Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Military hostilities in Iraq did not end May 1, 2003

Hostilities have never subsided. Not on May 1, 2003 and not now. This needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.74.48.115 (talk • contribs) --All combat operations concerned with the invasion have officially ended--

This is bias, It is not fact Satv365 08:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)satv365Satv365 08:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If hostilities ended on May 1, 2003, how have 3000 American soldiers been killed in the ensuing three and a half years? This is not bias. Even Bush himself continues to refer to the ongoing "War in Iraq." PacificBoy 20:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Formal hostilities is what the word is in reference to, between the U.S. military and the military of Iraq. The ongoing war is against irregular troops, not the Iraqi national army, which is an ally of the U.S.Michael Dorosh^Talk 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. But the article needs to reflect such. As written, it currently implies that everything was tidily wrapped up by May 1, and that everything that came after was inconsequential, when quite the opposite is true. And it is not bias to request that such distinction be made. PacificBoy 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Formal hostilities" in a war begin with a declaration of war. There was none, just an "authorization of force" by Congress. Formal hostilities end when the warring powers sign an instrument of surrender or armistice, That did not happen: Rumsfeld and Bush just waited for the Iraqi military to "melt away" with all the ensuing chaos. Edison 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Policy and other Criticisms

I'm all for a balanced approach to this wikipedia entry. But I'm finding that many criticisms, those based on factual political analysis, are either swept under the carpet with "main article links" or not mentioned at all. I added Treaty Withdrawals to the Foreign Policy section, and mostly just listed the main points that the Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration wiki entry lists. It's really late at night and I don't want to dig through textbooks and class notes, but there is a lot to be said briefly in this and that section. Would people with political science and international relations knowledge and referencing help me to reform parts of these 2 articles, and make any other notes of what might need expanding upon. Thanks. ---Soorej 10:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

AIDS

Should the article mention Bush's call to renew the Ryan White Act, as he did in his 2005 2005 State of the Union address: [1] What about public or political opinion on AIDS? Perhaps the mention would be under domestic agenda and the opinion under criticism and public perception? Bill Clinton has supported Bush on AIDS, for one: [2] Bush's stance on AIDS separates him from Ronald Reagan in that Bush embraces the compassionate conservative mantle, while for Reagan I support it was simply patriotic conservatism. Both have been criticized for economically neglecting the downtrodden (well, except fiscal conservatives have attacked Bush for his massive public works spending following Hurricane Katrina, but perhaps there is a bridge on addressing social issues. Minutiaman 21:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If the above were to be included, it would also then be fair to include the criticisms of Bush's AIDS policies, e.g, funding abstinence-only programs that lack the scientific acceptance of other prevention strategies; funding religious groups through PEPFAR; purchasing only brand name pharmaceuticals for its treatment programs, instead of cheaper generic drugs. These are pretty standard and well-publicized and documented critiques of the policy, more than just griping from political opponents. In a represenationally accurate rendering of a particular policy, they seem to deserve inclusion. --Thes entinel 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina disaster relief acts

Should any of the acts Bush signed into law in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina be included in the major legislation signed section? These include the Flexibility for Displaced Workers Act, Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005, [3] QI, TMA, and Abstinence Programs Extension and Hurricane Katrina Unemployment Relief Act of 2005[4], Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 [5], Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising From the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 [6], and the Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 [7]. Minutiaman 22:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Websites Critical Of Bush

I'm wondering why most other polticans who have articles about them in Wikipedia have links to websites critical of them and this article does not. Is it simply because they are being removed or that no one has found a noteable source of criticism on Bush? Davidpdx 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the articles of other recent presidents, I'm not seeing any links to critical websites. This does still raise the question of whether we should have critical sites here. And if we do, should we balance it out with positive sites? Or is it better to keep it to strictly neutral sites? ---DrLeebot 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[HUMOR}Interesting dilemma. One person sees negative websites in the other politicians entries and thinks they should be here, too. But, another person looks and does not see this at all. My philosophy teacher was right - reality is malleable.[/HUMOR] ;-) Xaa 13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(Yes, I know it was intended to be humorous, but I'll still respond.) I think the difference is that Davidpdx is talking about politicians in general, while I'm looking at a more select group of politicians: American presidents. There probably are many politicians whose articles link to critical sites, like, say, Fidel Castro (and what do you know, it does?).

But that fact does raise an NPOV concern. We link to sites critical of the Cuban president, but not the American president (who is also controversial). Since there are sites who use Verifiable sources and are critical of Bush (and other past presidents), we have an obligation to link to them in order to comply with WP:NPOV. ---DrLeebot 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article links its pro-, neutral, and anti-Bush sources, and also its page to books and films about him, categorized by their slant.[8] Minutiaman 17:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (I am terrible at remembering the tildes)

Let me clarify that although the sub-article categorizes the books and films, the main article does not categorize its sources by their leanings. But with sources on everything from Bush being a war criminal to impartial statistics, there is diversity and the names tend to reveal where they come from, so to speak. An added list of categorized Bush Web sites should be added to the books and films sub-article, in which case the name should be lengthened to reflect the expansion. Minutiaman 17:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (apparently I got signed out - does Wikipedia do this to anyone else?)

I'm going to chime back in here. My intention was to start a conversation about this and hope someone will come up with some sites critical of Bush. While there are some critisms of Bush, in the external links section there are none. Certainly that's doesn't mean these sites don't exsist, because they do. Linking books and films that are critical of Bush is not the same. They are a diffrent kind of published work.

The problem is finding a creditable site (preferably not a blog) that is represenative of some of the major criticisms of Bush. A blog would be ok as long it is not origonal research. I think it should be something that is well sourced though. As I said at the start of this message I don't intend on posting anything, but I think it's worth mentioning that the article should be more balanced. Davidpdx 00:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Patrick Buchanan's The American Conservative Magazine has been very critical of President Bush and the neoconservatives in general.--24.161.65.18 09:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(Refactored per new WP:BIO rules)

Sitcom

There was a sitcom featuring and making fun of Bush.Does anyone know what's it's name? New Babylon

That's My Bush! ---DrLeebot 13:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to forget that he had a short role in a Time Squad cartoon.--Bvman 20:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Israel Palestine

"Bush emphasized a "hands-off" approach to the conflict between Israel and Palestine in wake of rising violence and the alleged failure of the Clinton Administration's efforts to negotiate. Bush specifically disowned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for his support of the violence and militant groups, but following urgings from European leaders, he became the first American President to embrace a two-state solution envisaging"

I read this as a European, but I finThe implcation of 'Hands off' is that Bush was neutral rather than being backing the Israelis. Surely this should be altered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendavy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is completely too long...much of the information is unreferenced and needs to be repositioned in other sections.--MONGO 08:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, this section could use some work--RCT 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire article needs work. Between the article and this talk page, I have over 1,000 edits and now, after coming back to see it having not edited much here for some time, I see that the entire article is simply too long and much needs to be spun off into daughter articles.--MONGO 10:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please be careful not to selectively remove only material you disagree with in your quest to correct the problem of the intro being "too long." Thanks. Edison 15:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Google Phenomenon

An interesting fact about Google search is that if one types "failure" in the search bar, and then clicks the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button, then a page contaning an autobiography of George W Bush appears —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.165.228 (talk • contribs)

See Google bomb. There's nothing notable about what you describe. — Impi 14:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why every raving lunatic who finds this page just has to brag about a google bomb. these people can't help but spew their hatred at the most visible target, the President of the United States. The left wing bile in this place really gets to me some times--RCT 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you refer to left-wing as bile. I'm left-wing of the political spectrum, but I'm still human. Please don't lower me to this level. I also don't spew my hatred on the 'net. Possibly you have invented this stereotype, because of the simple fact that the ones who do are by default left-wing (George Bush is mainly geared towards the capitalist America, as have many American governments before - this is down to the operation of American politics, so the right-winger's generally don't complain).

This of course neatly ignores the possibility that some don't contribute because they know it would be NPOV, despite their aggravation towards the President. Thus you have this stereotype. Can I suggest that you try to make the comments section as anti-flamist as possible, conserving your opinions, despite annoyance.

You also haven't interviewed ' every raving lunatic ' to make the bold statement concerning the bragging about a Google bomb. I think the main point of the user was to ask why it wasn't on the George W. Bush page itself. Regarding that issue, as "President" he affects most of the planet in one way or another. There simply isn't room on a Wikipedia page to reference to him. Possibly a link could be placed at the bottom (related links?). - Philipwhiuk 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To get back on topic, there is no need for any mention of it. This is supposed to be a WikiBio (Biography); this is not supposed to be a collection of every single thing that ever happens in relation to George W. Bush. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^(Talk) 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I tried to change the last section about experts allegations of war crimes so that it reads more as a point of view held by some people. If no one objects, I think it should be okay to remove the weasel words warning, as now I don't think the section reads as an opinion. If there are no objections, I will remove the warning in a day or two, in order to give people time to post against this action. If there is any contraversy, I will not remove the label, of course. Stop Me Now! 16:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• No objections here. Sounds like a good change to me. AuburnPilot 17:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Might be good to re-word it to specifically address who is alleging the war crimes, as the "some experts" is what prompted the original weasel tag. ThanksDubc0724 01:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to do that and then remove the weasel words warnings. If anyone disagrees, put it back up and talk about it here. I'm not trying to cause contraversy over this.Stop Me Now! 01:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Inappropriate Statements'

At 15:28, August 28, 2006 Kalsermar deleted two sections for being 'inappropriate' ... what is inappropriate about mentioning Bush's age when he received a DUI? When a man is 30 years old he cannot be called youthful by himself or anybody else. I think it is entirely appropriate to point out this behavior by an adult; it is even a part of the public records in the state where the incident took place. Indiscretions by actual youthful offenders is often sealed from public access; the state doesn't agree with Bush about his status at the time of this incident.--Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 02:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The facts are stated, there's nothing encyclopaedic about the mention of whether it can or cannot be regarded as whatever. Reader can judge themselves.--Kalsermar 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The comment is Not encyclopedic, yet Duke53 has reverted yet again to include the remark about age. This is one revert away from being vandalism, if it isnt already. Please stop. AuburnPilot 04:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, is it vandalism or not? You should know before accusing someone of it. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 04:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please define 'encyclopedic'. In a paragraph where dubya rationalizes his drunkenness on the basis of age ('irresponsible youth') this shows that age had nothing to do with his being a drunk. He may have been a drunk when he was a youth, but he kept at it long after he was an adult. And AuburnPilot, as far as vandalism goes ... stuff it; this isn't even close. I will be inserting it again when time allows. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 18:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think planning to revert war over it is a good idea.Voice-of-All 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Duke53, I'd have to agree that a revert war is a bad idea. Also, it wouldn't hurt to refer to this and this. Dubc0724 19:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are about the last person who should be preaching to me about 'civility' and 'being a dick'. "Duke53 | Talk" 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you need any lecturing at all. You've got the second part down pat. Dubc0724 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility.  :)"Duke53 | Talk" 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "young" is in itself POV and should be avoided. 30 IS young to many people. Age is not the issue here in any event, maturity is, and that isn't easily defined. Incidentally, using loaded expressions like "dubya" is not only POV but guaranteed to kill any serious discussion and prevent many people from taking other associated comments seriously.Michael Dorosh^Talk 19:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

His father calls him dubya so I guess that others can also. POV rules count on a talk page? Hmm ... I could see it being POV if I'd called him that on the article page. --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53 04:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything, Duke53's comments on this talk page show intent to vandalize this page. The comments are informal, inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and should not be included. In addition, comments such as telling me to "stuff it" are even more inappropriate and in no way add to the respectability of your argument. Declaring to continue reverting the change will begin a revert war and is most certainly against Wikipedia Guidelines and constitutes vandalism. AuburnPilot 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Make up your mind ... was it vandalism or 'intent to vandalize' ... I don't think you know what you're talking about --Duke 53 User_talk:Duke53

Duke53, I am not going to participate in a revert war. You can change it back as many times as you like, but I will not revert it. I'll leave it up to others, since you seem determined have it read your way, regardless of this discussion page. AuburnPilot 04:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

" ... since you seem determined have it read your way, regardless of this discussion page." Horse puckey ... there are two of you who decided that you want it deleted, hardly a consensus. Looks like other people other than me who are posting to the article want it included, but you two just keep on making the 'per discussion' page reference, M'Kay?

Still waiting for your 'explanation' on vandalism and 'attempt to vandalize ... yeah, that's what I thought, no answer to that. You're "ready to let the issue die".  :) "Duke53 | Talk" 19:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there's well more than two people who find that the inclusion is irrelevant, lacking encyclopedic style, and at this point, very juvenile. Several of us have suggested to let it go, and let the reader decide for him/herself. Again, a little civility would go a long way. Dubc0724 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Two people seem to be doing the deletion.

Again, you are the last person that should be lecturing me about civility. "Duke53 | Talk" 00:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. as juvenile as you adding 'dook' to an article?

That's ridiculous. I've been far more patient with your edits and snide comments than I should have been. And the Dook thing is completely irrelevant; (1) I didn't add it; it was already there. (2) Documenting something that exists in a college rivalry page is hardly in the same league as adding your personal commentary to a much higher-profile article. Dubc0724 19:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How patient 'should' you have been? Stating a guy's age is now 'personal commentary' ... what a hoot! (Carowhina) "Duke53 | Talk" 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I again took out a reference to this, namely the bracketed statement despite his age for the following reason. Bush declared it to be due to irresposible youth, it is not for us to qualify that and the reader, knowing his age, can make up own mind on this one. Personally, I think 50% of the people haven't really grown up by the time they're 30. Either way, it is an unencyclopaedic addition. The facts have been stated and the year of his birth and the infractions are also stated. Anything else is not relevant to anyone unless a point wants to be made to subtract from what Bush himself said about it. That is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and borders on original research.--Kalsermar 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Kalsermar beat me to it. Bush is quoted - the facts are given. Can we let it go now? Dubc0724 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm ready to let the issue die. The facts are stated and nothing more is needed. AuburnPilot 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

REverted it again, do you guys have nothing better to do?--Kalsermar 00:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, his DOB is given, the year of the DUI is given, so that's enough for anyone who wants to figure out his age at the time. Making a point to mention his age again is unnecessary. 2nd Piston Honda 00:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time to get a neutral party to look at the issue of pointing out dubya's age in that section. Does anybody here know how to do that? I would appreciate it if someone can do it. Kalsermar apparently is going to keep removing it no matter how many different editors insert it. "Duke53 | Talk" 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

An informal mediation can be started using the Mediation Cabal under the section "Making a Request for Mediation". It may be a good idea, since no matter how many people remove it, you others will keep adding it back. AuburnPilot 05:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

" ... since no matter how many people remove it, you others will keep adding it back". But it still gets pulled, right ... " per the discussion page" ? Exactly how many people have pulled it? :) "Duke53 | Talk" 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like "someone of importance" or a "neutral party" to have a look at this, I've given you the information to do so. It's time to either ask for help, or move to another subject. As far as "how many"; on this talk page it seems that 5 editors believe it should not be included, one believes it should, and one believes there shouldn't be a revert war. AuburnPilot 16:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The question was: "Exactly how many people have pulled it?" Obviously the others who keep on adding it haven't posted to this page. "Duke53 | Talk" 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, why not a compromise? Personally, I figure anybody curious should be able to figure his age at the time of the incident given the information in the article, but I also don't see any especial harm in mentioning it, and it seems like something a person might as well ask. That said, statements like "Take note that he was 30 years old at the time of this incident, which makes it tough to write off as an incident of 'irresponsible youth,'" are some pretty serious NPOV violations. There shouldn't be any commentary involved in noting his age -- our duty is to report relevant facts and let readers make an informed decision on their own -- but the age itself seems at least relevant enough to potentially warrant two or three words in this huge article. Is there any significant reason why "On September 4, 1976, at the age of 30,..." or some similar quick note would harm the quality of the article? Luna Santin 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You, Luna Santin ... that's pretty close to what was there a couple times. I think you made a great suggestion. "Duke53 | Talk" 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Luna Santin. I have reverted Asbl's edits yet again to match this discussion page. The article now reads as Luna Santin suggested. At this point, I have no issue with this section. AuburnPilot 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to point out to 2nd Piston Honda that bush's age will be included in this paragraph; if he removes it again it should be considered vandalism, IMO. "Duke53 | Talk" 00:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to point out to Duke53 that bush's age will not be arbitrarily (and unnecessarily) mentioned just to bring attention to a personal point he's trying to make; if he adds it again it should be considered vandalism, IMO. 2nd Piston Honda 02:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone also might want to point out the Three Revert Rule to Asbl, but more specifically the Gaming the System portion of WP:POINT that refers to the WP:3RR. AuburnPilot 00:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking that it was a 'team' of editors from this page who were the ones 'gaming the system'. It's odd how you guys (oops) 'forgot' to check this page before you deleted dubya's age from that section last time. Hmm .... "Duke53 | Talk" 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Duke, from what i've seen, there are more people who disagree with adding the age comment, so stop with your "per discussion page" edits. If you really think you're in the majority and want resolution, then take a vote. 2nd Piston Honda 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you check my last revert on this article, I added Bush's age to the article. [9] I did not add commentary. I have not reverted the page 3 times in a day, but only 3 times in 3 days. Stating his age as fact as Luna Santin suggested does not create a problem to me. The problem is the commentary "even though it spanned all the way into his 30's." that is added by Asbl. I believe stating the age is unnecesary, but if required, should be stated as fact AuburnPilot 01:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Two, didn't Luna Santin come here at someone's invitation to help us decide? Even AuburnPilot added the age at one time. I never added commentary, just dubya's age when he was picked up driving drunk. "Duke53 | Talk" 02:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, being a member of the Mediation Cabal, I was asked to give a neutral POV to this discussion. I see no problem with placing the age of the pre-presidential Bush (30 at the time of the incident) on the page. Nor do I see a problem with Bush's quotation characterizing this act as a youthful indiscretion, which is a slight spin of 30 as young. (By the way, was he specifically refering to this incident in that quotation?) As stated above, 30 is considered very young by those in their 60's and very old by those in their teens. If these two statements are facts, then they should stand on their own, stay in the article as encyclopedic, without editorial comment (which would be original research). By the way, it could be helpful to find an independent source in the press taking the President's comment (about 30 being youthful) to task. If not, it seems fine to me to leave the age in there along with the President's quotation on the incident. I suggest that the bickering stop, leave the age in the article (assuming it is fact) and move on. (Lot o' ridiculous bantering going on, stick to the issues, and get this resolved.) Otherwise, take the 3-edit revert violators to an administrator for violation of policy. Good luck, SteveMc 02:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

deletion of another editor's comments (off topic)

Thank You, sir. A question for you: is one editor allowed to delete another editor's comments from a talk page? TIA. "Duke53 | Talk" 02:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, SteveMc. I have now reverted to the version where I added the age, but eliminated the commentary. AuburnPilot 02:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Duke, i copy/pasted your comment and then edited it, but accidentally left your name at the end. You commented, i edited it with my sig and responded saying it was a mistake, and then removed the whole discussion because it was already settled. It's done, let it go. 2nd Piston Honda 02:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, that doesn't answer my question: can an editor delete another editor's comments on a talk page? I consider it vandalism and will be reporting it as such. "Duke53 | Talk" 03:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My head hurts. AuburnPilot 03:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just look it up on the policy pages? 2nd Piston Honda 03:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Duke53, it is neither vandalism nor a breach of policy. Of course, please don't quote me on this because I really don't know. I found it referred to as a faux pas and as a common mistake here, but I don't think it's something to get too bent out of shape about, IMO. Now, I'm off for the night, so anything else I'll address tomorrow. AuburnPilot 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Auburn's and Duke's "vandalism" accusations: Vandalism on WP is "a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." Please be careful to distinguish content disputes and personal disputes from actual vandalism. --Mr. Billion 03:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Semantics, but duly noted. AuburnPilot 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And there is this Wikipedia policy I found:

Talk page vandalism

"Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of legitimate warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors".

As soon as I find out where to report it I will do so. "Duke53 | Talk" 03:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism should be repaired, and a polite message placed on the author's talk page. Only if the author persists is it perhaps appropriate to seek help. I think 2nd Piston Honda owes you an apology, but I personally wouldn't bother taking any futher action over the issue. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I own HIM an apology? I told him it was an accident, apologized, and fixed the problem all within about 2 minutes, but he persisted to keep talking about it and saying he would report me for vandalism. He's acting like a big douche, to be quite frank. If anything, he owes ME an apology. 2nd Piston Honda 03:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, found out the proper way to do this. 2nd Piston Honda, Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

I'm going to do this through Wikipedia's guidelines ... please bear with me. If you revert the deletions, 2nd Piston Honda, I will not pursue this."Duke53 | Talk" 03:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I said I was done with this article for the night, but I saw what just happened. For clarification, the warning goes on 2nd Piston Honda's talk page. Not the George W. Bush talk page. AuburnPilot 03:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. "Duke53 | Talk" 03:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

is "at the age of 30" needed?

But getting back on topic..Can anyone tell me why "at the age of 30" is needed? 2nd Piston Honda 03:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not, really. His DOB is in the article. Any idiot can figure out that he was 30, given the date of the incident and his DOB. It's being used to prove some point, whatever that is. Dubc0724 02:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm coming into this a bit late, but I took an extremely long time to read this whole discussion(Yay for black coffee!), and from the start, 2nd Piston Honda, I was wondering the exact same thing. I don't think anyone can give a valid reason supporting why the mention of his age should be in the article. But my opinion isn't really relevant, just thought this discussion could use an impartial speaker...--Wild One 02:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong and you're right Wild One. You're wrong, because your opinion does matter. Thats the great thing about Wikipedia. You're right, because the age really isn't relevant. AuburnPilot 02:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist category

I have added this article to Category:American terrorists, because I have found that its subject meets the criteria described at Category:Terrorists, which are as follows:

• Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.

Bush is the commander-in-chief (both de jure and de facto) of the United States military, which has invaded and occupied Iraq for a period of years. If that isn't illegal, then nothing is.

• Targeting civilians.

The U.S. military commanded by Bush continues to enforce its occupation of Iraq and its control of the Iraqi government. This would be completely impossible if civilians were not the targets of violence or the threat of violence, because civilians would otherwise be able to resist or ignore the government with impunity.

• Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.

Iraq has not been in a state of conventional war since approximately May, 2003.

America has not formally declared war since, I don't know, WWII? For eg, Vietnam was a Police action. Certainly, GWB has stated that this is a war, though that probably doesn't count for much. Ben Aveling 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).

Cleary, the modus operandi of the occupation is to coerce the public into accepting the presence of foreign troops and to "send the message" that the occupiers and the government they sponsor cannot be successfully resisted. Whether it serves the additional purpose of sending a message to the governments of other states is speculative, but quite plausible.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, for obvious reasons, namely lack of verifiability and no mention of this in the article itself.Michael Dorosh^Talk 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing more than a comment of support for Michael Dorosh's action. Adding the President of the United States to Category:American terrorists is quite ridiculous. AuburnPilot 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If Nat wants to seriously assign this article to that category, I feel a verifiable claim needs to be made; the article needs to state that President Bush is in fact an American terrorist, and there must be reliable and verifiable source information in the article to back up the statement. Anything else is original research and individual POV. If he can prove the claim, more power to him. Good luck.Michael Dorosh^Talk 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the terrorist category are described here. I don't see what issue there is of verifiability. The facts which I mentioned above, demonstrating that Mr. Bush meets these criteria, are easily verifiable and are, for the most part, mentioned in this article.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 23:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. You need to find a thirdy party source that describes President Bush in such a manner. Some dude having an uninformed rant on the internet doesn't cut it, unfortunately.Michael Dorosh^Talk 03:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll thank you to remain civil when dealing with myself and other Wikipedians in the future. This would encourage we to pay attention to the stuff that you say.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Check out Noam Chomsky's recent book Failed States, in which he describes the actions of the Bush Administration as terrorism. I would hardly consider Chomsky uninformed; the work's scholarship is astonishing even by the standards he has already set for himself. Kasreyn 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No shortage of those. Results 1 - 10 of about 53,400 for "george bush is a terrorist"; in comparison:

• about 1,020 for "Timothy McVeigh is a terrorist"
• about 303 for "terry nichols is a terrorist"
• about 121 for "Eric Robert Rudolph is a terrorist"
• "patty hearst is a terrorist" - did not match any documents (so how is she in the category?)
• about 97,800 for "osama bin laden is a terrorist" -- GWB is more than half the terrorist osama is? Step Two 12:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So you've just proven the point that a Google search is not a reliable source of information, something that should probably be self-evident in any event. As stated, if Nat can provide a creditable source that George Bush has been designated a terrorist by someone that matters, he is free to present that evidence here. I think we all know he can't do that.Michael Dorosh^Talk 14:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that you have already decided that any source designating George Bush as a terrorist is not "someone that matters"? So much for WP:RS. Step Two 17:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nat is adding the terrorist category willy-nilly in order to "prove" that it doesn't mean anything, since he doesn't want it to mean anything. See WP:POINT. Mirror Vax 17:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Get your facts straight before you go shooting your mouth off. I have added terrorist categories to a two articles. From Wikipedia's perspective the word "terrorist" certainly does mean something, and it means this.

Looking at WP:POINT, you'll find that it is short for Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I agree with that completely. It applies in cases where someone is disrupting an article rather than editing in good faith. Attempting to apply Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in a category evenly improves the encyclopedia; it's not disruption, or trolling, or any other such bad thing. It's simply an edit. Maybe it's an edit that you don't like, but you nevertheless must deal with it on that basis.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. You are perfectly well aware that Bush and Putin are not generally considered terrorists. They certainly haven't been convicted of a terrorism-related crime. So you are premature, at least. If and when Bush is tried and convicted of terrorism, then you can add the category. Mirror Vax 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

What sort of court do you have in mind? I'm sure there are lots of people in Iraq and other places that would love the chance to put Bush on "trial". Who knows, some of them might even give him a fair trial. But, of course, that can never happen, because his side is stronger than theirs. I'm not sure why a conviction would be part of the criteria, anyway. I don't think Osama bin Laden has ever been convicted of terrorism, either, but everybody knows he's a terrorist.—Nat Krause^(Talk!)

I had in mind a U.S. court, of course. Presidents aren't above the law, at least in principle. Nixon might have been convicted of something if he hadn't been pardoned. Anyway, the point is that one should be confident of guilt before placing someone in a criminal category, because it is highly defamatory, and that normally means a criminal conviction, with very few exceptions. Mirror Vax 13:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So, you're not a terrorist unless a U.S. court says you are, is that it?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush is not a terrorist because he is simply not a terrorist. It's fairly hard to say it any more simply. Tbeatty proved correctly (below) that the guidelines you state, Nat Krause, cannot be applied to Bush unless you stretch them so far, they have no meaning. Applying this category to George W. Bush is a clear misuse of it's intended purpose. AuburnPilot 04:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"George W. Bush is not a terrorist because he is simply not a terrorist" is a prime example of unverifiable opinion. So much for AuburnPilot. 07:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that Wikipedia shouldn't label people as being criminals without solid justification, such as a criminal conviction. Mirror Vax 13:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This means Osama Bin Laden should be removed from the "terrorist" list. Never convicted of anything. Actually, the terrorist list should be deleted: it's pure opinion. 24.59.110.228 07:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"So when Colin Powell says, as he did on the day of 9/11, we condemn people who are willing to blow up buildings for political ends—well if Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, then George W. Bush is a terrorist. That would be a logical conclusion if one takes what Powell said at his word." -- Norman Solomon [10] Step Two 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't possibly be that delusional. Would you call FDR, JFK, and Harry Truman terrorists? Dubc0724 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your response to other Wikipedians discussing the article is "You can't possibly be that delusional."? Does this comment really contribute to a constructive discussion of the article? You might want to take this sort of thing to an internet politics forum or Usenet, etc., where it belongs.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's every bit as constructive as the original edit, which was nothing more than political posturing. Sorry if I was too blunt, but when I run across something this ridiculous, it's hard to say "pretty please, with sugar on top". And again, would you classify FDR, JFK and Truman as terrorists?Dubc0724 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You are in error. WP:CIVIL (which I believe is what Nat Krause was referring to by implication) only requires that editors be civil to each other. It does not, for instance, prevent me from referring to Hitler as a monster. Non-Wikipedians are not covered. Therefore your comment, being uncivil, does seem decidedly less constructive to me than Step Two's. Furthermore, it's disingenuous of you to request that Nat defend Step Two's quote of Solomon; all he is defending is the civility and courtesy one would expect on this project. Mr. Solomon is not here to defend himself, and Step Two has not indicated whether he agrees with Mr. Solomon or not; all he did was quote him. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps a small over-reaction on my part. My apologies. Dubc0724 13:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: It is blatant, baldfaced POV for this article to declare Bush a "terrorist", as if this were an undisputed fact. Yes, some people think he's a terrorist. It's really stretching to apply the definition at Category:Terrorists to Bush (e.g. it's disputed whether the Iraq invasion was "illegal"). More to the point, that's not the only definition out there. And it's far from official Wikipedia policy. However, WP:V, WP:LIVING and WP:NPOV are. I urge Nat Krause to stop his slow, one-man edit war. Do you realize there is no one else on your side? That everyone else in this discussion opposes adding this article to the category? Your arguments are nothing more than wikilawyering. szyslak (t, c, e) 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which are, by comparison, very congenial. Wikipedia does not regard the term "terrorist", at least for purposes of categorisation, as a POV claim, but, rather, as an objective description of a person's occupation or activities. It would be strange to think that the authors of the standards for inclusion in terrorist categories had written them without considering the policies on WP:V, WP:LIVING and WP:NPOV. I don't see a direct conflict between WP:LIVING and the terrorist category guidelines, and there is certainly precedent by which these categories can be applied to bios of living people—they seem to rarely be applied to anything other than articles about living or recently deceased people. Since both have been in common use for some time, I think it makes sense to see them as valid and not in conflict.

I have certainly noticed that I am the only editor so far who has been editing the article to keep the category I added, and I am, of course, aware that a few (out of the vast number of people who edit and read Wikipedia) other editors have disagreed with that on the talk page. So far, the number of editors who have given a critique on this talk page without resorting to ad hominem is approximately one (Szyslak). That number, one, doesn't strike me as compelling compared to the duty and prerogative I have to be bold.

As for your statement about wikilawyering, I don't really have any comment on it because I'm not aware that that term has much meaning beyond serving as a mild term of abuse. However, I didn't take it personally in this case because I didn't get the impression that you intended to be offensive.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the disclaimer in here

This category may inappropriately label persons

Even if GWB does tick all the boxes (and I don't think he does), the label doesn't 'feel' right. Hiding a bomb on a plane, that's terrorism. Dropping bombs from planes is something else. It might be a war-crime, but it's not terrorism. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. Osama Bin Laden is on kidney dialysis, and he is described as a terrorist. How many direct, physical acts of terrorism could he possibly be capable of? Bush, by comparison, is in charge of a government which is capable of a great deal more, and has arguably caused a greater quantity of direct loss of life and destruction than Bin Laden's organization. I would certainly feel that if we included the claim, it would be critical to note that the issue is hotly contested. I think the publicly accepted working definition of terrorism includes giving orders that lead to others performing terrorist acts, funding terrorism (ref. Dr. Sami Al-Arian), and other indirect "aiding and abetting" type activities. Kasreyn 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussions sickens and offends me. Even naming GWB and OBL in one sentence in this way in perverse.--Kalsermar 01:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks... Kasreyn 02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kalsermar, it's really not at all appropriate for you to bring your personal feelings into the matter.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We all bring personal feelings with us - and making them explicit helps us understand each other. The important thing is not to let our own opinions get in the way of mutally working towards a NPOV. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I do agree with that. If Kasreyn Kalsermar's point was to draw attention to his own biases so that others may keep them in mind, then it was just fine for him to mention it.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say that I am at a loss to detect where I displayed a "bias" in what I said - much less even discussed my personal feelings. My first significant post was in response to someone who asked - I thought sincerely - for a third-party source which accused Bush of terrorism; which I provided. The second significant post was in reply to Ben Aveling's theory that only direct, immediate actions constituted terrorism, which I refuted by using several examples of indirect terrorism. I suppose it is possible that I might have been more clear had I not mixed actual and hypothetical examples, but I don't see how that constitutes "bias". Cheers, Kasreyn 23:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

State terrorism

I feel that the relevant article is State terrorism. The acts used to justify labeling GWB a terrorist are acts by the government and military of the United States. If these are acts of terrorism, they are acts of state terrorism. GWB is not personally setting off any bombs--there's a 300 billion dollar a year military establishment for that. Furthermore, Wikipedia already has a nice page dedicated to state terrorism perpetrated by the United States: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. If you look at the Middle East section, you'll see allegations that CIA-sponsored Iraqi resistance groups bombed civilian targets between 1992 and 1995. Personally, I don't think Bill Clinton is a terrorist; nonetheless, these allegations suggest that he presided over a government alleged to be responsible for terrorist acts. Indeed, the page discusses allegations of US state terrorism in 1890, 1961, 1962, 1967, 1980, 1984, and so on. That implicates, in the least, Benjamin Harrison, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan. If these allegations are to be believed, state terrorism has been perpetrated by the American military during many presidencies. Certainly, the allegations of state terrorism are an important topic; however, they should be discussed in the correct places. The GWB article already mentions nonspecific criticism of the War in Iraq and domestic "anti-terror" policies--if these initiatives involve acts of state terrorism, they should be discussed in and linked from those contexts, or from articles on the US military, or such. Adding a bunch of presidents and Joint Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense and CIA Directors and so on to the terrorists category doesn't really get your point across, anyway--I'm sure Noam Chomsky would agree that it's far bigger than GWB. Count me as another vote in opposition.---Knoepfle 02:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right on that point; Chomsky in his book seems to consider Bush himself fairly small potatoes compared to the establishment he is (nominally) in charge of. Kasreyn 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Knoepfle, after viewing your comments on Category_talk:Terrorists, it does seem to me that Category:State terrorism is the correct category for this article, rather than Category:American terrorists. However, I'm afraid I don't agree with the balance of your remarks. The fact that Benjamin Harrison, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, etc. might be also eligible for the same category doesn't, by itself, tell us what we should do with this page. I haven't had a chance to go through the list of all the presidents and see what categories they should be in, and it isn't really very high on my priority list. I'm looking at Mr. Bush's article right now, and it appears that he meets the criteria for Category:State terrorism (I'm assuming that the relevant criteria are the same as for Category:Terrorists.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

By listing those presidents, I meant to imply that the accusations of state terrorism span many presidencies. With state terrorism, it's not really proper to call specific individuals "terrorists" or "state terrorists"; rather, the United States government is responsible. Truman's "The buck stops here!" sign notwithstanding, we can't credit the actions of the government exclusively to the executive. It'd be silly to label all the US presidents since the New Deal as philanthropists (the Social Security Act of 1935 established welfare in the US). There's a massive hierarchy of people responsible for the alleged acts; hell, I pay taxes, so I'm responsible in some sense. ---Knoepfle 10:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Damn it people! Everyone says Bush is controversial, well all political leaders are controversial! As soon as someone has world power, everything they do is looked at negative and positive. People thought Truman was controversial, but now that we look back, his actions were correct at the time. Look at George Bush, his actions are controversial now, but in a few years the same actions we thought bad, turned out good. Think about it. --Yancyfry jr 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, this isn't going to stop, you know. These people don't WANT to remember that Congress authorized the war in Iraq, they don't WANT to remember that their favorite (Republican/Democrat/pick your party of interest) legislator voted for the war, thus it isn't illegal. No, they WANT to believe it's illegal, they WANT to believe Bush is a terrorist. They have their version of the truth, and there is no compromise within that version of the truth. ARBCOM is not going to work - there's nothing to arbitrate. There is no "neutral point of view" possible for these people, because their basic position is an absolute. There IS no neutral point of view for someone who believes that Bush is a congenital idiot, or that Bush is a terrorist, or that Bush is a murderer, or that the war was illegal. You're either a murderer or you're not. You're either a terrorist or you're not. You're either an idiot or you're not. There's no "well, in some points of view, he's an idiot", or "he's a terrorist, for certain values of terror." Discussing it with them is never going to be productive, because there is no middle ground that can be found through discussion or arbitration. There is no neutral ground between "Bush is a terrorist" and "No, he's not." There is no neutral ground between "Bush is an idiot" and "No, he's not." There just is no compromise possible with people who have these kinds of absolute opinions, and you will never find a "neutral point of view" these people can ever agree with that doesn't flatly say "Bush Is Hitler's Illegitemate Brain-Damaged Son." Discussion isn't going to work, and arbitration isn't going to work because there's nothing to arbitrate. You are going to have to find some other solution. Xaa 02:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally (sorry to cut in line before Kasreyn), things that happen in Iraq are not legal or illegal based on what the U.S. Congress does.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. In support of your point, you have just declared the laws and the entire legal establishment of the United States moot. Xaa 01:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is nothing new. Supporters of political factions typically see their opponents as being utterly close-minded and immune to reason. This is true of every side in this debate, as any other. The same charge could be levelled against supporters of Bush, and has been many times before, and it was just as wrong. Because all across WP, fair-minded editors of every political persuasion have managed to achieve quite a few NPOV articles. There is no point in issuing a call for an end to discussion. Without discussion, the goal of an NPOV article cannot be reached. What is needed is more communication - and more honest communication at that - not less. Cheers, Kasreyn 03:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's some honest and open communication. Asserting that Bush is an idiot, a genius, a messiah, a dictator, a champion of democracy, a bumpkin, a suave gentleman, a terrorist, an honest man, a liar, a bigot, an egalitarian, a homophobe, a humble man, an environmental rapist or an economic savior - all are absolutist statements by blind political supporters from one side or the other that have no room for negotiation, compromise or discussion. NONE of these assertions belong in this article, and no one who holds these positions can attempt to claim with even a shred of intellectual honesty to have a "neutral point of view." Xaa 09:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went through the list of descriptions that you gave ("an idiot, a genius...") and found that none of them, other than "terrorist", is a category on Wikipedia. Quite rightly so, because these are POV terms. However, "terrorist" is a category on Wikipedia; Wikipedia does not consider it to be a POV term, but simply a description. That being the case, I fail to see the relevance of your comments to this discussion.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur. To your mind, there is no difference between Osama Bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh and George Bush, thus, you see the category as appropriate. You literally cannot see that it is widly and astoundingly biased to even attempt to fit that label to him. There is no room for discussion or mediation in your position - to you, the war was illegal, therefore Bush is a terrorist. By your own admission, you cannot even see how my comments are even relevant. Discussion isn't going to work, because from your perspective, there's nothing to discuss. Arbitration isn't going to work because from your perspective, there's nothing to arbitrate. Bush is a terrorist, end of story. Xaa 00:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If possible, please refrain in the future from making sweeping pronouncements about my state of mind. It's not that there is no difference between Bush, McVeigh, and bin Laden—in fact, there are enormous differences between Tim McVeigh and OBL, and yet they are both terrorists. There are perhaps areas in which McVeigh is less bad than bin Laden, and other areas in which bin Laden is less bad than McVeigh (he's certainly smarter, if nothing else).

You say that, from my perspective, there is nothing to discuss. But, in fact, I have engaged in more discussion here on this topic than anyone else has. I am not the one who has declared already that "discussion is not going to work". Just to be clear, the thing that I found irrelevant about your previous comment is that you are comparing the description of Bush as a "terrorist" to various other positive and negative descriptions that might be applied to him, but this is not an apt comparison because none of those other terms are categories on Wikipedia. Category:Dictators, in fact, was deleted precisely because it was not NPOV; I'm sure any of the other categories would be deleted for the same reason if someone created them. Category:Terrorists, on the other hand, is a category and Wikipedia does not believe that it is POV to apply it to people.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right - I don't need to make sweeping pronouncements about your state of mind, because you repeatedly and very clearly hammer your position home with every single post you make. In your opinion, when people do a category search for American Terrorists on Wikipedia, they should find that George Bush is listed in that category along with Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh, because the president of the United States is obviously and clearly an American Terrorist, morally equivalent with McVeigh and Rudolph. In your opinion, George Bush is a terrorist. Period.

However, since you still fail to understand my point, I will elucidate: My point is that there is no point in continuing discussing this issue with you or anyone who holds your opinion. This is because there is no "neutral ground" with your position. There is no neutral ground because one either is a terrorist, or one is not. People here responding to you in opposition are trying to change your mind, and get you to see an alternate point of view. That is never going to happen. Xaa 02:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here: The above statements are not made facetiously. I am saying this in the same "tone of voice" I would use to say "the sky is blue," or "kittens are cute." I bear you no ill will personally, I just do not believe that people who hold your point of view are able to view this article with a neutral point of view, because your basic position is clearly non-negotiable and strongly biased. I am not saying "Nat Krause is a bad person." For all I know you could be a millionaire philanthropist with a horde of kittens bouncing around your house who adopts orphan children and puts them through college as a hobby. ;-) No, what I am saying is "placing the President of the United States in the same encyclopedia category as the Shoe-Bomber is clearly politically biased opinion. It is also a non-negotiable opinion, nobody who holds this opinion is ever going to change their minds, and further discussion to try to change their minds is a fruitless endeavor." Xaa 02:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no hard feelings, I guess. If you believe that discussion will not lead to any useful results, then, regardless of whose fault it is, you're probably right.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have said much the same things before, which is why I have always believed that subjective bio categories (and yes, I do consider "terrorist" a subjective description) do more harm than good at Wikipedia. If it were up to me, there would be no categories applicable to bio articles except strictly factual matters such as nationality, professed political affiliation, careers, etc. All the subjective ones are eventually used to smear someone. Kasreyn 06:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to include Bush in a "terrorist" category. He is a head of state. No court of any jurisdiction in the world has called him a terorrist or even charged him with a crime. And even if they did, it wouldn't be an absolute judgement to include in a controversial category. Certainly we would add all the heads of state including Russia, Iran, Palestine, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc, etc, before we came even close to including Bush. --Tbeatty 05:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And for the definitions:

• Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.

Bush is the commander-in-chief (both de jure and de facto) of the United States military. Iraq violated the terms of the 1990 cease fire and the U.S. was perfectly within their right to resume hostilities. Congress authorized force in the manner proscribed in the War Powers Act. As Head of State Bush implemented this. It's legality has not been seriously challenged on any level (international, national, local, city or state).

• Targeting civilians.

The U.S. military does not target civilians. Those that unlawfully do so are prosecuted criminally, up to and including the death penalty. Bush has not been charged or accused in any court of doing this.

• Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.

Iraq is occupied territory and the U.S. is there at the invitation of the lawfully elected government.

The "Use of Force Resolution" has the same meaning as war in the War Powers Act. It says this explicitly in the declaration.

• Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).

It is designed to defeat the enemy, not coerce, frighten or send a message to the civilians or governments of Iraq.

--Tbeatty 05:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Iraq didn't violate the terms of the 1990 cease fire. The US government has kidnapped and targetted Jose Padilla and Maher Arar, among other civilians. Get your facts straight, Tbeatty. 24.59.110.228 07:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

One Finger Salute

I removed the recently added "One Finger Salute" video from the Speeches Section. If it is added back, a separate section would need to be created. AuburnPilot 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly Bush and not some Photoshopped creation, so why not include it and why would "a separate section" be needed? He is a public figure and he knew he was before the TV cameras when he did it. Edison 23:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Edison, we must have missed each other by seconds. I left a message on your talk page. My only thought was that it isnt a speech. I have no issue with the video itself. AuburnPilot 23:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP policy is to have external links only to those sites that materially aid in a reader's understanding of the subject itself. The video in question doesn't do that; it's a throwaway; a novelty. I see no reason to include it here.Michael Dorosh^Talk 05:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The video deserves to be listed under a new section. It isn't a speech, but it is an important person. It is an action made by the person that the article is about. It is contraversial, which is why people should be allowed to see the video so that no biasing in the wording of the article will affect a person's view. This issue relates to contraversial actions made by an important politcian. Stop Me Now! 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Salt Lake City protest seems like something from San Francisco

Anti-Bush protesters outnumber pro-Bush rally -- 10-to-1?!? In Salt Lake City?!?

• Salt Lake sounds off in protest and support

• A demand for truth: Mayor's blunt criticisms focus war debate

I wonder if all the speeches on Bush's 20-day tour will go as well. Step Two 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bush Internet Viral

There has been a video circulating the internet for a while in which George Bush makes fun of a reporter wearing sunglasses during a press conference without realising he was blind. Anyone else feel this deserves a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HenvY (talk • contribs)

Have any sources that that even exists? Iolakana•T 18:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This video clip would most likely meet the same fate as the "One Finger Salute" video. Look 2 sections above. AuburnPilot 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It was certainly reported in The Times in June. Incidentally, I don't think The Times has any reason to have a particularly anti-Bush agenda but was just reporting something newsworthy. It is on The Times online website as "President finally sees the light"[11]. Bluewave 19:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And also reported in the UK's The Independent[12]. (Note the mention of the "rare lapse into French" - even the Independent can't resist a sly joke about Bush's perceived lack of a world view.) Bluewave 20:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many things that are reported and/or are newsworthy, but that doesnt mean they are worthy of entry in an ecyclopedia. To quote Michael Dorosh above, "WP policy is to have external links only to those sites that materially aid in a reader's understanding of the subject itself. The video in question doesn't do that; it's a throwaway; a novelty." And may I add, I see no reason to include it here. AuburnPilot 20:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it others to decide whether it has a place in Bush's biography. However, someone asked for a source: I provided two. I'm not interested in making political points but I do appreciate good, balanced biographies and I don't think the current Bush biography on Wikipedia is either of those things. However, I don't know enough about the subject to contribute meaningfully myself. My best wishes to those of you who feel able to try. Bluewave 20:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A politician's attitude toward the visually impaired is certainly germain to understanding who he is. It's like Senator Allen calling someone from India "macaca." To exclude everything which does not create a favorable impression of a public figure is the province of the public relations spin doctor, but is not the policy of Wikipedia. Such censorship is POV. Include the material.Edison 20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

One might be able to make such a judgement on a politician if he made such a remark knowing he was blind. The mention of this very minor and inconsequential incident does nothing to better this already very bloated article.--RWR8189 20:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the "politician's attitide toward the visually impaired". Bush did not know of the reporter's ailments, and after learning of them, he immediately appoligized. [13]If we're going to include it, lets atleast describe the situation correctly. AuburnPilot 20:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This event is being totally misinterpreted. It does not show Bush's views towards the "visually impaired" as some are arguing. The President did not know the individual was blind and did apologize immediately afterwards. The rebuke came because it is considered extremely rude to address the President while wearing sunglasses. They certainly make exceptions for individuals that are blind or extremely sensitive to sunlight and the President's advisors should have given him a heads up. The original reason for the rebuke was because it was viewed as disrespectful.... the journalistic equivalent of wearing a baseball hat to church or flip-flops (thongs to some) to a funeral. Lastly I would argue that this is in no way significant enough to rate a mention in this article. --Looper5920 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning Miss Lewinsky

Having her name there does nothing for the article except qualify bush's statements about why he ran. Is that encyclopedic? Not if your reasoning from above (mentioning bush's age) is correct. Readers should be able to connect the dots themselves. Every reason you gave above can be used here. It's hypocritical to use it in one area but not the other."Duke53 | Talk" 21:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. AuburnPilot 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Which part of that did I violate, newbie? It didn't take you long to become an expert on all things Wikipedia.

p.s. A big part of these discusiion pages is communication. hint: answer a question when it is asked. That's civility."Duke53 | Talk" 22:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If I were a "newbie" I would refer you here: WP:BITE but I will instead refer you here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. You requested that somebody tell you how to begin this process. I have provided it. Please use it. AuburnPilot 22:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Still can't bring yourself to answer a question? I will type it s l o w l y so you can understand it: "Which part of that did I violate"? It's easy to cast aspersions without having to explain yourself, isn't it? (And easy to claim past edits without being able to prove it!)"Duke53 | Talk" 23:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Duke-ster: Did you read the part at the top of the page which says "Please respect Wikiquette, which means above all assume good faith and be nice?" And no biting, especially of newbies. Edison 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that one is an explanation of one of Bush's campaign strategies/slogans in 2000, and the other is random information which some guy on WP thinks needs to be inserted to make his own personal point. Are you suggesting that we all start doing what you've done here? Because i'm sure i could have a field day with the "Liberalism" article. 2nd Piston Honda 03:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there...let's calm down guys.I elliot 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Approval Ratings

Although Bush's low scores on recent public opinion polls are mentioned in depth, no mention is made of the fact that "Bush's approval ratings of slightly over 90 percent were the highest ever recorded in the history of the Gallup poll". This is from the introduction of chapter seven (Public Opinion and Political Socialization, p.205) in the college American Government textbook "American Government and Politics Today" (2003-2004 edition) published by Thomson Learning in 2003. The context of that quote is a discussion of an increase in American patriotism and support for the government following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The immediate context is: "This support bolstered the Bush administration's authority during a time of crisis. Indeed, Bush's approval ratings of slightly over 90 percent were the highest ever recorded in the history of the Gallup poll, which is conducted by one of the major polling organizations. [end of paragraph]" Some mention of this information should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.86.210 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

intro

This should be made more precise: "According to opinion polling, his popularity has declined." Rintrah 17:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11

Should we mention that several people thinks that he planned 9/11.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredosolis (talk • contribs)

No. The rantings of unhinged kooks and conspiracists are hardly notable, and we'd be giving them undue weight by including them here. — Impi 11:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Bush set up 9/11, and people ride Unicorns to get to Loli-Freakin-Pop Lane. --Yancyfry jr 03:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thinking that the attack was an "inside job" and that "Bush planned it" are entirely different things. I'm not an unhinged kook or conspiracist, but it would not surprise me at all if the attack was an inside job. It would really surprise me if Bush had anything to do with it directly though. --Arislan 11:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it probably isn't necessary in the main article. In any case, there are a lot of different ideas. For example, many may not believe it was an inside job, but they may also believe people inside the US government were aware, potentially including GWB... Nil Einne 11:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there's already an article devoted to 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is where such claims would belong. Dubc0724 12:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

There's countless of them. It just wouldn't fit here.--The jazz musician 01:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

General

Just read through this for the first time. In light of all the discussion I just wanted to say the article seems really well managed. Whoever's handling this is doing a bang up job IMHO. One odd sentence in the intro threw me off however -

"After working on his father's presidential campaign, he purchased a share of the Texas Rangers baseball team, and in 1994 he was elected Governor of Texas."

This just doesn't 'roll right'. I think the mention of the baseball team can be left out here, and left to the lower sections. It sounds like the reason he was elected governor was because he purchased the team. Since this is locked, I'll simply leave my comments here and not mess with anything.--Jmathies 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I think the Rangers stuff can be removed. I'd like to sit on it for a bit to gather additional opinions as this is certainly not an egregious violation of policy or anything similar. In the meantime, I did rearrange the sentences a tiny bit to answer the (correct) charge that the baseball team ownership is too close and appears linked to the election to the Texas governorship. --ElKevbo 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems random. I guess it's supposed to be a midpoint between working on the campaign and becoming governor, but it definitely needs to be reworded. ElKevbo's edit is a step in the right direction but it still needs a little work. AuburnPilot 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Length of DUI suspension

A citation was requested to verify the length of Bush's drivers license suspension. I was unable to find any reference to the exact length, only speculation. I used a Time Magazine article as the citation which simply states his license was temporarily suspended in Maine. I think this is sufficient detail. AuburnPilot 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sufficient detail except that a source that was cited at the time of your edit clearly showed the date which his driving privileges had been restored. "Duke53 | Talk" 22:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didnt see it. When you asked if anybody had anything on it, and marked it with {{fact}} I assumed a citation was needed. If you have a better source, thanks for adding it. AuburnPilot 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was wondering why the comment had been made that his license had been suspended for 30 days. "Duke53 | Talk" 23:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and Public Perception

George W. Bush is not considered by some to be an illigitimate occupant of the White house, because he "lost the popular vote." He is considered by some to be illigitimate, because of the methods by which he won the electoral vote and I think that this article should be changed to reflect that. I made an attempt to change this article to reflect that, but it has been reverted to the original version. While I understand that a web-site relying on public conscensous(?) will naturally revert to the interpretation that is the least offensive to popular preception - in this case I believe that the section I am pointing to is inaccurate and I will be changing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Buchanan (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think your attitude is unnecessarily confrontational and I urge you to reconsider your approach to collaboration. Many (most?) Wikipedia editros have little concern for "popular preception [sic]" and are concerned that information is taken solely from noteable, verifiable sources.

Regarding your proposed edit: please ensure you cite appropriate, reliable sources supporting your assertion(s). Otherwise your edit(s) will appear to be original research and will likely be reverted accordingly. --ElKevbo 17:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you also be more specific as to which "methods by which he won" you are referring? If you are referring to the Florida Supreme Court, I believe the article already touches on the subject if I'm not mistaken. I'll have to re-read to be sure. AuburnPilot 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

cbs

why no mention of the dan rather thing? 70.125.134.13 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush's IQ

Historiometric analysis seems to be a specialty of a single psychologist. His estimate that Reagan's IQ could be as high as 141 seems doubtful on the face of it, from a familiarity with Reagans speeches and debates. The article says Bush has the second lowest IQ ALL US presidents, but the reference cited says in contrast that he has the second lowest IQ of any president since 1900, which leaves out a number of 19th century dullards from the comparison. I am not going to tweak the wording because I am not convinced of the accuracy and validity of the estimates. Edison 06:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the IQ of every US President on their wikipedia pages?--Exander 08:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but not many other US presidents (with the exception of Reagan maybe) had his intellectual capacities doubted publicly so often. This study is a fairly neutral source for that statement (compared to editorals from newspapers about this issue for example), although the wording can be better. I'll adept it a bit. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if considered unappropriate for the main page on Bush, I have no objections to moving this particular statement and reference to Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a HOAX that regularly makes the rounds, it began in 2001 and it's re-surfaced again this year. And yes, major mewspapers have fallen for this hoax before. Now it's wikipedia's turn. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

The reference to the Times Online is not the same as the hoax you refer to. Yet, I agree with Edison in that historiometric analysis seems to be a specialty of a single psychologist, and therefore under suspicion. I have a master's degree at psychology, and I have never heard of this analysis. This is not notable as such (I bet there are a lot of techniques I have never heard of), but a technique of estimating the IQ from biographical information (even from centuries back!) cannot be reliable according to what I have learned (see IQ). I suggest that the paragraph about the IQ is removed until a neutral and reliable view on the historiometric analysis is available for reference in Wikipedia. RandomMonitor 12:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutral and reliable view? This is a study published in the international, peer-reviewed journal Political Psychology. See:[14]. Are we here on Wikipedia now questioning the official scientific literature? Like I said, I'd be happy to put in the specialized article, but dismissing this as non-notable (which is not even policy BTW) or non-reliable seems rather strange to me. Its controversial, sure, but there are many controversial statements on wikipedia with less scientific credit than this one. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, thank you for the reference. It indeed seems that the guy (from his reference list) has many publications in good peer-reviewed journals. Of course, that per se is not a proof that this particular article is solid, because even the best journals make mistakes.

My point is, according to my education this does not sound particularly valid research method. However, I acknowledge my limitations (and those of my education), and that is precisely why I suggested that until there is a neutral and reliable summary of this method in the Wikipedia that all can check for themselves I recommend this paragraph is removed. I base this on my own POV, of course, but I think that there might be more people who see "IQ derived from biographical information" as not valid, and if they cannot check this method from a neutral source, they (like me) will think that the paragraph is treating implausible study as a fact (which does harm to Wikipedia).

I reiterate: I am not trying to say I know better than reviewers of that journal. I am just saying that it sounds implausible, and as there is no easy way to check it (most of the people probably will not read the article itself), many people will dismiss it as rubbish. Furthermore (and maybe even more importantly), people who are not scientifically oriented or do not happen to have much knowledge on psychology will think that this is a common and accepted method, not realizing its controversiality. We should not refer to a controversial study without mentioning it is controversial, IMO. So, if an article on historiometric analysis is done to be linked from here, then I think everything is in order. RandomMonitor 08:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone already did that, I see. However, the controversiality is not mentioned on Historiometry. I do not know of this scientific debate, so I leave it to someone else to comment on that. Can you, Cpt. Morgan, refer to the relevant debate? RandomMonitor 08:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you have not provided any evidence that this method is not "common and accepted" or even "controversial." While I agree that this method is prima facie ridiculous, Wikipedia relies on verifiability and not truth as its guiding principle for inclusion of asserted facts or opinions. I suspect there may be a flaw in my reasoning (something about being unable to prove a negative) but I can't put my finger on it right now - if anyone else can I'd appreciate you pointing it out to me. --ElKevbo 21:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the reference to the IQ score needs to be removed. IQ is nearly impossible to quantify without proper testing procedures (written tests under time constraints). Even with standardized testing, more than one test is required to ensure accurate results. Also, analyzing Bush's speeches offers no insight to intelligence at all as it is plain knoweledge that all presidents have speech writers. Regardless of whether Historiometrics is valid testing or not (its quite obviously NOT), it can't be applied to this situation if the subject's speech can't be attributed to the subject. --Nicknomo 09:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I added that part, and for the reasoning above, I've now taken the liberty to remove it. For the sake of compromise, I ask however, that we leave the reference to the study in Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush for now. Is that acceptable? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about but I guess that's why it's a compromise, right? It's probably not a bad move considering the length of this article. --ElKevbo 19:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's fair. In topics like this, it probably serves everyone best if we avoid things that aren't based on cold hard facts. --Nicknomo 20:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I just added a reference for clarity and mentioned the journal in the text. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am personally as skeptical about this method as anyone, and there is a discussion at the historiometrics article. But for the moment, it appears to have enough credibility to mention it in the article. It is not some Snopes reported 2001 hoax, but a published scientific study. Still, I don't know how they can come up with an accurate number. Simonton does report a wide range of estimates based on whatever methodology he uses. If they go by speeches, it would be the IQ of the speechwriter, and if they go by the reported age the person learned to talk or to read, the proud parents or biographers might be lying. If they go by the person graduating from a prestigious college, they might be seeing the efforts of tutors and of giving a gentleman's C to a dullard grandson of someone on the board of trustees. But it is original research for an editor to state here that the study is unacceptable and unbelievable, based on the editor's understanding of the study. One would have to visit a college library to read it, or access it online (available only bt subscription) and look for criticism from a verifiable source, like another scientific journal or a book on tests and measurements. Beware of Original Research! We as editors are supposed to find a published critique and not do our own scientific analysis, such as stating that multiple IQ tests are necessary (they are not, any more than multiple SAT scores are "necessary" to determine scholastic aptitude, or multiple weighings to determine weight).Edison 14:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Link to the german wikipedia articel about George W.Bush ...

is wrong - please fix--80.134.201.43 11:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? Seems to be working just fine here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life politician

George W. Bush is not Pro-life and does not belong in the Pro-life politician category. 75.3.50.41 00:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How is he not pro-life? The strict definition of pro-life is to oppose abortion. He obviously opposes abortion and even opposes stem-cell research so unless you have a broader definition of pro-life, he is resolutely pro-life.Gdo01 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't oppose capital punishment. 75.3.50.41 02:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may have misread the definition of Pro-Life: "the self-description for those in North America and Great Britain who are of the general political opinion that abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and other issues regarding the sanctity of life are morally wrong and should be illegal in most cases." I'm fairly certain it does not deal with capital punishment, even in the most stretched sense of the term. ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 02:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly does deal with capital punishment, see the Pro-life article. 75.3.50.41 16:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Call him anti-abortion then. Dubc0724 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, but then we'd have to have a new category; one for a term that isn't used (anti-abortion). There's a reason the term is pro-life/pro-choice. Nobody wants to be seen as anti-life or anti-choice. 75.3.50.41 is splitting hairs. ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 19:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always hated the "pro-life" terminology. As if abortion is the only way to end a life, and like you said, as if anyone would be "anti-life". Oh well. Dubc0724 19:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The Pro-life term goes beyond abortion, Dubc0724, it includes abortion, murder, war, capital punishment, euthanasia. 75.3.50.41 21:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

He should not be listed as pro-life. Anti-abortion is a POV-neutral term. "Pro-life" is a loaded, opinionated term. 24.59.110.228 07:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So by your definition no one is pro-life except maybe the Vatican. We would have to completely gut the category if pro-life had to include opposition to all these. Gdo01 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

is there any evidence that he paid for an abortion in the 1970s? was that just a rumor? 67.162.94.102 05:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Or more accurately, a lie. Dubc0724 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"re-elected"

Use of the word "re-elected" to describe the 2004 results makes two assumptions that are vigorously disputed by a significant percentage of Americans: 1) That he was "elected" a first time in 2000. Given his loss in the popular voting, the media studies indicating a Florida victory if counting had continued, and the dubious legal foundation of the Bush v Gore ruling, I believe that the most that can be incontestably said is that he was awarded the necessary number of votes in the Electoral College. To describe this as his having been "elected", though convenient, distortingly omits as much as saying (if you'll forgive a Godwin) that Hitler "rose to power". 2) That the 2004 tallies were not the result of widespread vote fraud and suppression. [See The Atlantic article or any of several published books saying otherwise.] While "declared the winner" is admittedly an infelicitous turn of phrase, when dealing with this controversial subject, "re-elected" crosses the line into POV for me. Perhaps it would be better to remove all language implicitly endorsing the validity of the election results and let a separate Controversy section speak for itself. Ribonucleic 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Apart from comparing Bush with Hitler over such a trivial sentence being quite distasteful in my opinion (even though you mention Godwin yourself), it is only about how other sources view this matter. Wikipedia is not a primary source, usually not even a secondary source. We use primary and secondary sources to back up our statements:

• • BBC (United Kingdom): George W Bush was re-elected President of the United States on 2 November 2004. [15]
  • ABC (Australia): Re-elected Bush Promises to Continue Course, Vows Unity [16]
  • CNN: With re-election behind him [17]
  • Brittanica: Bush won reelection by a relatively narrow margin [18]

So yes, George W. Bush was re-elected (according to english language, reliable, both USA and non-USA sources) --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Your distaste is indeed an opinion - neither more nor less consequential than anyone else's. However, your "primary source" argument is incontrovertible - and I respectfully agree to the reinstatement. Ribonucleic 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"...vigorously disputed by a significant percentage of Americans" Where are these numbers? Is 5% a significant percentage? Dubc0724 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

While ""re-elected" crosses the line into POV" for you, "declared the winner" beats that line to death for me. Presidents are not elected by popular vote; they are elected by the Electoral College which Bush won. (Whether the system is right or not is another matter) ​​​​​​Auburn​​​​​​​​​​​Pilot​​​​​​ 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good point indeed, by electoral vote, JWB was re-elected by any standard. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, when we get right down to it, the only relevent fact is that George W. Bush received 271 electoral votes in 2000 and was reelected with 286 electoral votes in 2004.--RWR8189 20:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Being "re-elected" is not determined byu the popular vote alone. It typically depends on the number of votes from the electoral college. Same can be said for Clinton when he was elected. You forgot to mention Gore conceeding in the end. CharlieP216 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

(Second term) Foreign policy subsection

I marked the Foreign policy subsection in the Second term section as unreferenced. I know it's (supposed to be) a summary of a longer article but it's still completely unacceptable for an entire subsection to have *no* references whatsoever only one reference in any article, particularly the biography of a living person. I see that there have been some recent, substantial edits to the subsection so perhaps the references were there but have gotten lost in the shuffle. If that's the case, please restore them as you find them and have time. Thanks! --ElKevbo 21:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Leader on the Worst Poll

It's true, I guess, link: [19]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.184.219.238 (talk • contribs) .

That's interesting, but it has no place in the article. Please read WP:RS.--RWR8189 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Internet polls are almost never reliable sources. (And what kind of "worst president" survey lists Abraham Lincoln in seventh place?) szyslak (t, c, e) 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The kind of poll where most participates don't know anything about the majority of the presidents. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^(Talk) 01:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see where GWB sits on the list 50 years from now. I suspect that these polls are meaningless at this point, at least for the last 3 or 4 presidents. It's just too soon to really judge what mattered and what didn't.Dubc0724 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can vote multiple times...I guess that's why Bush has 2380 votes while the rest of them barely have any votes at all. Hbdragon88 06:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So, it's meaningless, right? Dubc0724 13:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

In light of foreign policy controversies, it bears mentioning that Bush had never been out of the United States before becoming president, barring a few vacations to Mexico. Does anyone have a source to confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificBoy (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 September 2006

I'm not sure I'd agree that it bears mentioning in this context unless there is a known instance where this effected foreign policy. Otherwise, it's just speculation. He hadn't been to all 50 states either, but he's still President. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^(Talk) 22:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter and Iran

That last paragraph in the article offers Carter's 'intervention' in Iran as a example of an action by a U.S. President which was not backed by the U.N. and implies that this is comparable to the Iraq War and might also potentially be a 'crime against the peace' under International Law. Isn't this rather dubious? For a start, what intervention? He initially dispatched the military to the region supposedly to supress the revolution and prop up the Shah, but within hours changed his mind and recalled them. I suppose that could potentially be illegally using military force to interfere in the affairs of another state and hence a 'crime against the peace', but he did'nt go through with it and hence it's irrelevant. The only other direct action I recall him taking was the failed rescue mission. Had it suceeded, I have a hard time believing that Carter could be accused of a 'crime against the peace' for sending a couple of helicopters and soldiers to rescue hostages. No country could seek U.N. authorisation for such a operation as secrecy would be required and rescuing hostages is hardly the same thing as invasion, occupation and/or all-out war as in the case of the Iraq War and the other interventions listed. Carter may have potentially committed covert acts that could constitute plausible crimes against the peace under international law and the Nuremburg laws, such as continuing to send military aid to Suharto of Indonesia while he was slaughtering the East Timorese, but I find it difficult to believe that a hostage rescue operation would constitiute a war crime according to the U.N. even if it did require sending a small military force into Iran for a couple of hours. If what Carter attempted was somehow illegal under international law and a 'crime against the peace', or if he took some other action comparable with the other interventions listed that I am unaware of (I certainly don't recall any military strike against Iran, still less an unauthorised full-scale invasion), then fair enough but otherwise isn't this paragraph rather misleading at best? 195.93.21.137 01:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you tried cutting that down to 1-2 sentences we can see whats going on. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry about that but I think the argument is perfectly clear from what I wrote - the implied suggestion that Carter committed illegal military action against Iran, and that this is comparable with the full-scale invasion of Iraq launched by Bush and all the other military interventions listed, is misleading and incorrect. As far as I know, Carter did not invade or occupy Iran or anyone else, with or without U.N. approval. 195.93.21.137 04:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be a properly sourced assertion. If you read the article that is given as a reference, you'll see that it isn't an editor's view but a sourced statement. I don't see a problem with it. You can always register, make the change, and see if it gets reverted. When it does, discuss it further here. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 04:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I read the original source earlier in which the writer makes reference to "Jimmy Carter's attack on Iran" and offers no further explanation. Which attack on Iran? He never attacked Iran. I can only think of the hostage rescue operation, which was hardly an 'attack on Iran'. This may not have had U.N. sanction but was it needed? Even if it was (which I doubt), it's still not an attack or act of war. If U.N. saction wasn't needed then it's completely irrelevant to the paragraph. If there is some instance of an air strike or other actual attack Carter ordered that I am unaware of then fine, but I don't recall one, I think the source is just using lazy and misleading language. I think it should be researched as to whether Carter required any U.N. sanction to rescue hostages, which I find hard to believe, and the paragraph should be at the very least amended to make clear that Carter's action was a rescue mission and not an invasion or occupation. Any young reader who knew no better could get the impression from that paragraph that Carter illegally invaded and occupied or at least bombed Iran which is seriously misleading. I suppose I could get an account and edit it myself but I didn't intend to get an account until I have more time to contribute to Wikipedia myself and I thought someone else could sort it out. 195.93.21.137 05:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it standard practice to use articles from think-tanks as primary sources? There is no source listed in reference to the "ill-fated attack on Iran" by Carter, and the Council on Foreign Relations does seem to have an agenda in relation to geo-political topics link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.11.157 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 September 2006

The 'source' is a hawkish idealogue arguing that the U.N. is essentially irrelevant. It's an opinion piece, it's no more a reliable source than a column by Ann Coulter or Michael Moore. You might as well put on this Wiki page that Bush attacked Iraq because Saddam was definately an ally of Islamic terrorists because Coulter once wrote that or that he attacked Afghanistan so he could build a pipeline to the Caspian because Michael Moore once said it. The author makes a simple factual mistake. There was no attack, failed or otherwise, by Jimmy Carter on Iran. It didn't happen. The suggestion is absurd. It's amazing that George W. Bush's biography on Wikipedia contains a reference to a fictional military attack on a middle east nation by a former U.S. President just because some columnist used lazy and incorrect language to describe a hostage rescue attempt and somehow this guy is regarded as a 'source'. 195.93.21.137 21:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I recommend registering with Wikipedia and making any changes you believe to be required. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jimmy Carter bit is indeed phony-sourced. It should be deleted. 24.59.110.228 07:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush and the EU's leaders

I pray somebody to writhe that Bush had a special relationship with European leaders Blair (U.K.), Berlusconi (Italy) , Aznar (Spain), Barroso (before Portugal, after E.U.) and, now, Merkel (Germany)... and had conflictual relationship with Chirac (France), Schröder (Germany), Prodi (before E.U. and after Italy) and Zapatero (Spain)--87.17.103.8 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Dubc0724 13:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What he is talking about, from what I can understand is the fact that the "conflictual" relationships is based on that they disagreed with our policy on Iraq. Chirac has been with us for just about everything else... but like any political leaders people are going to disagree.Drew1369 21:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the Ottowa treaty backout

Bush never withdrew from the Ottawa Treaty on International Landmines because the U.S never signed it to begin with. We denied it completly back in 1997 because of S.Korea. I will delete it in 48 hours unless someone objectsDrew1369 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. The US never signed the Ottawa Treaty because of the debate over the use of landmines on the N Korea/S Korea border. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

why do they use them in NK? just out of interest it seems kind of.. whats the word? evil! to me --82.43.244.187 14:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. The only place we have landmines is to help in the defense on our side of the DMZ. We do not have the numbers defending the border and when N.Korea waves us overthere its just to inflict the most casualties on the enemy and hope to slow them down abit.Drew1369 13:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Photo of bloody Iraqi Girl

I don't think this photo is appropriate at all, and have reverted it. It's one thing to add a photo this inflamatory (which I don't believe belongs in this article) but it is quite another to replace an existing photo. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 14:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

come one.. its a common criticism of Bush that he failed in iraq, this was a photo made to criticise him, I added it to outline his criticisms! --Frogsprog 14:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The image is inappropriate. We'll see how the discussion goes, and if any other editors comment. I don't believe this photo would be acceptable under WP:LIVING. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also tacky. Shameful. Dubc0724 14:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, this photo doesn't belong in this particular article. It might be appropriate in one of the sub-articles, particularly the foreign policy one. --ElKevbo 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The relationship of this image to the article's topic (a biography of the current President) is tangential at best and accordingly, I don't believe it's an improvement to the article's informativeness or accuracy. It seems intended to provoke or criticize, not to present the criticisms of others. on that basis, I strongly support it's removal. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

POV-warriorette is right. --kizzle 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to second the removal. It doesn't contribute to the substance of the article. Benzocane 00:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say...

I know the discussion page is meant for serious possible edits to the article at hand, but this one has been done really well. For all the bias that exists out there this one surely collects some of the most, but the article as it stands now is quite clean. Congratulations to all who worked on it. 69.157.245.136 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Question / Close or Far ?

I just wanted to politely step forward and quietly ask the question of which concerns. How exactly close can one trust worthy and intelligent and informed person reasonably and rationally approximate as correctly as possible in words is our United States President George Bush to this very day in effect capturing and indeed catching Osama Bin Laden given what is the sheer mass volume and the huge numbers of people and computers and internal and external resources who are working exhaustively around the clock in the past 5 years now to acheiving this objective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 21:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked this same question over on the Osama page, I'll give the same response: You may want to take a look at WP:TPG. A quote from the guideline: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.". ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 16:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Socializing Lifestyle

"Faced with serious drinking issues and difficulties in his professional and personal life, Bush abandoned his socializing lifestyle and began attending church regularly."

Okay, truth be told, I don't care much for Dubya, but I must say I have no idea what this means. What is a "socializing lifestyle?" I attend church myself, and I consider it (amongst its other pluses) to be a place where socializing happens (particularly during coffee hour). I suppose what I really object to is that this sentence (regardless of whatever it is attempting to say about Bush, which I'm not sure I understand), is that it seems to be dividing the world into drinking, socializing non-church-going folks and those who go to church and thus have no "problems" of the personal or professional sort. This is a demonstrably false proposition (and it would be even more insulting, I would suspect, if I weren't a church-goer myself). Any ideas for turning down the rhetoric and implicit "culture war" baggage here? Blondlieut 23:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not well-explained, but in Bush's life his conversion to evangelical Christianity did coincide with a major lifestyle change, i.e. he gave up drinking and became a respectable family man. This doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else, and no one is trying to make a statement about churchgoing in general. Walton monarchist89 08:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure becoming a United Methodist is a "conversion" to evangelical Christianity in the way you mean that, but I won't debate the issue. Perhaps something like "Bush credits an invigorated faith life as helping him abandon alcohol and face other professional and personal difficulties"? Blondlieut 21:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fishy claims

Can we get a better source for this edit, claiming Bush said an anit-semetic statement. A quick look at the website says that it mightn't be all that friendly to anyone who disagrees with its "alternative view". Thanks. Harro5 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GWB's IQ - again

User:Aaron deleted this item:

However a 2006 academic study published in a peer reviewed journal comparing the IQs of all past US presidents rated him second last.12

In the edit summary Aaaron explains: "pulling false statements; article is speculation, not an actual study of IQs (which is impossible))"

What false statements?

Why is it a speculation? This article's writer used some objective method to measure the IQ of all US presidents. His study was deemed good enough by an international peer reviewed scientific magazine. The method he used, historiometry is being used since the 19th century (even though as is the case with virtually all methods of psychological research its reliability is questioned by some).

I don't understand the final bit about this not being an actual study of IQs - it seems to me this is a study of IQs - it says so in the title.

Now, this section is about the public perception of GWB. It's a fact that there is a widespread perception that he is intellectually not up to the task of being the president of the US. I don't know how fair this perception is - on the other hand it's a fact that by far no US president in recent memory was so widely criticized on this point, not Clinton of course, not George Bush the elder, not even Reagan, who, BTW, comes out very well in this study. So the widespread perception that GWB is not intellectually capable enough belongs to this section, and a mention of this unique study that actually substantiates this perception, I think, belongs here too. Surely it's a more noteworthy piece of information than the 2001 hoax story. Dianelos 06:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dianelos, we have discussed this exact topic before, both here and at the historiometry talk page. I was the one who added the information orginally, but also the one who removed the reference to that study later. The problem with that study is that the determination of IQ by historiometry is probably a bit shaky, a type of analysis performed by only one researcher (historiometry is much broader). Therefore, I agreed to remove the reference to the study here, but leave it in the specialized article Public perception and assessments of George W. Bush. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And as such, I have removed it. I believe consensus, or atleast a general agreement (or is that a consensus :)), was reached before and not much has changed. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 07:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And in another comment to Dianelos, the author of that particular study certainly does not agree with the fact that there is a widespread perception that he is intellectually not up to the task of being the president of the US. (quote Dianelos). The study only states that his IQ is lower than that of other presidents, but also that it is still well above average, thus "He “is definitely intelligent . . . certainly smart enough to be president of the United States”, says Dean Keith Simonton" (quote [20]). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

He says he does not agree with the widespread perception - he does not say that he does not agree that such a widespread perception exists; I think the latter is an incontestable fact.

As for historiometry being a bit shaky I am not qualified to opine. Interestingly enough there are independent estimates which place GWB's IQ in the 125 range, very close to the study's 120 mean and squarely within the 111-138 range estimated using historiometry.Dianelos 10:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still I don't understand why leave in the main article the item about the 2001 hoax about a study about GWB's IQ being very low in comparison to other presidents and remove the item about just such a study actually existing. Even though the hoax story is kind of interesting and could find a place in the specialized article maybe we can agree that it does not belong in the main article either. Dianelos 10:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

But you wanted to use the Simonton study to substantiate the widespread perception that he is intellectually not up to the task of being the president (quote Dianelos), even though the author himself does not draw that conclusion from his own study. I am not saying that such a perception does not exist, I am saying that the Simonton study is not proof of that. In fact, the internet hoax is more proof of that perception than the study.

BTW: Interesting links you provided, I'll try to fit them in somewhere. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any disagreement about removing the bit about the 2001 hoax? It's funny but not really noteworthy - and it is confusing as the hoax is about a study according to which GWB's IQ is very low in comparison to other presidents, and such a study was in fact published in 2006. Anyway the 2001 hoax is mentioned in the specialized article.Dianelos 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten that sentence. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

October suprise? I am very worried about war:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/batgru-69-med07.htm

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061009/lindorff

JVPike 04:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok...Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so such speculation does not have a place in this article.--RWR8189 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

These are well-documented preparations for war which have already been cited in the mass media; e.g.,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=N20060921&articleId=3299

and

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HOS20060901&articleId=3120

From: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=18

If this information does represent a military and/or political strategy, where do we draw the line between speculation and material worthy for inclusion in the article? JVPike 18:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

It appears that Bush and others are pushing our Nation into a tri-national assembly in which fundamental change will result.

1. The border will be along the entire North American landmass (rather than the USA), our currency will become Ameros (rather than dollars), and there will be a new national (Mexico, USA, Canada) government.

2. The result will be the elimination of the United States of America.

Certainly, this was begun under Bush's father, furthered by Clinton and today this agenda is being pushed to completion by Bush.

Examples of results so far: drugs are more easily entering our Nation, aliens easily enter our Nation, NAFTA has gutted much of our industry, CAFTA will finish this effort.

These are fundamental changes that are working to diminish a once proud nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.12.180.166 (talk • contribs) 12:23, September 26, 2006

Please discuss this elsewhere or directly relate your discussion (with appropriate citations from reliable sources) to the George W. Bush Wikipedia article. --ElKevbo 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this belongs under the John Birch Society webpage. Blondlieut 01:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:American teetotalers

Is this category really appropriate for this article? On the list of "teetotalers", the wikiarticle George W. Bush substance abuse controversy is the source for including him in the category. I'm not sure speculation is enough. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Misread category; please ignore. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds more like you just didn't know what "teetotaler" meant. Blondlieut 01:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

About as much as you don't know the meaning of "ignore". In the future, please do not delete comments made by other users on the talk page [21]. I assume it was unintentional, so please be careful in the future. Thanks! ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 01:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete anything, AP. Honest.Blondlieut 02:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that can happen sometimes when two people edit a page at the exact same time. No worries. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 02:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Should his nickname be in the opening paragraph?

I agree it is something that should be in the article, but it makes little sense where it is placed. Lolakitty 00:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted saying that it is already mentioned but it is not mentioned at all anywhere in the article. I may just be blind but I see no mention of the nickname though I remember that it used to be in the opening section before. Gdo01 00:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind the person saw that it wasn't there. Gdo01 00:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the person just placed it back, and bold faced "dubya?" I don't get it. What POV is she pushing?

I think the person is trying to restore the page to how it used to be about a month ago. The Dubya nickname used to be in the intro paragraph back then. Gdo01 00:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is it in the intro? I can't figure it out. Lolakitty 00:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not pushing any POV, thanks. As the text itself says, the nickname is used by "supporters and detractors alike", and it's hardly trivia. "Trivia" are minor details that many people might be unaware of. "Dubya" is a ubiquitously common nickname for this president, more so, than (for example) "Ike" for Dwight D. Eisenhower. "Trivia" might include things that are actually minor, such as the president's favorite movie. — CharlotteWebb 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. How many pro-Bush folks have W's prominently displayed on their cars? And how many anti-Bush cars have W's with a circle and slash through them? The W is pronounced "Dubya" by *both sides.* Puh-leeeze. We're talking about one of the man's names, and how it its commonly pronounced, and not infrequently written. Blondlieut 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be there but I changed it back to the italized version rather than the bold one. It seemed to stick out too much in an intro when it was bold. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 00:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is important,however, it should not be in the opening paragraph. For example, you cite dwight D. Eisenhower, who was well known for the nickname "Ike." Read the opening paragraph inhis article. It does not mention his nickname.

Well, actually, it does mention his name. Blondlieut 23:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So you disagree about it being in a trivia section, where else could it be placed? In my opinion, trivia fits it best, but if you have other options, please state them. Instead of violating the 3rr rule, and attempting to start a revert war.

Furthermore, your edit ignores Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)requirements of what an opening paragraph should include. Under these wiki guidelines, the opening should include:

1) Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles))

2) Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death)

3) Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)

4) What they did.

5) Why they are significant.

Bush's nickname does not fall under any of those (even the naming guidelines is specific on the subject; it requires the use of the most common form of the name used in English). A nickname is explicitly not allowed under this. As such, the nickname cannot be in the opening paragraph, or do you believe the President of the US is known for his nickname? I find that perspective to be POV, since there are numerous other--far more--important things that could the opening.Lolakitty 02:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A nickname isn't a name? That's a stretch. Blondlieut 02:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

When the guideline explicitly calls for the opening to use the proper english name, except in specific example (Elvis, Queen Elizabeth, Henry VIII, etc.). Is it your argument the nickname is George W. Bush's proper English name? I agree the nickname should be in the article, it simply can't be in the opening as per the guidelines.Lolakitty 02:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually quite the opposite Ms. Kitty. If you read the very page you cite, the naming conventions under Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), it clearly states: "No family or middle names, except where English speakers normally use them. No cognomens (nicknames) in article titles – they go in the first line of the article.. According to the guidelines, Dubya should come even sooner in the article. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 02:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dubya"is not a cognomen. The cognomen developed to distinguish branches of the family from one another, and occasionally, to highlight an individual's achievement, typically in warfare. It is a nickname of honor, for example, Alexander the great, Scipio africanus major. It was actually a title developed by the Romans and is mostly unused today. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cognomens

Do you think the nickname Dubya is a cognomen? If so, for what honor did he recieve it? Isn't that a requirement? After all, the term nickname needs to be interpreted through the term cognomen under the principles of interpretation.

Turning back to the naming guidelines,his proper English name is all that should be included. Or do you deny that is the general principal, or is "Dubya" his royal title?Lolakitty 02:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I find the whole debate to be quite ridiculous, but thats me. If we play semantics, which is fine with me, there is no guideline that I can find anywhere that states a nickname cannot be included (sense we've deemed cognomen inappropriate). Consensus (I do love that word) seems to be pointing towards leaving the nickname in. Is it really that big of a deal? ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 02:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Its more than semantics. The general guidelines apply. The term cognomen means exactly as it is defined. The word was chosen for a particular reason. Mere nicknames do not fit under it. See:cognomen

As for it being a big deal, I find it meaningless, however, the rude deletion by a poster without a valid reason or comment, and the treatment I have recieved has tweaked my interest. The guidelines should be enforced. The guidelines give examples of what should be included. The nickname does not fit under what should be included,as such, its inclusion is POV,and in violation of several other guidelines. The excuse that it does not say it shouldn't be there is meaningless. The general guideline states it should not be included, furthermore, where does it fit under the biography guidelines?

As for consensus, it has yet to be achieved. Under wiki guidelines, Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. I am willing to come to an agreement, however, others seem to be unwilling.Lolakitty 03:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Where? Where does it say nicknames cannot be included? Where? A guideline is just that, a guideline. Not a law forged in stone to be obeyed by all those who live under it. The guideline gives you an idea of what information should be included at a minimum, not a maximum. To do as you say, and include only what guidlines explicitly state, would be to delete Wikipedia. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 03:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Kitty, my pet, you haven't stated a reason for disagreeableness, other than a narrow reading of the "guidelines." Perhaps you could speak to us from your heart instead. As far as I can tell, there are folks on various sides of Dubya's worldview who are fine with some mention of his own pet name somewhere in the first paragraph, and find it helpful in telling us who he is, and helpful in identifying who he is. Do you think it's not "helpful"? Do you think a nickname by which the current sitting president of the country is known is merely trivia? Help us help you, pussy cat. Meow, meow. Blondlieut 03:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Kitty but I also believe it shouldn't be there. This is an article on the President of the United States. The first paragraph includes pertinent information. It basically highlights the article. In it should be his important accomplishments. The nickname is not one of them. Can you honestly say there is nothing more important to place in the opening?

Also, as for the other poster, guidelines must be followed on Wikipedia. They have the power of law on Wikipedia, particularly when dealing with the bios of living persons.35.10.229.123 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, what's really interesting is that the above anon-poster went and blanked Lolakitty's talk-page immediately after leaving this message.....hmmmm. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 21:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Jimmy Wales? The name there says: Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales, so why shouldn't this article say George Walker "Dubya" Bush?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because "Dubya" is a strictly informal, colloquial nickname. It would not be especially surprising to see "Jimbo Wales" referred to in a newspaper article; it would, however, be surprising to have GWB referred to exclusively as "Dubya" in such an article, except for specifically humorous, ironic, or satiric value. Even more importantly, Wales is referred to as "Jimbo" by people who know him more often than he is referred to as "James"; the same cannot be said for George W. Bush, who is referred to as "Dubya" less than a hundredth as often as he is referred to by his actual name. Until "Dubya" becomes about as ubiquitous a nickname for George W. Bush as "Bill" is for William Jefferson Clinton, it does not merit inclusion in the lead section of this article. However, it is noteworthy enough to mention somewhere in the article (probably in "public perception"). -Silence 23:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Because this issue is still being debated, I have reverted the change made by HollyWolly that did not take into account this discussion. Dubya is not a formal name of George W. Bush and should not be included that way. Dubya is a nickname, Jimbo is what Mr. Wales actually goes by. As far see Eisenhower, the same applies. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 18:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, Silence. So there's a distinction between "formal" nicknames and "informal" nicknames. Would you call that distinction a "formal" distinction between sorts of nicknames, or a informal distinction, that you just made up now? Anyway, I'm sure, if we tried, we could find one or two (hundred) newspaper, blog and columnist references to Dubya, which is the point. It's for identification purposes. Blondlieut 18:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be included. Its inclusion is meant to be pejorative. It also makes the article look unencyclopedic. Dubc0724 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Presuming for the moment that some people find it pejorative, I would point out that if you Google "Dubya," you come up with 5,840,000 hits. That's a lot of people with many things to say about our President. Presumably in a biography about him, there should be some way to connect him to these nearly 6 million hits, even if most had nasty things to say about Bush (I suspect many are not nasty). Not everyone is going to know that he goes by Dubya (say, from other countries). The idea here is identification, not to have people feeling warm and cuddly. 199.196.144.17 21:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Blondlieut

I agree that the nickname--included as it is--looks pejorative, and makes the article look unencyclopedic. As for Blondlieut, no one is saying that the nickname should not be in the article. Place it lower, or place the nickname like on the Eisenhower page. You claim the idea is identification, however, the President of the United states is not Bono. How many people know him solely by Dubya but not his given nam: George Bush? His nickname is secondary to the fact he is President. Is there nothing more important to put in its place?

I'm confused now. It's on the last line of the first paragraph (where it's been for some time). How will placing it in, say, the fourth paragraph (for example), effect a change from "unecyclopedic" to "encyclopedic" (beyond the fact that you've said so?).Blondlieut 23:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As for AuburnPilot, if his nickname should not be included as I changed it, you better start changing other articles. Start with Clinton, Eisenhower, and numerous others. HollyWolly 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You really just don't seem to understand my point or the point of others. Dubya is very different than "Bill" Clinton, "Jimbo" Wales, "Ike" Eisenhower, and numerous others. As for John F. Kennedy, I think the intro to that article looks awful. These people used those "nicknames" as their names. They were called that, they introduced themselves as that, that used those names. George W. Bush does not introduce himself as Dubya. Bill is short for William, just like Dick is short for Richard. Dubya isn't short for anything. It's a play off of people's tendency to refer to him as George W. Bush in order to distinguish his from his father. I don't see how the currect intro isn't sufficient. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 22:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, AP. As if there weren't more important things.Blondlieut 22:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Methodism not Enough?

And while were on the topic, do folks not know that Methodism is a form of Protestant Christianity? If we're going to tag President George W. Bush as "Christian," do we need to add that tag under every other President (and under the "religion" identification for United Methodist Senator Hillary Clinton, I presume)? (I don't believe we've had a Jewish or Muslim or Hindu President yet.) If folks are truly unaware that United Methodists are Christian, if they follow the link, there is a cross and a collection of Christianity-related articles in the box on the right-hand side. I think that should fill folks in on where the United Methodist Church stands. Blondlieut 01:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention there's significant material in the article itself about Dubya's faith, and its Christian character, should there be any doubt on this point. Blondlieut 01:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Arafat

"Bush specifically disowned Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for his support of the violence and militant groups, but following urgings from European leaders, he became the first American President to embrace a two-state solution in which an independent Palestine would exist side-by-side with Israel."

Okay, I tried to edit this sentence, but then I read it again and realized it still made no sense. When did Bush "own" Arafat such that he then had to (later) "disown" him? Somehow, I feel certain that "disown" is not the right word. Parents disown their wayward children, but I don't think that's what the writer means to say. There's no citation in any event, I feel compelled to point out, even if that's the sort of relationship Bush previously had with Arafat (that of father and son ... although I'm not sure who the Daddy would have been). It's also a run-on sentence, but that's easier to fix. And what does it mean to "specifically" disown someone (as opposed to, I guess, "generally" disown someone)? Blondlieut 02:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "Bush denounced Palestinian leader..."". That might be the word the editor was searching for. I agree "disowned" isn't the right connotation we're looking for here. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go for it, AP, you signatory megalomaniac, you. Blondlieut 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Signatory megalomaniac".....I kind of like that. My very own cognomen. :) ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 02:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

India

"During Bush's visit to India, the U.S. formally restored diplomacy by creating a strategic partnership on economic and nuclear issues."

Okay, beyond having no citation, this cannot be right. Bush's trip was no Nixon-in-China tour de force. We've always had "diplomacy" (at least in the sense of diplomatic relations, otherwise I don't know what this means) with India. I'm not sure what "strategic" means in front of "partnership," except to demonstrate that the phrase was lifted wholesale from a press release. In fact, the whole sentence would be more helpful if it said what the parternship was about (i.e., giving India more nukes) then devolving into an exercise in labeling (i.e., "we have a strategic partnership," break out the mango lassis and the chardamon tea). Would a date be asking too much? Blondlieut 02:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How about just changing "formally restored" to "strengthened"? And is there a good citation supporting this ("this" being either the statement as it currently stands or the proposed statement)? --ElKevbo 01:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

So this is what the article says:

"On August 1, 2005, in response to a question about allowing intelligent design in public schools, Bush endorsed the intelligent design movement's Teach the Controversy approach, answering, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting - you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."[54] The National Academy of Sciences and the established scientific community regard this a political decision, and point out that intelligent design is a reframing of creationism and is religion, not science."

But honestly, my response is, so what? He answered a question-- I presume in a press conference-- about his opinion on Intelligent Design (which I think is dumb beyond belief, and which perhaps we might think belongs in there on that basis alone-- but hasn't he said plenty of dumb things?). But as far as I can tell from this, he hasn't done anything or proposed anything about "teaching the controversy" at the federal level. If he has, the article should mention that. Otherwise, I'm not sure what his "naked" opinion on Intelligent Design without some sort of federal mandate would mean, as this just leaves the matter within the power of states and local school boards to decide on their own. Thus I believe this section above should otherwise be removed. I mean, what "decision" is the writer talking in the last sentence? The mere "decision" to answer a question at a press conference in a particular way? That's not enough. Blondlieut 03:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Large Majority of Countries

"Internationally Bush enjoys a very unfavorable opinion with a large majority of countries judging his administration as negative for world security."

Okay, I tried to clean this up, but someone changed it back. The citation makes clear that the survey is of 21 countries, and that within those 21 countries, a majority of folks in 18 don't like our Dubya much (I think our own USA gets on that list too, given that his approval rating is significantly below 50% here, but whatever). Anyway, 18 countries, seeing as how there's almost 200 countries, is not "a large majority of countries." It's 18 countries out of the 21 surveyed.

What am I missing?Blondlieut 01:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - my fault. I missed something or was cleaning up related language when I reverted your changes. --ElKevbo 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How is the nickname not trivia?

I saw someone delete it and the entire trivia section. Please explain why it is not trivia. By definition, it seems like it would be since it is inconsequential. It is not like Bush's nickname affects his foriegn policy. Get with it people. HollyWolly 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, neither his proper name, nor his birthdate, affect foreign policy either, so I guess I'm not following you. I guess I'm also not following you insofar as here you seem to be taking a stand *against* trivia, where as further down the page, you seem to be taking a stand in *favor* of trivia. If we were going to get with "it," just what "it" would that be, Ms. Wolly? Now, for the record, if my nickname were "Dubya," I would not find that fact inconsequential. I would find it of rather severe consequence if, say, tomorrow my nickname were to become a letter of the alphabet. How about you, Ms. W? Or should we call you Ms. Dubya? Does that suddenly feel of consequence to you? Blondlieut 02:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

What do people have against trivia? How was the Nintendo fact not trivia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HollyWolly (talk • contribs)

It's an extremely non-notable trivia. Where do you suggest we set the bar for which birth day presents not to include? Or du you suggest we list them all? Shanes 21:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia is by definition "non-notable." As for the bar, does it matter at this point? There were two posts (now gone). Its not like the board was flooded with trivia. HollyWolly 21:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahh but is "non-notable" information allowed on Wikipedia? I've seen many a comment removed and many an article deleted stating "non-notable" as the reason for deletion. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 21:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You can read about why we want to avoid trivia sections here. Shanes 21:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The "dubya" comment is in the very first paragraph of the article anyway, so no need to list it twice...and I can see no reason we need to mention that he got nintendo as a gift.--MONGO 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable? It is a trivia section which is allowed. Isn't this supposed to be a website containing the totality of human knowledge? With this goal, I will never understand how any information is "non-notable."

However, it might be different if the entire article was devoted to this fact, however, it is not. HollyWolly 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You have probably misunderstood this part about Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. e.g.: what someone got for his birthday is not something we include (unless it should be something really exceptional). Shanes 21:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a baseball card. Information should either be incorporated into the overall flow of this or another article, or removed altogether. -Silence 22:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be nice, seeing as how the article about Dubya is already rather long, to limit materials therein that reflect on his presidency, for good and for ill. Blondlieut 02:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No. This is a biographical article about George W. Bush. If there is a need to move material out to the articles about his presidency or create new articles related to his presidency then we'll do so. But to limit this biographical article to one period of his life would be misguided and inappropriate. --ElKevbo 13:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My point, and I had one, was that to extent that matters were introduced into the article during the period of his presidency, and otherwise be connected to his occupancy of that office, they should then reflect on his presidency, for good or for ill. In the case of "presidential gifts," they were conducted to his status as such, but his receipt of those gifts said nothing about his conduct of duties. Blondlieut 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I think I may have misunderstood you. If your point is that we must be very selective as to the "presidential things" we include in this article then I agree. --ElKevbo 20:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Plame affair

I feel that the mention of the plame affair should be cut from the lead of this article, being that the scandel has ended with no proof of any culpability to anyone in Bushs administration or Bush himself, since Richard Armitage admitted he was the leaker. Judgesurreal777 01:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Libby's indictment? Wasn't that directly related to the Plame Affair? --ElKevbo 01:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, we know that when people admit that they did the deed that they must be guilty then. Everyone who reads People knows that. At any rate, whose Administration do you think Armitage worked in? The State Department is still "part of" the Administation; it's all one big happy Executive Branch. Blondlieut 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So are you stating that this material should remain in the article or be removed? --ElKevbo 15:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the "affair" regaring Ms. Plame is forever part of the Administration's history: The infamous "16 words" in the state of the union address/Iraq wishes to procure uraninum from Nigeria/Administration alleged attempts to discredit Ambassador Wilson who opposed Iraq war/Administration "outs" his CIA wife, presumably in reliation/Special Counsel probe to uncover leak/Armitage (who works in the Bush State Department) takes credit for that leak. Did I miss anything? Blondlieut 18:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Immigration

Add that Bush has pushed his immigration "guest worker" agenda.

some that gets lost with the war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.201.223 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting started on Katrina

I have added a very slight section about Katrina in the hope that others will begin filling in the entry. As noted at the top of this page, there is no serious discussion of Katrina in the entry, even though the disaster and the governmental response constitute a major milestone of Bush's second term. I will start adding sources and more information, but, to state the obvious, this needs to be a collaborative effort. Again: I have initiated this edit because I believe the entry requires a Katrina section, but the text I've added is itself far from sufficient--it consists almost exclusively of text lifted from other wikipedia entries... THANKS Benzocane 04:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be a brief section detailing the controversy over his handling of the Katrina affair-but most of the detail should remain in the separate article on Katrina. Bear in mind this article is already rather long, and various users are (metaphorically) tearing each other's throats out on this page over what else belongs in it. This is probably the most difficult article on the whole of Wikipedia to edit and not get criticised. Walton monarchist89 10:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Katrina entry should be as efficient as possible. But I do think it needs to be detailed given the historic importance of the topic. Certainly it should only include information that pertains specifically to Bush. Do you think the meteorological details, such as they are, should be removed? Or condensed? Thanks! Benzocane 21:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I say they should be removed. People can get the meteorological info form the Katrina article itself. However, seeing how it's harn no to make an edit without getting a bunch of editors on you, I say we should try yo gather concensus on this first--Acebrock 21:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll see if I can find a more efficient way to communicate those details. And yes, let's see what other editors think--I'm sure the entry will start to grow and there will have to be a decision about what details are pertinent. Benzocane 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be cut down to two paragraphs with a main article link to the other page. Anything more detailed, then Bush's actions, and specific criticisms belong in the main article page. With the main article link people should get the idea that this is a very brief overview and see the main article for much more detailed analysis. PPGMD 03:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'll streamline the text I've already posted and do my part to try to keep the entry efficient. It certainlly seems like the political dimension of Katrina is more important in this entry than details about the storm itself...Benzocane 03:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a main article tag to the section leading to the Hurricane Katrina article. I don't know if there's a Bush response related article or not, but the tag is atleast there. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 03:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Titoxd. I swapped it out. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 03:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You know what this will say in 10 years?

"Bush spent much of his second term consolidating power. This was made possible by the unconditional support of the majority of Congress, which was controlled by his Republican Party.

He initated programs to spy on all Americans without obtaining warrants. These had few results as they generated too much information to be useful. However, the threat of these programs was used to stifle dissent. He started several programs of extrajudicial imprisonment: a gulag at Guantanamo Bay, a system of secret prisons in Eastern Europe, and a system of "renditions" to friendly dictatorships. People who were suspected of associating with terrorists -- generally Muslims or those of Middle Eastern descent -- were kidnapped and imprisoned secretly under these programs. Torture was common in all three programs. Most of the people involved in fact had nothing to do with terrorism, although there were some genuine terrorists caught as well. He resisted charging any of these people in the civilian or military courts. At every step, he fought oversight. When these programs were revealed, there was some public outcry, and eventually they were declared illegal by the Supreme Court. He promptly had Congress change the laws to legalize all of his activities, in a rush at the end of session on September 28 and 29, 2006.

The media in the United States helped make this possible. While foreign media reported routinely on the actions taken by Bush to consolidate his personal power, the US media reported very little of it. Instead, most of the US media printed the press releases and statements by Bush and his party members, which were often quite inaccurate."

This is neutral POV. Nobody would blink twice at it if it were being written about a figure from the past: say, Queen Elizabeth I. You may not see it now, but you will in ten years. And you probably already do see it if you do extensive research, including the non-US news media.

Frankly, the current article is quite substantially biased in favor of GWB. I think it's the "shock factor": people don't want to believe that he's acting so differently from the way Presidents normally behave, so they write an article which makes him seem like any other President. Which he's not.

But Wikipedia sucks on current events, because people have an investment in believing false things about them, an investment which they usually don't have in events of the distant past. Wikipedia would do better if it set a cutoff: for instance, no articles on anything newer then ten years. And that's my conclusion to this comment. If you can't make a page which gives an accurate description of the man's record, just delete the page entirely. Short of that, this should be marked as a page which should *not* be put in a print publication, because it will embarass Wikipedia terribly in a few years.

You ought to know that this does not belong on a talk page. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This encyclopedia is not here to provide a platform for promoting your political views, which are clearly radical anti-Bush. I think you're also wrong in almost everything that you say - but even if you're right, it is of no consequence. Please stick to the facts, and keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. Walton monarchist89 10:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just becuase you don't agree with the facts that are presented above, does not invalidate them as such. In additoin, just because you and a few other contributers like to promote your radical pro-Bush political views does not mean that this article should suffer from a POV such as yours (or anyone else for that matter). VinnyCee 02:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone, somewhere, should create a wikisoftware website where vibrant debate is encouraged, & some of the ideas could be brought back to wikipedia, as articles, hopefully with much of the more strident pov stripped-out.

Below, I'm looking to see if a page exists; if you know of one, please do say,...

hopiakuta 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

To all the above: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. This page is for discussing changes to the article. I suggest this section be removed from the page as off topic and irrelevant. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​^Talk 03:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree w/ AP, and we are not "fellow travellers," politcally speaking. On the merits of the article, Gitmo and torture are discussed, as is surveillance, and the courts' various holdings that various programs constitute unconstitutional deprivation of rights. But the idea that it has been during Dubya's *second* term, as opposed to his first, when his popularity has been decreasing, is when he was "consolidating power," is meritless. Given that stability is a hallmark of American democracy (regardless of the popularity of the occupants of constitutional offices), Bush, like Clinton before him, has never had to "consolidate power." To the extent there were questions regarding legitimacy during Dubya's *first* term, the article does discuss those. Blondlieut 12:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it will say pretty much the same thing Richard Nixon's page says regarding Watergate. Or Clinton's page says regarding Lewinsky. Once they're out of power, the radicals of either side stop caring much. Xaa 13:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is there a page regarding famous persons' neologism, & famous mispronunciation?

I do think that this morning George Bush, the Second, called me " agnostarc" [ ignostic].

I do think that we should list such pronunciations.

Thank You.

hopiakuta 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Bushism the article that you are looking for? Bluewave 15:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You. Good reminder.

Is there one that lists famous persons' quotes, more generally, but in this context?

Thank You.

hopiakuta 17:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Try Wikiquote--Acebrock 21:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)