the Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to biology... We shouldn't editorialize like that former or my latter. --CTSWyneken 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for UCS Report

Primarly to reduce its length (it's too long for one issue in an already-long article about President Bush), I propose changing the [current] section about the UCS report to the following:

On February 18, 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report alleging that "the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy". Physics Today noted that "a strongly worded statement signed by more than 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, charging the administration with manipulating and misrepresenting science for political gain" accompanied the UCS report. More than 8,000 signatures have been added to the UCS report, including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and 171 members of the National Academy of Sciences. President Bush's science adviser, Dr. John Marburger, responded to the UCS petition with a 20 page rebuttal asserting that the "UCS accusations are wrong and misleading [and] the document has methodological flaws that undermine its own conclusions."

I made the following changes:

• (minor) Slightly changed the Physics today quote and sentence to make the sentence more active
• Removed "by 62 prominent scientists" as that is covered in the following sentence.
• (minor) Removed "Since that time" from the beginning of the "8,000 signatures added" sentence as an unecessary phrase
• (minor) Grammatical correction (from "which includes" to "including" - the signatures are still there)
• Greatly shortened the quote from Dr. Marburger. It was overly long for an article about President Bush. I believe I have retained the important information that there is serious disagreement with the UCS report from at least one prominent scientist.
• Removed the reference to Dr. Marburger's alma mater. Stanford is a fine school but this added nothing to this already-long article.
• Removed the reference to Dr. Marburger's Ph.D.. Not only is already noted with the title "Dr.," I'm sure interested persons can go to his article to find out more about his education. I think the titles "Dr." and "President Bush's science advisor" convey more than enough experience and prominence. Again, this is just an effort to reduce this section to its minimum acceptable length.

Have I added to the discussion or added to the mess? :) --ElKevbo 16:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like you to remove the comment of "fun in the sun" as it relates to the iraqi conflict. Ironic it may be, factual it is not...

This looks good to me, except, we should ask if any scientists disputed this report. If so, we should mention that, too. --CTSWyneken 23:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Drug and Alcohol use

It seems heavily biased to have George W. Bush as one of the only presidents who has a section about Drug and Alcohol use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadow7789 (talk • contribs) .

Agreed. Lincoln was a notorious drinker, as was Ulysses S. Grant. The latter was also a daily user of cocaine (cocaine-based wine products were popular at the time). This material should go in their respective biography pages if it isn't already.--csloat 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, go add information to those other articles. Don't treat it as an excuse to remove notable, sourced material here. Kasreyn 01:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bush's alcohol use led to conviction for a crime, in this case DUI; crimes are a matter of public record, and the public record is not "heavily biased." The known DUI was in Maine, however it is commonly known that Bush had his Texas Driving Record purged while he was governor of the state, which hints toward more impropriety, ans several "rumored" offenses have surfaced, but they should not be noted without solid verification. More importantly, Bush is on the public record stating that he is a recovering alcoholic; the first President ever to make such an admission. Noting facts which Bush himself freely offers hardly seems biased as long as they are offered in careful context.66.209.31.30 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, let's also not forget Richard Nixon's well known penchant for popping prescription pills-csloat 05:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That is a problem in the other articles, not this one. If you have verifiable sources, then please add information to the other Presidents' articles. --ElKevbo 13:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's no forget JFK's abuse of pain killer injections to treat his Addisons disease. Merecat 05:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

painkillers? Was that it? I thought he was also taking steroids for the Addison's as well as Ritalin, Demerol, and amphetamines. There were rumors of LSD use as well as I recall. Who wants to do the presidential drug research? Sounds like a fun research project ;) --csloat 06:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Shadow7789, have these replies answered your NPOV objections to the Alcohol Use and Allegations of Drug Use section? I'm prepared to take down the NPOV tag now, but please, reply here if you still feel the section is not neutral. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Kennedy was addicted to speed. --EP47

Where are the links to facts? Viihde 13:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit vague - can you please clarify your question? Are asking for more links on the GWB article or more information about the Kennedy/speed accusation? --ElKevbo 14:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics

How tall is he? I think that should be in the article. -- Dude

NYT Quote

Folks, whether we like it or not, the NYT is still a respected source, even though its rep has taken a hit these last few years. If an editor doesn't like the view expressed there, perhaps a National Review response can be had. --CTSWyneken 12:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO please stop deleting this notable editorial. It is in fact quite notable when the New York Times makes such a significant statement. Your assertion that the NYT is not reputable defies reality. And the NYT editorial itself refers on point to an article from the day before. Please articulate your reasons for wanting this deleted here rather than starting an edit war; thanks.--csloat 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a quote directly linked from an article in the newspaper or a reputable journal, I think we can do better though than use an editorial as that is usually also posted with a disclaimer to the effect that the newspaper does not agree or disagree with the comments...etc. If you find something that is similar from a source as I mentioned, then by all means, add it.--MONGO 09:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No; you seem to be thinking of an op-ed. An editorial is very much the newspaper's opinion. The source is beyond doubt reputable. The issue is not just one of stating the facts (as referenced by the editorial), but also of reporting the fact that the NYT put its weight behind a particular interpretation of those facts.--csloat 10:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am. I would prefer the comment or a similar one be less an opinion and more about comments made by third party and then reported...that gives it more weight I think. I don't consider the NYT to be far left, but they are not traditionally supporters of the Bush administration, so a comment from them may be biased to a degree. If something along similar lines can be found that fits into the realm of an article with cited comments from others, or in a reputable journal (Newsweek, Time, etc.) than I think it would be better.--MONGO 10:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get that. You'd be happier about the NYT article if it wasn't saying its own words, but was quoting someone else? What good does extra indirection do? All it really does is add another link to the chain - another link in which quote-cropping can be used to insert bias. I'd say primary sources are better - if there were such an NYT story including quotes, I'd prefer to cite directly from whatever NYT was quoting from, and cut out the middleman. That said, I think the NYT, being one of the largest and most respected papers in America, is definitely a worthy enough source to make their opinion notable - millions of people, read the NYT's editorial page daily. As for the NYT's not being supporters of Bush, an equal case could be made against a paper which was a supporter of Bush, therefore the only paper you'd find an acceptable source would be a paper that never declared itself during the race. I think that's taking NPOV too far - NPOV is about making sure our article is neutral, not making sure we only use neutral sources. Kasreyn 13:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here goes: I have no problem with the NYT being either notable or reputable, that being said—the quote doesn't belong. What I do have a problem with is using an opinion, no matter whose, and using it as if it were factual and not a mere opinion. My POV, your POV, the editor of the NYT's POV, doesn't belong in this article. My opinion is certainly not notable, an argument could be made though that the NYT's opinion is notable, but only insofar as it is the NYT that has a particular opinion. As such, a discussion of an opinion held by the NYT editorial staff belongs in the article on the NYT as a supporting source for a section that deals with the political leanings of that paper. It doesn't belong in the article on George W. Bush—even though, and more to the point because, the opinion expressed is about Bush. Hopefully this has been clear enough. Fire away. --Easter Monkey 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is not being used as if it were factual; it is being used to state that the New York Times published a particular opinion! The NYT's view of Bush is important because the newspaper speaks with authority to millions of people. It is by definition notable. If you want to include the NYT's reporting on the issue also that is fine, but it is both relevant and notable that Bush has been accused by the newspaper of record with politicizing science. I'm not sure why there is any opposition to this at all -- clearly, we have other people's opinions mentioned in the article, some who are not nearly as notable as the NYT.--csloat 18:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I think you mean well, but your delusion on the matter is utterly astounding. (1) You don't think the quote (the way you inserted it) is being presented an undisputable fact when IN FACT it's an opinion from the OPINION page (2) you don't think NYT, particularly the editorial page has a liberal bias..... seriously what world are you living in? I beg of you to try reading at least the first 6 or 7 paragraphs in this- NYT on the NYT and please make note of the source.

Also, your "notable" argument is weak. For example, Iranian president Ahmadinejad is most certainly a "notable" personality. Perhaps I should go to Wikipedia's entry on The Holocaust and quote Mr. Ahmadinejad (presenting it as fact from a "notable" source) that "the Holocaust was a myth" simply because Mr. Ahmadinejad is a "notable" source. --FairNBalanced 19:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the opinion of a notable source, Mr. Fair and balanced. That is the issue. It has never been presented as fact (although it mentions facts, such as the fact that the FDA made the announcement). Your argument that the NYT is left-wing is ludicrous. It is universally recognized as the newspaper of record. The paper's opinions matter to the American public. Mr. Ahmadinejad's do not. Your comparison to the Holocaust is an irrelevant example of Godwin's law. Your citation of an op=ed from the NYT claiming the NYT is liberal only confirms why it is the paper of record -- imagine such an article being published in a truly left wing source like the Nation. Also it is obvious that the NYT has published many articles with a conservative bent as I noted above. The real issue here is that the criticism of the universally recognized standard-bearer of journalism is absolutely notable, no matter who they endorsed for president.--csloat 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that Godwin's Law is only a recognition of the statistic that, the longer a conversation continues, the probability of a reference to Nazism approaches parity. It was originally simply a sarcastic reflection on the predictability of discourse. Then some (in my opinion) rather snooty usenet types began to act as if a reference to Nazism meant someone had "lost" an argument. This has snowballed into the present, completely erroneous, usage, where people mistakenly think that Godwin's Law reads: "He who is first to reference Nazism in an argument automatically loses and must concede", which is utterly ridiculous. As if we should all abandon the use of a highly illustrative metaphor, just because it's overused! Kasreyn 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever made the claim that the argument was invalid because of the mention of Nazism. I said it was invalid because it was invalid. I am not against all uses of the reference; there are many instances where it is appropriate. But this is not one of them.--csloat 03:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget our very own User:Jpgordon's Jpgordon's Law [13] ;-) --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's law? LOL... nice try, but my analogy is still valid. "Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right." Perhaps you should re-read it, the way you are presenting the quote is blatant POV. Let it sink in a little, come back, we'll talk --FairNBalanced 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No; your analogy is ludicrous. This has nothing to do with Nazism or the Iranian president. You are now the one presenting opinion as fact, quoting Daniel Okrent to claim the NYT is "saturated in liberal theology".... and you ignore my argument that the NYT publishing such a screed shows why they are the paper of record and not some left wing rag! Now, you have not responded to the actual argument here, which is that the NYT editorial page is notable, whether you like its politics or not, and such a critique of the Bush Admin on this issue should not be censored from readers in this way. Please re-read the above arguments and change the page back after you have come to the right conclusion ;) --csloat 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Mr. Okrent is not right wing, so you think this proves your point - I see now. You may be interested in this. You might also want to read the rest of the article you pointed me to, beyond the "liberal theology" line.--csloat 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH OF THIS! There! I feel better! Folks, it is well passed time for you all to stop calling each other names, belittling each other's arguments, slamming the NYT because it is liberal or Limbaugh because he is conservative.

Let's get to the issue. NYT is a legit source. An editorial is representative of their viewpoints. OP-EDs are representative of their commentators. It is fine by wiki rules to quote them. If we do, it would be well that the quote be on topic and that we say something like: "according to the NYT," "according to _______ of the NYT," or "________, writing in the NYT states." If there is a nother view, representing another side to the argument, quote it. Ideally, the reply could be "Bill Krystol countered on Fox News Sunday... or in National Review..."

In short, every POV of significant support should be in. --CTSWyneken 19:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

the newspaper speaks with authority to millions of people. Oooh... and we little lambs can't form our own opinions without it! :-)

Edit war

Now I remember why I stayed away from editing this page. FnB is really not responding to the arguments about why the NYT is notable except to make absurd holocaust references and claims of left-wing bias. I'm not going to edit war over this but I hope the rest of the people here can have an intelligent discussion about this. Here is the controversy: I support this edit because it properly cites a notable source (the New York Times) criticizing Bush for politicizing science via the FDA's statement on medical cannabis. The editorial cites facts (another NYT article by Gardiner Harris), but it is clearly presented as the opinion of the NYT editorial staff. I consider that opinion notable, since it is the widely recognized newspaper of record. FnB keeps deleting this information claiming (1) that it is stated as fact (this seems incorrect to me, but if so, we should keep the quote and preface it differently), and (2) that the NYT is "far left wing," a claim which is absurd and irrelevant. The NYT editorial is notable because of the paper's prominence, not because of its possible bias one way or another. I propose a discussion on keeping this or not, and possibly a vote.--csloat 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Painful to Watch

Mr. Sloat, apparently you need a brush up on what analogy is. One of your main contentions for keeping the quote is that the NYT editorial page is "notable". I believe this is a logical fallacy on your part. I backed up my opinion that your logic was invalid by providing an example of how a source that is "notable" doesn't necessarily mean it should be quoted in Wikipedia. Is this article about GWB or the NYT editorial page?

Also, Sorry, I wasn't able to get through to the last link you provided, where you said "You may be interested in this." I don't have a NYT login, and although it's free, I have no desire to register with a newspaper that belongs at the bottom of my bird cage (since it's online, I'd have to put my computer monitor at the bottom of the birdcage, and that would get expensive).

Sloatster, you think this line here: "The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies" is NOT stated as fact?? My previous charge that you are delusional on at least several issues still stands. Pssst. By the way, the NYT is a liberal paper, particularly their editorial section. This fact is quite relevant, unless you'd like to change the Heading of the Science section to read "Criticisms of George Bush on Science" (in an article that's supposed to be a GWB bio). Hell, why not make the wikipedia search term George W. Bush automatically redirect to an article titled Criticisms of George W. Bush.

Let me guess, you probably even think Bushie himself is "right wing", don't you? --FairNBalanced 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious...what papers don't have bias? Russell Abbott 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled about this page, and I'm glad I did. The interesting thing is that on the Talk:Raymond McGovern page, you'll see csloat making exactly the same arguments against including an opinion quote from The Weekly Standard that FNB is making against the NYT here. I smell a double standard. The NYT opinion page is notable to nobody except to their ideological allies (csloat: before responding note I'm talking about the editorial page). The only way a liberal could not recognize the bias of the NYT opinion page is if they mistake their liberal political views for the truth and thus unassailable. That quote is nothing more than coatracking. Merzbow 23:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a NYT subscription and I love the paper, I think they do a good job in keeping things fair and neutral, however the editorial section is far from it. Its just a fact, it is what they are for, writers to take a side instead of just report. Its almost like someone saying the POST editiorial page isn't bias or the NY Daily News. I am not fully against the quote, just I think we should weigh it as what it is, if its from an editorial its just another persons opinion. --Zer0faults 00:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, I don't know you, but you don't seem to be reading very carefully. My argument on the McGovern page is not the opposite of my argument here. When The Weekly Standard becomes the paper of record, I will consider their editorials "notable" in this sense. At this point, they have a recognized neocon point of view and are a fringe magazine, not a mainstream news source, and their credibility or notability in the public sphere does not hold a candle to the NYT, liberal or not. Like FnB, you keep referring to the bias of the editorial page as if that were relevant. Nobody is claiming it is unbiased. It is an editorial. But it is notable when the paper of public record takes such a position on these issues. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you or FnB to understand this simple point.--csloat 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is heard by more millions. He is equally as biased to the right that the NYT editorial page is biased to the left. So he's no less notable than the NYT editorial page, right? So I'm sure you wouldn't object to me adding Rush's response (I'm sure he has one) to that quote? No, you say you don't respect Rush? Well tough, millions of people DO, probably more than the number who respect the NYT editorial page. How about we just not go down this slippery slope? Merzbow 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. He's a cartoon. I don't deny that many listen to him, and some even believe what he says, but his opinion is simply not as notable as the NYT's. They are two different things entirely. You must be aware of seeing this, no? It's not about liberal or conservative at all. Your claim that he is as equally biased to the right as the NYT to the left is comparing apples and oranges. The NYT has a staff of trained journalists and a century and a half reputation for accuracy in journalism and for playing a key role in informing the nation's power brokers. Rush has his pain medicine and a decade-and-not-quite-a-half long reputation for being obnoxious. Compare him to Oprah or Al Franken if you want to, but not the NYT. Anyway I'm not interested in continuing this nonsense. If you really think the NYT is the same as Rush Limbaugh, I really don't see the point of arguing.--csloat 02:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You're deliberately being obtuse. AGAIN, the subject is not the quality of the NYT's news, but the 'quality' of their opinions. You've come up with no objective method for comparing the 'quality' of pure opinion, apart from the listing the size of the audience. My opinion and that of almost everyone on the other side of the ideological divide from you is that the quality of Rush's opinion is superior to whatever collection of liberals is currently inhabiting the NYT editorial department. Once again, I challenge to find an objective method for comparing the quality of the NYT editorial page's opinion to Rush's opinion. Merzbow 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No; you are being deliberately obtuse. I understand what you are saying, but you are just misreading me completely. I never said audience size was the only measure of anything; re-read my claims above and you will see other obvious measures. But my overall point is that Rush and the NYT are not even in the same genre. If you don't understand that, there really is no point in arguing with you.--csloat 03:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I can simply my objection even further. What I see you doing is narrowing your definition of what constitutes a notable source of opinion so far that you exclude every news organ in the world, except for the NYT editorial page, which is conveniently far-left. Then you argue that because you're quoting from a 'notable source of opinion', this relieves you of any NPOV worries. This is subversion of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Merzbow 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The NYT editorial page has never been "far left." What planet are you reading the paper on? You just aren't addressing the issues I have brought up. It doesn't matter. I'm not interested in arguing with you, and I am not interested in defending this point any further.--csloat 03:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting theory, Merzbow. You posit that notability is based solely on circulation. I'd like to refer you to Wikipedia's Reliable Source policy, which stipulates that there are more requirements than simple popularity for reliability. Some specific examples (direct quotes):

(excerpts from Evaluating Sources):

• Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?
• Find out what other people say about your sources.
• Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
• Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.

(excerpt from Using Online Sources):

• Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

With this in mind, it would appear to me that WP:RS says there's a whole lot more to reliable sourcing than circulation or ratings numbers. Fact-checking in particular catches my eye. The NYT online official site explicitly details their fact-checking policy on their page regarding "guidelines on integrity". I searched for but was unable to find any information regarding fact-checking at Rush's official website. I can note that one of them was mentioned in WP:RS, though. Cheers, Kasreyn 12:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

FnB, I never said I did not understand your Iran analogy, but I responded to it. It is faulty. Mr. Ahmadinejad's opinion on the holocaust is not taken seriously by any Holocaust scholar, and by nobody in the US. The NYT's opinion is taken seriously by millions, even many who disagree with it. Your comments that the NYT belongs at the bottom of a cage or that it is "far left" are just plain nonsense that show how out of touch you are. I haven't denied that it is liberal, but I have pointed out examples of articles that go the other way (e.g. everything written by Judy Miller in the leadup to the Iraq war). You quote half a sentence and ask if it is stated as fact -- no; it is clearly prefaced with the statement that it comes from an editorial. I believe the phrase was "a NYT editorial notes"; we can change "notes" to "opined" if you prefer. I don't understand why you are so intent on hiding the fact that the paper of record came out against Bush's science policy? And why the hell are you calling me delusional? You're the one calling NYT "far left" as if they were endorsing CPUSA, and making absurd analogies, and you won't even bother to read the articles in the paper when I show you one that shows Okrent's opinion on this very issue.--csloat 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

FnB, if you don't have an NYT login, and aren't subscribing to the paper, then how are you so familiar with the liberal rabidity of the NYT? This conversation would be over already, with your own objection validated, if you'd simply refrained from proselytizing.DBaba 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the inclusion of the editorial. Why not take an excerpt from the actual article to which the editorial alludes? The opinion is inferior to the bare facts. It is not this opinion itself that is relevant to the biography of the president, rather the underlying facts. Until 49 Nobel Laureates back this one, I don't buy it as necessary to the bio--looks like the sentiments are already aptly captured in preceding para anyway.DBaba 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH OF THIS! See my comment at bottom of section the section above.--CTSWyneken 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An analysis of the NYT quote in question

I prefer not to engage in ad hominem arguments, so here is my take on the quote itself:

1. "The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week..." = biased, inflammatory.
2. "That seems disingenuous." = opinion.
3. "...according to scientists quoted by Gardiner Harris in yesterday's Times."—then we should get that quote instead.
4. "It's obviously easier and safer to issue a brief, dismissive statement than to back research..." = opinion.
5. "...the administration's inflexible opposition..." inflexible as defined by whom? = opinion.

From Newspaper of record: "...the [U.S.] government does not (and can not) define certain papers as having a right to print or otherwise restrict or license newspapers. Therefore, in the U.S. a newspaper of record is generally any public newspaper that has a large circulation and whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered professional and typically unbiased." Fine, the NYT is a newspaper of record. Yes, their opinion is notable. The quote in question does indeed contain factual information. But as it is an opinion, and presented as such, it isn't appropriate for this article. As I stated above, it might be relevant and indeed notable to include this quote in The New York Times article to demonstrate some characteristics of their editorial staff, but not here. --Easter Monkey 04:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Easter Monkey, do you have something from a clearly conservative viewpoint that rebuts this? If so, I'd love to see it in the article. Oh, BTW, see my comment at bottom of section the NYT Quote section.--CTSWyneken 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Neh, honestly, I'm just coming in and out—saw this discussion and threw caution to the wind. I did see your suggestion though and thought that that approach would be much better. Although I must say that the phrase, "every POV of significant support should be in" kind of gives me the willies. --Easter Monkey 01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiThePresidency.org

I added this link yesterday, but it got removed, the person saying that it was biased. I understand completely though I have put it back, but will not again, at least for a while. All that I will say is that even though now it does seem to be biased, the people at that site are putting in quite an effort to make it unbiased, and that soon we will probably have people from different points of view at that site. Also, I personally feel that even if the site is biased, no matter whether I agree with it, it has a right to remain. (I would say that if it were totally opposite of my beliefs as well).

Do what you want with it, I am just posting my reasons.

--Falconus 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it again--I respectfully disagree that this contributes to a good biography article. Please see What Wikipedia is not --> A Soapbox. I would be happy to include it again if it were to become a more balanced information resource. Thanks, GChriss 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be in their. if it's pov, that's irrelevant. it's a wiki. if the site administrators have a bias, it's completely irrelevant, because it's a wiki. really. Kevin Baas^talk 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Lead

George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States and a former governor of Texas. He is currently in his second term as president, which runs until January 20, 2009. >>(change 'runs' to 'should run.')<< -- Dude

Go ahead and make changes to fix grammatical errors, and mark them as minor. ---Idiot with a gun 01:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noticing

In the first paragraph, it lists Bush's term as ending in 2009. I believe that elections are called every four years in the USA, making the end of his term 2008, not 2009.

The presidency is officially turned over when the president-elect takes the oath of office; this has traditionally been done the third Monday of January, if I remember correctly. Thus, Bush's presidency runs until 2009 even though the election is in 2008. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

2009 is correct, but it's noon on the 20th of January, regardless of which day of the week that happens to be. (It used to be March 4th, but that changed with the 20th Amendment to the Constitution). --Easter Monkey 04:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing, the U.S. has no provisions to "call" for elections as is the case in most of the rest of the world. Normally elections are held every two years, since the House terms are only two years and the Senate terms are six. The Presidency is only up for grabs every four years — there are some exceptions but very few. Election day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November regardless of what else might be going on. Thus the only way to get a new President before his/her four year term is up is for the incumbent to die, quit, or be convicted by the Senate (not the same thing as impeached, btw.) --Easter Monkey 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

aproval rating is an all time low

yeah why don't we talk about his aproval rating being 30%? -Dragong4

Because GEORGE DUBYA BUSH can DO NO WRONG, that's why!!! see the HYPOCRISY and MULTIPLE DOUBLE STANDARDS here????? --ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIAN

Hi, and welcome. This is a controversial topic which can lead to heated debate. If you are about ready to explode, please stop for a minute, take a deep breath, and relax your eyebrows. Repeat as necessary. Then, please fix your spelling and excessive use of capitals and punctuation. Thank you. --Rofl 04:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Owned. Had to say it.--Exander 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know, this aritcle is sooo biased it's not even funny. -Whatbitch999

Because you want it to be an article that attacks everything about him, right? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

need to mention censure

According to this page [14], Feingold said Bush had ignored the constitution. This might be worth a mention in the article. It sounds notable to me.Eiler7 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw we make an article in the article called "controversy"

in that article will state EVERYTTHING that bush has done wrong, or everything that has been controversial, eevrything that people like to critisise him on, etc.

You may want to include this:

COUNTRIES large and small are rejecting President Bush's foreign policy by intimidation, and are banding together to counter the US superpower.[15]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an article of opinions and partisanship, not the kind of article we are looking for. State what he did, and what happened. If you want to talk about popularity, find statistics. The term "wrong" is way too subjective. ---Idiot with a gun 01:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many protect tags!

Seriously. On an 800x600 display, you can't even see any of the article without first scrolling down. The tags are disrupting the article and redundant. Can two of the three be eliminated please? I don't care which ones. Readers need to be able to see the intro "above the fold" on the page load. Kasreyn 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The other two tags were added recently and were repetitively redundant and repetitious, so I removed them. Then I recalled Jimbo's suggestion and decided to be bold, moving the tag to the talk page. {{sprotected}} has recently been reworded to accomodate for the placing on talk pages instead of the actual page itself, so I think this works out well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that was a pretty good move - I like it. Can somone explain how this is done? Is this just protecting the page via the admin tool and not placing the sprotect tag on the article? --Supercoop 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, protection is always and only done with an admin tool. The tag has nothing to do with it. And, yes, I also think the removal of that big distracting box from the article was a good move. Shanes 03:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The tag was placed back on the article page today, but I've moved it back to the talk page because most people (at least for now) seem to favor the talk page, and it was per Jimbo's suggestion on the mailing list. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just made this user style which hides those messages. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I favor keeping the trimmed down version of the semi-protected template on the page. This is a popular page and when people come to it they deserve some sort of explanation on why they can't edit it, on this encyclopedia which anyone can edit. The argument "well, if they try to edit it they find out" doesn't hold because there is no obvious way to try to edit it - "view source" certainly isn't and it's not obvious that clicking "discussion" will get you the information you need. Haukur 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Was the intention to leave this article fully un-protected until the debate over what level of protection to apply is resolved? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• There does need to be something to tell people that this page is an exception in your not being able to edit it as a new user. I think the best solution is that we could try implementing a "Hide" function on the {{sprotected}} template; see {{APS Schools}} for an example I could find. This would seem to solve the problem of the template being too big while also ensuring the message stays prominent to new users. Harro5 01:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush, business and early political career

Is it really necessary to have an article on George W. Bush, business and early political career? Most of that info is already in this aritlce. It should be merged, but I know how you guys are always fighting about this article and all, so I will leave it up to you guys. Hopefully some bi-partisan decisionmaking can take place. --Midnighttonight 08:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Robertsteadman 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this would have to be a bi-partisan thing, seems to me like a simple issue of merging topics, not politics. I'm for it. ---Idiot with a gun 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, it was a partisan thing that caused the duplication of content in the first place, with one side (i'm not saying which) claiming that not duplicating the content of the subpage was obvious proof of liberal bias, said user has been indef blocked along with a small sock pharm, so it shouldn't be an issue anymore--152.163.100.74 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. My vote is for merging the two articles, deleting excess fluff, you know the deal. ---Idiot with a gun 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

George Walker Bush

I imagine this has been talked about before; however, I will throw it out again since I'm not quite willing to research reams of archives. Shouldn't the actual page of George W. Bush be moved to George Walker Bush and make George W. Bush the redirect? --Supercoop 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is common wikipractice to use the most commonly recognized name, such as Ed Rendell, former mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and current governor of Pennsylvania, rather than Edward Gene Rendell, his proper name. - CobaltBlueTony 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• p.s. Dubya redirects to George W. Bush. Kinda the reverse of that... - CobaltBlueTony

Internationally, George W. Bush is rarely referred to as Dubya IMHO Nil Einne 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace of Bush Senior in intro para?

Can anyone explain why George H. W. Bush's birthplace is included in the intro paragraph? It breaks up the flow of the sentence and - due to the clumsy use of mere commas - could be interpreted to mean George, Junior was born in Mass., which is incorrect. At the very least, the sentence needs to be reworded to avoid confusion. If no one disagrees, I will move Bush, Senior's birthplace down to the Life before Presidency section where it belongs. Kasreyn 23:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. It's unnecessary in an article about GW Bush. --ElKevbo 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Golbez beat me to it.  :) Kasreyn 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Cut from "Science" section:

The U.S. Supreme Court had previously found a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creationism in public school science classes was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state..

I don't know what this has to do with anything. Has someone suggested that Intelligent design is a form of Creationism? If so, who? And is this that person's argument that teaching alternatives to the standard theory of evolution is something like indoctrinating schoolkids with a religious idea?

Please answer one or more of these questions, and find a better way to contextualize this quote. Pending that, I think I'll just add a link to Evolution-creation controversy. --Uncle Ed 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in editing this article again, but I think it's obvious that ID is a form of creationism, and this has been recognized by the courts. And, yes, teaching ID in science classes is akin to religious teaching; more importantly, it is non-scientific (as, again, the courts have agreed). Take it to philosophy or theology classes. As for the quote, I think a link to the Evolution/creation page is fine by way of explanation; I'm sure this is already discussed on the Intelligent design page too.--csloat 18:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

PS the most recent court case in the matter, according to the ID page, is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), which clearly found that ID violates the Establishment clause.--csloat 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that's a truly bizarre thing to say, Ed. Practically everyone opposed to ID has "suggested" - no, outright claimed - it is nothing more than creationism with a new name. Or do you mean suggested on this talk page? I'm puzzled. Kasreyn 22:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so we need something briefly explaining the opposition to Bush's proposal to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in science classes. How about a statement from an educational or scientific body asserting that ID is a form of creationism? --Uncle Ed 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the talk.origins page cited by ref#5 above, and it said:

• Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science."

My understanding is that Creation science begins with the premise that God exists. I didn't think ID takes God's existence as a premise; perhaps it draws it as a conclusion?

We need to know more about this to repair the cut text. Otherwise just leave the link. Surely it's all explained at length in our Evolution-creation controversy article. --Uncle Ed 18:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Answering my own question:

• John E. Jones III, United States District [*2] Judge, wrote:
  • A "hypothetical reasonable observer," adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism.
  • The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. [16]

Does this help? We can portray this is a clash between the nation's chief executive and a District Court judge. --Uncle Ed 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you may not understand what science is, Ed. It is patently unscientific to "begin" anything with an a priori premise - especially one which is an unfalsifiable, untestable hypothesis. Science begins with doubt and observation, nothing more. Falsifiability/testability is a critical component of a theory being accepted as being scientific. ID fails this test entirely. Therefore, whether ID is religious or not, it is certainly incorrect to refer to it as science. Kasreyn 22:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I feel it would be dishonest to portray this as a "clash between the nation's chief executive and a District Court judge". Ridiculous! As if there's no one else in the country but Judge Jones opposing ID. This is, as far as I can tell, a clash between a great many ordinary citizens. Bush merely takes the pro-ID side because that is one of the things his supporters chose him for. It's not Bush's fight any more than it is my fight or your fight or Judge Jones's fight. Kasreyn 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to have the paragraph about that court decision in the Bush article since it shows the disconnect between what Bush thinks and what the courts have decided. I.e. it shows either that Bush is not a "reasonable observer" as defined by Judge Jones, or that he is not aware of the constitutional questions. - Hayne 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Smacks of OR to me. --ElKevbo 18:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'll tell me what point of view should be inserted, to balance Bush's point of view, we can insert it. Who disagrees with Bush? A court? Atheists in general? A body of science educators?

Surely you're not saying that whenever a judge issues a court decision, this becomes a "fact" which Wikipedia should endorse.

How about something like this:

• On August 1 2005, Bush took a stance favoring the teaching of intelligent design (ID) alongside evolution in science classes, saying, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought ... people ought to be exposed to different ideas."
• Opponents regard ID as a reincarnated species of Creationism and argue on grounds of separation of church and state that it should not be taught in public schools (see Evolution-creation controversy)

If you don't want it portrayed as an Executive/Judicial tussle, then how about a "schools of thought" vs. "pushing Creationism" dispute?

I feel that this wording is better. It speaks more clearly to the point of the debate: not whether ID is "wrong", but whether it should be taught in schools. Your version seems to concisely state the opposing viewpoints: that ID is just another idea to be taught alongside others (on the pro- side), and that ID is merely creationism in new clothing which would violate the Separation Clause (on the anti- side). Kasreyn 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Christmas tree

I deleted the statement " He also took a stand to retain the White House’s main 'Christmas Tree.'" It had been tagged with a {{fact}} tag for several weeks. I myself have searched unsuccesfully for verification of this allegation. If you add it back, please do so with a supporting reference in accordance with WP:LIVING. --ElKevbo 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

LA Times letter to the editor reference

I deleted the LA Times letter to the editor reference in the 2000 campaign section. A letter to the editor is very poor reference in this context. There are also two other references right next to it which are not only much better references but say the same thing. --ElKevbo 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

2000 election - plurality of voters

I deleted the statement "Not since the 1888 election had a winner failed to receive a plurality of the popular vote." from the end of the 2000 election section. There has been a {{fact}} tag attached to it for a few weeks. In addition, the wiki article to which it links specifically states that in the 1960 election the winner may have not had the plurality of votes. If you add it back, please do so with a supporting reference in accordance with WP:LIVING. --ElKevbo 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the claim appears to be accurate. I've just gone and checked each Wiki article on every Presidential election from 1888 to 2000, inclusive. (It's not hard at all). Assuming these articles are accurate, then Harrison's win in 1888 is indeed the last time this happened previous to Bush's lack of plurality in 2000. Note that in 1960, according to Wikipedia's article, JFK (the victor) had a very, very small plurality.

So how does it sound to reinstate the claim, backed by the same source(s) used by the articles on the 1888 and 2000 elections? If you feel it necessary, we could note that JFK's win came very close to breaking the streak in 1960. Kasreyn 16:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm not sure - I'm just trying to clean up the references (and lack thereof) in this fast-moving article. Please feel free to readd the statement; I won't delete it since I am not an expert in either politics or presidential elections. I prefer to leave the real work on content in this article to the content experts.

I do have some small concern about referencing wiki articles to resolve this issue as that seems to be circular logic and a violation of some policy or principle I can't seem to find right now (and if I can't find then I have no business citing it, right?). --ElKevbo 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't believe in internal citing. It's the scholarly equivalent of masturbation. :P I meant, I'm going to try to find whatever sources the articles on the elections use, and cite them here, too. Kasreyn 17:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with internal citing in principle. If the cited document is well-researched and well-written then it shouldn't be a problem. But I am uncomfortable assuming those two things about generic wikipedia articles. :( --ElKevbo 17:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I've thought of another problem. If I simply add a source showing no victor plurality in 1888, and another source showing no victor plurality in 2000, can I legitimately state "The 2000 election was the first U.S. Presidential election since 1888 in which the victor did not earn a plurality of the popular vote" - or would that be original research? Ie., am I stating only what is sourced, or am I drawing conclusions, which is generally a no-no? Kasreyn 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first problem with that is you're using inductive reasoning. Your conclusion assumes more than the sources tell you, and it's possible for further evidence, such as a source claiming the 1960 election had a non-plurality winner, to contradict your conclusion. But moving beyond that, you have to watch out for the fine line between independant research and framing facts. In this case, if you were to, for instance, cite a comprehensive list of votes that showed that this was the case, but didn't explicitly state it, you would merely be framing the facts of your source in a new manner, and highlighting a curiosity. But then we get into the problem of whether highlighting this curiosity would count as bias. In my view, it probably would in this case, due mostly to the fact that if you can't find a source that confirms this directly, then it isn't already reasonably well-known. And since in this case, it puts Bush in a negative light, it probably counts as bias. (But note that any such highlighted fact that put him in a positive light would also be bias.) DrLeebot 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the first question is not, "is it biased to include fact x", but "is fact x notable?" If fact x is found to indeed be notable, then a neutral way of including it ought to be found. My opinion is that it's mildly notable, but I don't know what other editors think, which is one reason I haven't added it to the article. Kasreyn 20:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that facts themselves are above bias, and personally claims otherwise and resorts to truthiness are one of the things I really hate about this administration. Where bias can come in is in how you state the facts, and which facts you choose to state. In this case, I'd say that if this fact is notable--that is, someone else has already pointed it out--then it's probably unbiased for us to state it (giving a reference, of course). The problem I dissected above had to do with the implications of it not having been pointed out. But, seeing as Chaser has found a citation, this shouldn't be problem. I say we put it in, but note that there is a little controversy over the Kennedy election. DrLeebot 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we follow your reasoning to its logical extreme, making any such negative claim (such as "there were no non-plurality winners between 1888 and 2000") would have to be followed with some twenty-eight source links - one for every Presidential election in the meanwhile. Is this reasonable? Note that when I refer to a negative claim, I mean in the logical sense of claiming the absence of an event, not the political sense of a claim intended to harm another. It's my opinion that facts do not have bias; it is only human choices on which facts to relate, and how to relate them, that introduces bias. Kasreyn 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a source, a book by Richard Posner, that at least could be cited, but it doesn't clear up the issue. [17] (word search for "1888") The truth is it depends on how Kennedy's votes are counted in 1960. See 1960_election#Alabama_popular_vote for more info. --Chaser (T) 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that looks reasonable. Probably best to put it in along with a note about the Kennedy election. DrLeebot 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that probably isn't reasonable for us to do, but it's what would have to be done for someone who's making that deductive argument. Our place is to find someone who has made that deductive argument, and quote them. Coming up with a new argument (even if completely logical and deductive) would count as original research on our part. DrLeebot 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced allegations in Administration subsection

I deleted the two following statements from the Administration subsection:

• Critics allege that Bush is willing to overlook mistakes and that he has also surrounded himself with “yes men”.
• Some commentators have claimed that deference to executive privilege was one of the principal considerations Bush’s administration considered when he proposed his three nominations for the Supreme Court, and appointed John R. Bolton to the United Nations.

Both statements have been tagged with {{fact}} for several weeks. They both begin with weasel words. Most importantly, WP:LIVING clearly states that "editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons." I'm not too happy about these deletions as I believe them both to be true but until we can find verifiable sources they clearly don't belong in the article. --ElKevbo 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Chart summary text in Public perception, assessments & approval ratings section

The text below the ratings chat is way too long (on my monitor there is more text than there is chart). I'd like to shorten the text in the chart to: "Bush approval rating from February 2001 to May 2006. Large increases in approval followed the September 11 attacks, and the beginning of the 2003 Iraq conflict." This is similar or identical to what was previously there before it was recently (yesterday or today) expanded. Discussion? --ElKevbo 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That chart is bad enough already. It's an original research chart, which means we ought to not even be using it. So at minimum, the source of the data must be mentioned. Also, the context about 2nd term ratings must be there. Neutral arbiter 03:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that using plotting existing data in a chart is necessarily original research any more than the infobox at the top of the article is original research. In addition, you can view source information about the chart by clicking on it and thus my advocacy for removing some information from this already-crowded article. I don't see the need for the 2nd term info as I believe that to be common information (indeed, common sense) for anyone who is actually interested in presidential polling numbers. --ElKevbo 03:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with ElKevbo, especially since the information in the caption is already written into the article. The image complements what is already in the text, so a long caption is unnecessary. --Chaser (T) 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone already began making one of the suggested edits so I'm going to go ahead and make mine. I welcome further discussion and suggestions! --ElKevbo 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I suggest that the religion part of George Bush's article be removed since his religious beliefs should have no bearing on anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfa (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 May 2006

I disagree. A person's religious beliefs are definitely of interest in a biography. --ElKevbo 19:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo. As far as a Biography is concerned--especially a biography of a leader--it is extremely important. Where we cross the line is when we start making comments on what is right or not. ---Idiot with a gun 01:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is especially ridiculous for a politician who campaigned openly on his religious beliefs. You surely can't be serious!! -Kasreyn 03:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)