Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

Removed semi-protection

Looking at the reduction in vandalism recently, it feels quite promising. I'm testing removal of semi-protection because it's looking so good--this should be tried regularly anyway. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I support this; it's time to remove it and see what happens. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear. -Splashtalk 16:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I also support this, it has been seme-protected for too long. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Adding to the pile-on; let's see what happens. You never know when someone anon or new might actually improve the article. Antandrus (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored semi-protection again because vandalism shot up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to shatter the happiness and do it before you did...thanks :).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record: the world did not end for having this page unprotected for a few hours. -Splashtalk 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is ridiculous, obviously an article like this will get a lot of vandalism. I know this has already been discussed, but leaving an article unprotected for not even 12 hours and then re-protecting is not, IMO, how the WP:SEMI is meant to work. If this is intended to be semi'd for the long term, can we at least remove the notice at the top? -Greg Asche (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
How WP:SEMI is supposed to work is in response to serious vandalism irrelevant of how long it hasn't been applied. After GWB was un-semi'd, it got vandalized pretty heavily right afterwards, thus semi-protection was then justified again. --kizzle 02:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
But isn't semi-protection (and full protection, except for the main page) supposed to be a temporary solution? Obviously this will receive a lot of vandalism, semi-protection here will never be temporary. This is akin to protecting the Featured Article, something we very rarely do. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't work, I don't think. New editors need to know why they can't edit the page. Matt Yeager 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

We MUST test the water, agreed. But if vandalism rushes in, then we protect again and test the water later. It is policy to protect against heavy vandalism. I don't like protecting either, and I unprotect Japanese media and used a /23 or "9x255 user" block so that more people can edit(every other IP). Anway, this is the best we can do. And don't forget that the Louis Braille aricle assured some readers by having a protection tag.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose that semiprotection be lifted regularly--at least once a week--so that we can spend a few hours watching what happens. Unless we do this we won't ever be able to decide whether it's a good idea to lift semiprotection for good. I agree with Splash that the world didn't come to an end when semiprotection was lifted, and I would have been equally happy leaving it for a while longer. What convinces me that semiprotection is a good solution is the observation, from my vandalism tool (link above) that it has massively slashed vandalism while permitting a decent amount of non-vandal edits to be performed. The two columns in the barchart show total edits (red) and vandalism reverts (green). In general on this article we can assume that for each vandalism revert there is one and only one instance of vandalism, so if you doubled the size of the green column you'd see total vandalism-related edits. Up until semiprotection this double-sized column would have been two-thirds to three-quarters of the height of the total edits column. Since semiprotection, the size of the vandalism-related edits column would be less than one third. This week, it would be less than one-fifth. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be a gentlemen's rule to un-semi at least once a week. --kizzle 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say maybe a bit more often, perhaps SP for 24 hours, relax it to see what happens, and if vandalism spikes, SP again. A few hours a week doesn't seem to contibute to the "anyone can edit" mentality. Just my opinion though. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Famous drinkers

This category was recently added to the article, which I feel is inappropriate. Wasn't there some kind of debate regarding these categories before, which resulted in the deletion of several of the actual categories? In any case, I don't think this category should be in this article, because the subject is not considered or widely accepted as a drinker know. If we wanted to, we could easily slap this category across half (or more) of our celebrities; surely all of them have had a drink? But unless they are widely viewed as "famous" for drinking, then the category shouldn't be here. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree- GWB isn't known for being a drinker. Deskana (talk page) 17:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed. It's POV nonsense. android79 18:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I added the category because the category states, "The following articles concern people that have all been noted for their love of Alcoholic beverages and their participation in a wider 'Drinking culture'." From the information in the "Substance abuse controversy" section and George W. Bush substance abuse controversy article, Bush clearly meets these criteria. User:Flcelloguy argues, "the subject is not considered or widely accepted as a drinker know [sic]". Surely the fact that Bush, ostensibly the single most powerful person in the world, is actively a teetotaller as a result of a previous drinking problem verging on alcoholism, is notable? I'm not defending the category itself, but, if drinking was apparently a large enough part of Bush's life to warrant a separate article, he is clearly a suitable subject for inclusion. The fact that he was arrested because of actions perpretrated while drunk - that drinking adversely shaped his life, leaving him with a criminal record, unusual in a president - is further reason for inclusion. McPhail 18:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Except drinking is not a part of his life, it was used as ammo to bash the President during the election nothing more. PPGMD 18:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a poorly-conceived category. Noting that Bush is "famous" for his "drinking" is POV. He's been noted as having a drinking problem in the past, but that's hardly a major reason for his fame. android79 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The category includes Ernest Hemingway and Janis Joplin, and they are not famous for drinking either. Bush isn't famous for winning a "Worst Actor Razzie" or for being born in the year 1946, why not remove those categories too? Arguing, "X is not famous for Y, so should not be included in Category Y" is a superficial tactic that could be used to the point of absurdity to preclude the addition of virtually any byt the most germane categories. If the category exists in it current form, Bush should be included. If he cannot be included for the reasons you provide, the category is essentially redundant, as very few people become encyclopedia topics purely on the basis of their alcoholic intake. McPhail 18:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In which case the category should be deleted. In my opinion, including Bush in category (in its current state) is not right. Bush is not famous for drinking. Surely if he is a famous drinker most people would know him for drinking. They don't. And you can't argue that Bush should be included if other people in similar circumstances are included wrongly; for example, if I added Bush to the category Fictional Bats, does that mean that since the current president is included all previous presidents must be too? Deskana (talk page) 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I don't feel that the analogy to the "Worst Actor Razzie" is valid - that's a fact, while Bush being a famous drinker is an opinion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it's a fact with a criminal record and his own admission to prove it. He is both famous and a drinker; he is a famous drinker. Whether or not he's sober at this point in his life is irrelevant.--24.190.122.122 10:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush is known to have a problem with alcohol, a drink driving incident, and no longer boozes. This is widely known and commented on. Why the issue with including him in this category??? "Famous drinkers" can include those that have jumped on the wagon. Please, Bush fans, stop this totally unnecessary point scoring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.153.219.170 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your comments on talk pages using ~~~~. If there is one thing I am not, it is a fan of Bush. I think he's a complete and utter idiot. I didn't know that he had any problem with alcohol before he read this article. I still don't think he should be included in the category. Deskana (talk page) 08:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your ignorance, but it is widely known, reported and commented on. "Famous drinkers" is not a category of people FAMOUS FOR DRINKING but famous people on whose lives alcohol has been a major influence, or perhaps famous people whose lives have been affected in some notable way by their personal consumption of booze. How on earth does the boy Bush NOT fall into that category. 195.153.219.170 09:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:195.153.219.170, check out Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Let's not call each other ignorant or any other names, eh? --Mr. Billion 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Apologies if Deskana took offence, but I'm afraid not being aware of Bush's battle with the bottle is "ignorance" of that information. If I'd called him an eejit, I'd perhaps understand your haste in pointing me to wikipedia guidelines. And perhaps if you have any further comments to make about my conduct here, you'd put them on my talk page. I'm pretty certain that's the correct way of going about it. 195.153.219.170 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to irk you, but calling someone ignorant is understandably likely to cause offense. Deskana hasn't registered any offense, though, so it's no big deal. I just want good relations among Wikipedia users. Cheers! --Mr. Billion 20:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on, almost all famous people have had a drink or been drunk. Heck, almost all adults had been drunk. Should we put every person of the modern culture in this catagory? And perhaps a better name would be "Famous people who died from drinking" or something shorter. I dont believe that if you ask someone what the President is famous for, they would say drinking. It is POV. Thank you for listening. American Patriot 1776 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is a pertinent point. After all, I get more looks being an adult and NOT drinking than if I did. Perhaps we should put a list together of famous non-drinkers? I agree this doesn't belong here. I believe that Famous Drinkers would imply that the person was a well-known drinker, not someone who had drank prior to becoming well known. DavidBailey 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

florida

Why no separate article on the irregularities in the florida count, or at least an in-depth examination of the debacle? This article merely serves to highlight the fundamental problem with wikipedia - that as long as there is conflicting opinion there can be NO CONSENSUS, no matter how well-established the point that the majority are trying to make. The Bush loyalists throw their toys out of the pram every time someone makes a considered criticism of the most hated US president of modern times. For that matter, take a look at the discussion of the argument below about oil being the primary reason for the invasion... Whilst the point may not have been made particularly well, it is labelled a "conspiracy theory" and dropped. Be fair - it's something many people, at least outside the US, consider a possibility. Certainly it doesnt deserve to be so crudely dispatched. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.153.219.170 (talk • contribs) .

I don't believe a detailed analysis of the florida count (I'm assuming you're talking about 2000) belongs in an article about George W. Bush. We already have an article on the 2000 Election along with the Florida recount. --kizzle 20:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Many articles of that type are listed here. NoSeptember talk 21:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Totally Disputed and Cleanup Tag Placed

By reading this article, I can only conclude Bush is a drug abuser and draft dodger prior to 2000. Funny ... most of this allegations are just pure speculation and I have yet to see conspiracy theories on Bill Clinton be put on the front of his article. Furthermore, there is NO information about Bush's governorship or his other public service in the prior to 2000 section. This is a major factual error in authorship and this article is nowhere near being neutral currently. BlueGoose 19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the fine dance of trying to be NPOV and not offending anybody. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Both can be fixed without the rewrite you are calling for. A rewrite is asking to throw away the existing text and start again. That's far too drastic. Which part of the article do you consider 'speculation' and 'conspiracy theory'? DJ Clayworth 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I consider the "prior to 2000" section to be mere speculation and conspiracy theoryish. BlueGoose 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO information on Bush's governorship, Congressional run, or adviser positions in the White House in this article. However, half of this article is devoted to mere conspiracy theories. This article currently isn't written in an encyclopedic fashion. However, I don't know if I put the right tag for my concerns (I looked at templates from the Wikipedia templates page). BlueGoose 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I just saw there is an edit conflict. Give me a couple minutes and I'll try to find a more appropriate tag. You can help me too. BlueGoose 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


Some of the things included in the 'prior to 2000' section include: the names of Bush's siblings; that he learned to fly in the National Guard; his marriage; that he got an MBA; that he went into the oil business. These are hardly conspiracy theories. The absence of info about the governorship of Texas is bad, but far from irredeemable. (My suspicion is that a vandal has removed a section somewhere and it han't been noticed). DJ Clayworth 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want more content to be added, please add it yourself, or provide citations so that others can. [[Sam Korn]] 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the rewrite tag to a context tag. BlueGoose 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are some links to Bush's previous history:

http://www.politics1.com/bush.htm

I'll add some more appropriate citations if I canfind any that don't come from www.whitehouse.gov. BlueGoose 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be prudent to address this issue first before we delve into the so-called controversies. BlueGoose 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's my issue. The section on controversies is just as big as the paragraph on George W. Bush's life. (This includes the main article on George W. Bush's early life). I don't believe it is wrong to put a section on controversies (barring the information is purely factual). However, when that section is the biggest subsection for George W. Bush prior to 2000, then there are major problems. BlueGoose 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

'context' is not the right tag - that's for when you can't work out what an article is talking about from the intro. I've removed it. Looking at the actual lengths, I find that the National Guard Service controversy looks to be about a third the size of the 'pre-2000' section, which given the huge role it played in the 2004 election is not unreasonable. The 'substance abuse' is less reasonable, since it doesn't even seem to be much of a controversy now that it is stripped of speculation and allegation. I think you will find that adding a paragraph or two about Bush's governership of Texas would more than restore the right balence. DJ Clayworth 20:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your general premise, DJ, though I would think it would take at least a couple of paragraphs. If the National Guard controversy is relevant only to the 2004 election, shouldn't it be in the 2004 election section? BlueGoose 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Although they are relevant to the 2004 election, they took place before 2000. DJ Clayworth 21:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I also made the tag a general tag. One can look at the talk page to see my concerns. BlueGoose 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

'cleanup' is used for much more serious things than this. We already have the 'neutrality and factual accuracy' dispute, which I think covers the article nicely. DJ Clayworth 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Bluegoose, I understand your argument that the page isn't yet neutral, but I don't understand your argument that the page contains factual errors. I can see why getting such a controversial article completely neutral might be a challenge, but I feel like we should be able to come to a rough agreement on the facts. --Allen 06:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
My factual accuracy concern actually encompasses concerns on the material omission of facts (namely no information on Bush's governorship or any of his other political positions/candidacies) whilst spending quite a bit of space on discussing various speculative theories and claiming/implying via the header this is represenative of Bush "prior to 2000". BlueGoose 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tell me how y'all like the article currently. Someone else or I have to still add information on Bush's governorship etc., but the mere rearranging of the section gives the article a more balanced appeal in my opinion. BlueGoose 21:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Talking in slogans

Nobody has refered to George W. Bush tendency to speak in slogans that people like but that have no substance?--tequendamia 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Such a phrasing would be POV, and without sources, it would be just your opinion. Besides, slogans without substance is a recurring theme in nearly all of politics, not just GWB's administration. android79 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Such a phrasing would be POV if it wasn't true. It is and sources should be easy to come up with. And just because all NFL quaterbacks throw touchdowns, it doesn't mean that Peyton Manning isn't exceptional. The same goes for W's slogans (or propoganda if you want to call a spade a spade.)Arcarsenal 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Android - you see those cliche sayings with almost every speech that's been made by a politician, or almost everything you see in the media. I don't think that using "slogans" is something particular to or exceptional to Bush (unlike Bushisms) Tejastheory 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

2004 Election Controversy

Why no mention of the 2004 exit poll / result gap? It's the same evidence that the UN used to invalidate the Ukrainian results. I would say that evidence of electoral tampering deserves at least a little mention.

I was unaware of this matter. Could you provide perhaps a link or source for these claims, I would be very interested. Thanks in advance! American Patriot 1776 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. Could you leave it on my talk page? Thanks.

There have been exit poll discrepancies in almost every modern election biased to the Democrats by 2 or 3 percent. I would have to add a section on how the result in Pennsylvania was closer than in Ohio if this section was added. :) But if you can write on this neutrally, more power to you. BlueGoose 20:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not like any other election discrepency. The margin of error was over 8 million votes. That being said, since this article is biographical it is not directly relating to Bush. It's not as if he was sneaking around ohio cackling to himself. It should be included in a seperate article.

It's covered in several articles, including 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. Also, elections don't have margins of error. The term "margin of error" refers specifically to uncertainty caused by a small sample set. Rhobite 23:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The sprotected tag

I don't like the big dominating tag we use at the moment, [[template:sprotect]].

Readers who come to this article are now distracted to first learn 2 things completely unrelated to the subject they came to read about:

  1. This article has recently been vandalized
  2. They can't edit it, unless so and so.

Do most readers really care? Why do we use the most prominent place in the article to tell people this? They just want to read about GWB. So i prefer the much less distracting template:Sprotected-small. We write wikipedia for the readers. Those who care about editing it (a very small minority, we have to realize that) will catch that the small note means it's sprotected. The big screaming box is not needed.

The big box is good for one thing, IMO, it makes us want to remove it by unprotecting it. Which is good. The article should never be permanently protected. But we probably have to face the fact that this article will be in a state of sprotection for long periods. In other articles where sprotection is more of an exception, the big box is more acceptable for this reason. But here I'd really like us to tone down the protection notice and don't distract the readers so much. What do others think? We've had a few reverts back and forth over this in the article already, but the best is to reach a consensus here. Shanes 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I just reduced the font from 9 to 8. I was one of the "2 lines max" fanatics, making sure that the template had small font and took up only two lines. It seems ok now, and is much better than the full protection template.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Shanes you are spot on. Absolutely. Please change that. Please. This article is the most viewed. That is so much more appropriate. I'm serious.--CastAStone|(talk) 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I too agree, a big template letting users know that they can't edit this article is awkward, most users just want to read about GBW. I know the -small template was on a one point, and I very much liked it. I've restored it. Please voice your disagreement here before reverting the change. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is

  1. semi-literate in construction
  2. unreadable on many browsers
  3. amateurish in layout in the extreme.

Frankly it looks like something handwritten by a four year old. Poorly written, amateurishly laid out, impossible-to-read garbage like that has no place on a professional encyclopaedia. The sooner that ridiculous attempt at a template is binned the better. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it is minimalist. We don't need a big glaring template. And please stop chaning it, you are clearly in the minority. -Greg Asche (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are serious problems with the semiprotect template and the short form is preferable for this article in any case. I have particular problems with the close resemblance between the protected and semiprotected template. Attempts by me to edit the template so as to give visual cues to distinguish to two have been reverted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Membership in Category:Christian leaders

I would suggest that his membership in the Category:Christian_Leaders be reconsidered. It is true that he is a leader; it is also true that he is a Christian. But a quick look at Category:Christian leaders shows this category represents people who are leaders of Christian movements or serve in an official leadership position of an official Christian group/orgranization/denomination/etc. (Similar exception might also be taken with the category membership of Alan Keyes.) I would propose that he be moved to a category for Christian politicians. Cgb8176 15:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

I've subst'ed a new template, {{vandalism-warning}}, into the page. This template, designed specifically for use with the subst command, consists entirely of comments so that it will only be seen during editing. It gently warns newbie editors not to vandalize the page, while also meeting the requirements of WP:BITE. It incorporates a __NOEDITSECTION__ directive so that everyone will see it. Hopefully, this combined with semi-protection should reduce the number of vandals even further. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I think the warning is intrusive and unnecessary (vandalism has plummeted since semiprotection was introduced) I think it's okay with some caveats. I've removed the NOEDITSECTION directive in view of the fact that this disproportionately impacts normal edits and because vandalism on this article is currently running at rates lower than they have been since mid-2004. I've also removed the incorrect statement that someone editing the article for the first time risks being blocked without further warning; we do not treat our users that way.
I've also removed the problematic sections from the template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree quite thoroughly with Tony's amendments to the template since drive-by vandals will almost certainly simply be allowed to get away with it, with, perhaps, only a warning. Few are the admins with the determination (and hardness of heart) to issue full-blown blocks for a simple bit of silliness that thousands of others have aso engaged in. Repeated silliness is, of course, another matter. I also agree that NOEDITSECTION should be unnecessary in the presence of sprotect. -Splashtalk 04:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that blocking a first-time bit of silliness is contrary to the blocking policy. Sadly I am coming to the opinion that this whole business about a HTML warning claiming that someone may be blocked without further warning, combined with the inhibiting of section editing, may be an attempt to comply with the letter of the blocking policy while driving a horse and buggy through its spirit, and inconveniencing bona fide editors into the bargain. Could some proponent of the message+noeditsection combo clarify? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Is it really the best idea to have his signature here? I highly doubt it.

Exactly what I was thinking. But I think they put it on public online documents to make it 'official' although any idiot could copy the image. — Ilyanep (Talk) 20:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, it keeps on getting added here - it really should be culled IMHO WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how his signature adds to the information about him. I'm going to be bold and remove it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Erm - I'm not sure what happened, but my edit seemed to do a lot of other stuff I didn't do. (All I did was remove the signature image.) Sorry for any confusion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, I see what happened now - I must have checked the history to see who added the signature image, and then clicked "edit" from there, accidentally adding/removing/changed some stuff. Sorry 'bout that - my only intent was to remove the signature image. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Presidential signatures are in World Book. BlueGoose 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm baffled. What's wrong with including his signature? For gosh sakes, his office probably sends out a thousand copies of it every day. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Normally there's a heap of cranks saying it's feeding terrorists and such like... But in this case I think the argument is more along the lines of why? What is the encyclopedic interest?/wangi 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Why include his picture? In what way is his picture encyclopedic? Whatever the answer is, why can't that be used for his signature as well. PAR 03:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen any guidelines that say signatures fit within any copyright category that allows them to be used here. Only after I see something in writing that says that we are OK from a copyright standpoint, does it matter whether it's worthy of inclusion. -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to respond so late. I gave an answer at Template_talk:Infobox_President. Basically, they are covered by other copyright tags like PD-GOV and PD-OLD, and maybe PD-FAIRUSE of some flavor. In particular the Bush signature was downloaded from a .gov site, so I'm sure its ok. Does anyone object if I put the signature back in? PAR 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Phony and Malicious "Controversy" over President Bush's National Guard Service

This article fails to make clear that this phony "controversy" is nothing but a malicious and baseless attack on President Bush from the Left. The unsubstantiated allegations about Bush skipping service, etc. are made to sound legitimate, which they are not.

This article must mention the disgraced leftist journalists Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' failed attempt to smear Bush's reputation in September 2004 (less than 2 months before the election) using proven forgeries purporting to be official National Guard records. CBS News has officially and unambiguously disavowed all claims to those documents' authenticity. Bush-hating leftist contributors might wish they were real, but this does not make it so.

I note that Wikipedia has locked the public out from fixing this ridiculous article. Why? To perpetuate your anti-Bush propaganda without further complication?

Unless this article is changed by its owners to make clear that this wrongly labeled "controversy" has never been proven to be anything other than a false and baseless attack against the president, then Wikipedia is engaging in leftist propaganda of its own and has damaged its credibility.

-ATS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.1.133 (talk • contribs) 23:45, January 14, 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia have plenty of right wing editors who have edited this article. If you would like to edit this article, which was protected due to anonomyous vandalism, sometimes at the rate of 3 vandals per minute, make an account and make a few edits to other articles first. Then you will automatically be granted access to protected articles. To be clear: this article was protected so that those who hate Bush - the LEFT wing - could not defame him here. Anyhoo, if you can factually prove your claims about Bush not showing up for duty as propaganda, do so on this talk page. Please support your case using reputable sources (i.e. not The Weekly Standard or The National Review). CastAStone|(talk) 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (a) Shouting removed. (b) See WP:NPOV. "False and baseless attack" is as POV as anything you're complaining about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is to whomever is defending the claim.

The burden is on the accuser to produce evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty, and that his honorable discharge was therefore undeserved. Other than the proven forgeries you're evidently relying upon -- revealing you to be a leftie who will circulate any lie about Bush so long as it portrays him negatively -- what is your basis for leaving in this claim, without providing references, citations, proof or evidence of any kind? What are you using to "factually prove" your unsupported claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.26.82 (talk • contribs) 03:04, January 15, 2006 (UTC)

  • Please, no personal attacks. And sign your posts with ~~~~. Now, which claim are we leaving in? The article says "Critics say XXX; Bush supporters say YYY". Is there a particular sentence or paragraph you object to? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You know full well what you're doing. Critics of Bush also say he lied about WMDs, that he withheld evidence from Congress, etc., etc. Just because people who hate him say idiotic things which have NEVER been substantiated in any way -- such as the claim that he missed Guard duty solely on the basis of forged documents and that he therefore received an undeserved honorable discharge -- you are not justified in including these and other baseless assertions in an article pretending to be unbiased and encyclopedic in nature. Placing this unsupported claim in quotes, i.e., using the typical propagandist's phony and anonymous shield of "Critics say..." -- without providing any specific names, references or citations to support it -- betrays whoever posted it, and whoever refuses to change it, for precisely what they are.

Col Bill Turnipseed the unit commander said GW Bush never showed up and so was AWOL.

Challenging you to defend your beliefs does not constitue a "personal attack", however it's not surprising that a person of the Left would respond that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:58, January 15, 2006 (UTC)

  • ...revealing you to be a leftie who will circulate any lie about Bush... is both a personal attack and a violation of WP:AGF. And if you're talking about me, it's also inaccurate. At any rate, this conversation appears done; the issue was a significant one during the 2004 election (whether or not it had any basis in truth), and will be reported on in this article (as it is now) without giving any particular credence to either side. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A call for calm (on both sides)

To the unregistered people who have concerns about the controversies about George W. Bush, your concerns are important to the registered members editing this article. However, bear in mind these controversies were moved to the elections section from the Bush prior to 2000 section to make the context of said controversies more fair and balanced. (If you see earlier I had tagged these articles for this exact controversy and nobody objected to my moving of these sections and adding a stub tag to the Bush prior to 2000 section).

In my humble opinion, the fact that these controversies are in the elections section now put the controversies in context by implying they were allegations leveled by the oppostion to Bush (it is an election after all).

BlueGoose 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why keep removing the semi-protection?

Why the heck is the semi-protection being removed constantly? All that happens each time is that as soon as to goes anonymous IPs start vandalising and the page history simply becomes a long line of reverts. This is ridiculous. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 07:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I could not agree more. Matt Yeager 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't disagree more :) The semi-protection policy was drafted specifically not for continuous use - if you want to change that the bet thing to do would be to make your point at WT:SEMI... But search the archives first! Thanks/wangi 00:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Wangi, it wasn't intended for long term use, and using it on one of our most visible articles is a bad sight to show to new users. Welcome to the free encyclopedia everyone can edit; you can't edit this article. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So what? We ceremonially remove semi-protection every couple weeks and reinstate it the next day until 2009? I mean, I'm cool with that, but that's what's gonna happen, because the vandalism isn't gonna stop. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with phil; the vandalism will not desist, so why worry about "Bad sghting to new users"..? -ZeroTalk 07:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Phil puts it well. You remove it and it needs to be re-instated immediately. This page is exceptional and semi-protection should be be permenantly in place here. Marskell 08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course. I would love leaving it off, but the actions of constanst vandelism nullifies it. Leave it on, as I have yet to see a "productive anon" contribute to the article anyway. -ZeroTalk 08:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

At least leave it on for longer periods. Semi-protection was created specifically for this page, and was intended not only to allow useful edits to occur, but to prevent the most-viewed article from showing obscene material to the world, to prevent the recent vandal who has been listing Jimbo's personal info in edit summaries, and to reduce the wasted time of admins and others having to continually revert this page. By leaving it unprotected for increasing lengths of time, every 4 days, we are destroying the productivity during that period, and showing the world questionable material 10% of the time (and next time, it could be 15 or 20% of the time). I would suggest leaving it semi-protected for at least a couple weeks to a month at a time.

There is really no point in unprotecting, since we continuously get new users, and they will continually test/vandalize on this page. New users know nothing about when this page was semi-protected, so although semi-protection stops vandalism while it is enabled, it is not going to reduce the overall vandalism when it is temporarily disabled. As Bush's approval rating drops, this page's potential for vandalism will only increase. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 15:20

No, no, no, no, no... I can't say it enough. We were told SEMI would not be used proactively. That wasn't the intent of SEMI. Unless we want to go back to add "preventative measures" to the policy, we just can't leave it on. It was designed to be used if an outbreak of anon vandalism occurs, to be lifted shortly afterwards. Leaving it on for long periods of time is a violation of policy, and may I add, very unwiki-like. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
However, this is an exception. I don't really think you comprehend how much this page is vandalaisesd with SEMI no enabled. Are you aware we have over 800,000 articles that also need supervision..? And outbreaks of anon vandalism have and will continue to occur as long as we give them leeway and flaut our wishful thinking. I greatly endorse the fact of allowing anyone to edit, but this is utterly ridiculous. You say its un-wiki to leave it off..? I say its un-wiki to leave it off and make countless authors waste their time watching over one page when they could be doing something much more constructive. And I ask again: since when have anons made any signifigantly positive edits to this article..? -ZeroTalk 15:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No... definitely not. This was specifically brought up during the discussion of SEMI, and it was NOT to be used as an exception for this article. And trust me, I know very well the amount of vandalism that takes place here, but guess what? There is nothing that says you have to worry about it. There are plenty of editors who have this page on there watchlist and revert vandalism often. To me, I would rather vandals didn't do it, but I understand that it happens, and know that reverting is a part of the job. SEMI says right in the policy this is not for pre-emptive measures. This is why I didn't trust SEMI... well-intentioned editors would corrupt the policy to make "exceptions". --LV (Dark Mark) 15:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
..."No exception"..? I say sure there is. The point is really quite rudimentary. Do anons make useful contributions or do they not..? Are anons going to desist waves of destructive vandalism and sockpuppetry..? Are they ever going to stop..? The answer to these questions is sadly no. And the fact of the matter is if they don't desist, why should we..? Why even give them the chance..? -ZeroTalk 16:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
And I quote, Semi-protection is only applied if the page in question is facing a serious vandalism problem. (It might, we have no idea if it is left on)
Semi-protection is only to be applied as a response to serious vandalism and not as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism (Are you reading this? It pretty much rules it out.), such as when certain pages suddenly become high profile due to current events or being linked from a high-traffic website. Only when there is evidence of a serious problem of vandalism should semi-protection be applied.
Administrators: note that semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure. (Again, with this pre-emptive thing) In the case of one or two static IP vandals hitting a page, blocking the vandal is a much better option than semi protection as semi protection causes more collateral damage.
Semi-protection is intended to allow good edits to be made even while there would otherwise be a serious vandalism problem on a page. This means that there are some situations that, whilst semi-protection would be technically possible, it is not to be applied. These are mentioned above, and summarized here. Semi-protection:
            • Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized. This includes the day's Featured Article which should almost never be protected.
            • Is not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general, and is thus not a solution to run-of-the-mill vandalism.
I am tired of indenting and trying to higlight the correct passages, because almost every sentence from WP:SEMI talks about no pre-emptive measures. Now that we have discussed the text of the policy, would you like to go into the discussions about exceptions from before the poilicy became enforced? --LV (Dark Mark) 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. If you have a serious objection to keeping this page protected, then raise it. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and this page is not a hearing. —Guanaco 16:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What? I am not wikilawyering... SEMI was passed with assurances that it would not be used pre-emptively. What you are saying is analogous to "Well, we have a policy against, I dunno, vandalism, but we can't enforce it. If you have a problem with vandalism, then raise it." The policy is already in place. We can't just ignore official policy when we feel like it. It was developed by community consensus (and overwhelmingly at that), to subvert it is just plain wrong. No lawyering needed. I am not trying to argue about "what the policy actually says versus the spirit of the policy", because the spirit of the policy was spelled out in the discussion seeking consensus for it. I don't get it. Why do we pass policy if it's just going to be thrown away weeks later? --LV (Dark Mark) 16:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Describing the GWB semi-protection as "preventative" implies we don't know what will happen if it is removed. But experience shows us that we know exactly what will happen: it will need to be reinstated. The number of articles for which this is true is extremely limited (I can't think of any others). Keep protection indefinitely, I'd say, until there is any likelihood of removal doing anything other than proving that semi-protection is still desperately needed. Rd232 talk 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, it will most likely get vandalised again, but we can't use a feature against policy. That's why people can't be blocked at the Admin's prerogative. Restricting people's editing should only be done within the scope of policy, and indefinite SEMI without breaks is clearly against policy. I don't really have a problem with it being semi-protected, but I do take umbridge with indefinite semi-protection. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
My dear dark lord, I'm uterly flabbergasted at your reasoning. The only "editting" done by outside users is vandalism, and it will continue to be vanadalism. So you're saying we shouldn't "restrict people's editing" despite the fact its blatent vandalism again and again. Incredible. -ZeroTalk 18:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
You do realize that semi-protection also disables editing to new users, don't you? And those outside users don't always come to vandalize. One example is this diff, which was my first edit in the Article namespace. As annoying as an vandalized article is, a permanently protected article IS as annoying. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
And you don't have to worry about this article then. Those of us who don't mind revert mindless vandalism can take care of this. Anons are not "outside users", either. This type of thinking is severely anti-wiki. They have as much right to edit this article as the rest of us. That's why permanant SEMI is unreasonable. There is a lot of good work done by Anons out there, and I'm getting a little sick and tired of people treating them like "second-class citizens". I know I am exaggerating, but what kind of message are we sending prospective editors by saying, "Anyone can edit (except for on certain articles where you can't edit if you don't log-in)"? You think this is a proper wiki attitude? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing semiprotection from this article on a regular basis so that we can monitor the background level of vandalism. Semiprotection is not intended as a permanent state for any article. During the latest period of unprotection, alhough there just over a dozen instances of vandalism (one by a logged-in user), there were four bona fide edits, all by a non-logged-in user, and one test edit which was self-reverted. This is a wiki and the intention of a wiki is that it should be freely editable; semiprotection is a temporary compromise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Tony gives some good stats so I think he has a point. Some IPs will make good edits and vandals are reverted very quickly. We can at least give it a shot every once and a while, even though is will probably just have to be protected again.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't really have to be protected, but yes, periodic removal is all we ask. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Those who have been involved in reverting vandalism on this page know from hard experience that right now periodic removal is not an option. Everytime it is removed the page becomes a vandalism free for all. Semi-protection was conceived as a way to avoid full protection while cutting out the principal source of vandalism — IPs go to WP's most prominent page and decide for a laugh to vandalise it. Frankly, my dear Lord, if you had had like the rest of us to deal with vandalism minute by minute for months you'd know precisely why semi-protection was introduced here, and how necessary it is. And a lot of us are getting a tad fed up of being left to mop up after Tony's various "experiments". Usually Tony tries out a new idea unilaterally and it falls to others to deal with the aftermath. This page seems to be his latest thing on Wikipedia to experiment on. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. What's the point in removing if we know what's going to happen..? And not one fellow has answered my concern: Have anons made constructive contributions to the article or not..? The only answer I recieved was how annoying Titoxd thought it when he made his extremly "mindblowing" edit to the article, which doesn't prove anything. And Jtdirl is correct- why put up with this nonsense...? I could understand if anons frequently made constructive edits, but the sad fact of the matter is they don't. -ZeroTalk 22:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
(ec) Didn't Tony just say that the ratio of vandalism to good edits by unregistered users during the time period where it was most recently unprotected was less than 12 to 4? Also, I hate to be blunt, but as I have said before, I don't appreciate people insinuating that people who oppose permanent semi-protection fight vandalism less or don't understand the situation. The opposite is true. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget to factor in the edits required to revert the IP's vandalism, or the time wasted by people watching this article continually for vandalism when they need not be. If Tony decides that he will randomly "test unprotect" the page whenever he desires, that means anyone who was helping watch the article will now either have to be in close contact with Tony, so that they know when he is going to unprotect it, or they'll have to continue hovering over this article at all times, as though it was unprotected. If Tony wants to continue doing these tests, he has to announce it well enough in advance to let the community reply, and let them know when he will do it. I really doubt that he was hovering over this article for 11 hours the last time it was unprotected. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 22:44
I definitely don't hang over articles that are not protected; to do so in the case of this article would negate the point of having the unprotection in the first place. I must say I'm more than a little worried about the fact that you're starting to treat semi-protection and the normal state of this article, and treating the normal, unprotected status as if it were some bizarre new imposition, in particular that you're challenging others, myself mainly, to jump through hoops just because we want to continue monitoring the underlying level of vandalism. It just won't do. Without the tests we can never know whether semi-protection is still needed. Semi-protection must not be regarded as the normal state for an article, and it must not be imposed on an article for one moment longer than is necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget WP:SPP. Forget why the policy was passed. Look at the situation now. This page is the most heavily viewed page on Wikipedia. It was by far the most heavily vandilised. We have a tool that can stop all but the most obsessed vandalism. Why don't we use it? I don't think this situation can really be labelled pre-emptive. Not after 28,000 edits. [[Sam Korn]] 22:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. This obsession with a "policy" that was written by other members of the community is ridiculous. Not all guidelines or policies apply in all situations, so it's wrong to say that by the policy's very existence (in its current state) that it must be applied to this article. The policies were not passed down from on High, and they are nearly as open to change/questioning as anything else on Wikipedia. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 22:43
  • This "periodic unprotection" test is based entirely on the assumption that most anonymous vandals of this article are repeat vandals, or that anonymous vandals have a communication network of some kind. Is this the case? Also, what happens when this page it temporarily unprotected, and a vandal comes along and puts jimbo's personal info in an edit summary again? Who's going to talk to the devs to get this corrected (or make the mistake of trying to fix it on their own and breaking the site)? The last time this page was "temporarily" unprotected, such a vandal had a 1 in 10 chance of coming along that day and finding the page unprotected. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 22:52
I really don't understand the point of these pointless "test un-protects" anyway. We know what's going to happen - why bother removing semi - protect..? If incredibly constructive edits like this are the only constructive edits made without semi protect on, then I don't no what to say. -ZeroTalk 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Brian (and others), it's rather arrogant to ignore the consensus reached by a fairly large number of editors while drafting the semi-protect policy. If you want to use the functionality to full-time semi-protect a page then what you should be doing is drafting a change to the policy, or a new one, and then invite others to discuss it. If you get consenses that a permanent protect on this article is a good idea then go ahead and do it, but don't abuse your position and ignore the consensus which built the current policy. Thanks/wangi 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The number of people does not really matter, since Wikipedia is always gaining and losing editors. The rationale are all that matters. The people who originally worked on the policy do not now own it; it remains just as changeable as any other policy (which means less easily changed than most stuff on Wikipedia, but still open to exceptions). The discussion about how long GWB stays protected should remain on the GWB talk page, since it specifically concerns this page, and the people who are most familiar with the page watch this more than they watch the semi-protection page. Guidelines and policies are supposed to reflect the current views of the community, not prevent those views from changing. Policies themselves were the direct result of such change, a change in the direction of a more controllable/rigid site. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-17 01:33
Remember the discussion surrounding whether or not we could block people if they vandalised this page once. It was decided that it wouldn't work because it was against policy. If it is to remain restricted to logged-in users, DO NOT call it "semi-protected". Call it IP Restricted, or something of the like, because it certainly is no longer "semi"-protected. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure it is. Keeps vandalism out, keeps legitimete editors in. And, no, I don't think of anons or new users as "second -class citizens" ethier. In fact, I hold them in high respect, as i can't count how many times an anon or new user has cleaned up a spelling mistake or grammer error after I've finished making a new article. But this article is indeed an exception, and we must react acordingly. I'm a good - faith editor, but I'm no sucker. These vindidctive users play us up but good. They don't care if we let down SEMI in an act of kindness and good faith, they just start anew. Even Mr. Sidaway stated that vandalism skyrocketed when he deactivated SEMI and numerous charts have shown (again by Mr. Sidaway) that SEMI is benefitting the article. And a user has already shown what "incredibly constructive" edits are made when its down (the addition of a coma! That's a Major edit for sure!). Honestly, the statistics and our tireless hours of pointless vandlaism reverting don't lie. We could go on and on, but what's the point..? Vandalism will not desist. The only reason vandalism decreses is because of SEMI. I leave you with the history, and I hope you'll think on it. But I doubt it. -ZeroTalk 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Civility please. Why not just permanently full-protect the article then? Or lock it to all editors? Wouldn't that too stop vandalism? Trust me, I've been watching this page for quite some time, so stop trying to be condescending (that means acting better than someone). We create policies for reasons, no? In order to be considered "semi-protected", it would have to be in accordance with the Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, would it not? We can't say something is "A" if it clearly violates the "A policy", no? --LV (Dark Mark) 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Because it defeats the purpose. The point of SEMI is because it not full- protect. And lock all the editors...? Be serious, Dark lord. And it has nothing to do with condescending (I just made note of the fact I wasn't above) or incivilty. However, as far as policy goes, we both are in agreement- policy is almighty, and I daren't go agaist it, But something must be done. -ZeroTalk 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying... if you want this article to be semi-protected indefinitely, we need to change the SEMI policy. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Policy is not prescriptive. If it defies common sense not to do something, do it. Let policy catch up. [[Sam Korn]] 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying I want SEMI activated indifitely, only 99.9% of the time. -ZeroTalk 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This LV guy is arguing with the rules of Wikipedia behind him and in the sites' best interest. Everyone else is yelling about their best interest. "I have to revert vandalism", "I have to spend time keeping an eye on it." Valdalists win. Again. --199.43.48.68 19:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

While I thank you for your comment, calling those that disagree with me selfish isn't totally true. We just happen to have differing opinion on what is best for Wikipedia, and how to obtain those goals. Defender of the Anon, LV (Dark Mark) 20:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously better this way

Keep the vandals out, and the editors in, obviously the second the protection goes away, the vandalism comes back..--Piedras grandes 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote for continued Semi-protection(Straw Poll):

Support

  1. Support It's better this way, legit users can edit, vandals cannot--Piedras grandes 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Support Statistics (rarely) lie. Nethier do our thumbs after pushing our mouses' for the billionth time reverting pointless vandalism. Stop the vandalism, wishful thinking and Pointless "experiments". -ZeroTalk 18:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC) I have since become neutral in the matter. -ZeroTalk 06:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Continued unscheduled experimenting forces everyone to remain just as watchful of the article, saving little time. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-17 22:11
  4. Yes, please semiprot it, that's what it's there for. Radiant_>|< 12:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kevin baas 21:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Strong support
  6. Psychotic support, because it WORKS. Amazingly. Matt Yeager 00:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Yes, this is a wiki, but registering an account (that requires NO personally identifiable information) and waiting a few days to edit ONE particular article is hardly an insurmountable barrier. Virtually all anonymous edits to this article are vandalism, and the harm of having the article in a vandalized state for a cumulative period of as much as several hours a day is far worse than asking people to start editing elsewhere. The current US President article is really in a category by itself. Nothing else gets as much vandalism. Not even close. I'm sure that in 2008, we'll need to semiprotect both major party candidates. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Stop these ridiculous on-off-on-off experiments. The history of this page shows that semi-protection is needed here. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support this article is a special case because its the most revised article on wikipedia by a country mile, so something should be done to stop the vandalism. If anyone had anything useful to add, they'd be prepared to create an account and wait a couple days. -- Astrokey44|talk 22:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Radiant said it best. Hall Monitor 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support per Radiant abakharev 22:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support per Radiant. The chances of a new user wanting to contructively edit this article are to low for now. At least every 3 weeks we should unprotect and test the water though. My vote is basically to stretch the maximum Sprotection time. "Continuous" is not really defined anyway, as there must be some time to unprotect.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Long-term (non-semi-) protecting the Main Page must have seemed "unwiki-like" at one time. This article is what semi-protection was invented for. "Experimental" unprotection is pointless, we already know from long experience that the problem doesn't go away after a few days. If the problem is long-term then the semiprotection must also be. -- Curps 23:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Semi was designed for this case, and is handling it brilliantly. Complaints of "pre-emptive" use are misfounded - the vandalism was there first, and this is the response. Pre-emptive use would be using it on a page that had never been vandalised, in anticipation of future vandalism. Stevage 07:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. This article is a special case. It makes sense to treat it as such. I'd oppose SP on any other article for more than a short period of time, but the extremely high level of vandalism on GWB is already well known. Carbonite | Talk 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. support. i realize that i speak laregly out of ignorance here, not being privvy to the formal aplications of the founding principles of Wikipedia, but last i checked, we're all here for the honest and free spread of information. and if that means that you have to register a fake name and an IP adress to be allowed to edit one of the biggest targets of vandalism in the Wiki, i fail to see the problem. this is a new thing, never before attempted, and as such it's guiding rules and regulations must be as open to adaptation as it's content. freedom of expression and editing is a great idea and all, but has some fairly ugly realities when it means i can go in and change the "Citizen Kane" entry to "it's a movie about a f***ing sled" with minimal effort. the semi-protected status of this article keeps the editors honest by taking away the anonymity of the vandal. go to interflop.com or You The Man Now Dog to see why this article is protected. the vandals are numerous and attention starved, and as this article is a popular one, it is a bright red target, and should be protected until tWit clears out of the Oval Office to be replaced with another puppet. this is no more an attack on the anons than greeters at Wal*Mart saying "Happy Holidays" is a war on Christmas. it is merely a needed precation to protect the most fundamental need of this or any other encyclopedia, the need to present accurate and useful information.--69.69.217.178 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Sure this article gets a lot of vandalism, but so does the featured article, and we don't protect that. Having this semi'd for a long period of time seems un-wiki like to me. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Unceasing oppose. When developing WP:SPP, we were told time and time and time and time again that this was not to be used permantantly (here, for instance), or pre-emptively (here, or heck, here for instance Am I the only person that has read this and all the related talk pages?). The policy was approved by overwhelming consensus (Here). Like I said before, I can't even believe this is really happening. I don't know what else to say. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Addendum: We shouldn't force people to register accounts if they want to edit this article. SEMI was intended to by temporary, and keeping it on indefinitely forces editors to register an account if they want to edit this article. I've said my piece. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. The community has not approved the use of semi-protection permanently. Since this is a special case, I think it's OK to keep it semiprotected most of the time, but we should try and lift the protection every once in a while. It is important for admins not to overstep the bounds that the community has defined. Admins are not justified in violating the semiprotection policy, even for this page. Rhobite 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. This is going to be semi-protected for the vast majority of the time until 2009. But I have no objection to periodically unprotecting and reprotecting, even if it's a mere formality. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    May I ask why you think the vandalism will stop in 2009? Will people's pure hatred of the man suddenly go away when he's no longer President? Just asking. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    People stopped caring about Bill Clinton once we were rid of him. And in 2009 we'll have some new stuffed suit to despise. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, perhaps, but you also need to realise the type of people using Wikipedia. It tends leftist, and right now, this guy is in perhaps the top three hated people in the world. I don't see that changing immediately after he is ousted. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    I guess we'll have to see. It's not like Ronald Reagan sees a lot of vandalism. We'll find out in 2009 at the latest. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'd say Reagan wasn't hated like Bush is though. Hitler still receives quite a bit of vandalism, and he's been out-of-power for a lot longer than Reagan. (And no, I'm not saying Bush is Hitler, I am just drawing a comparison. Although, now that I mention it, he probably is hated as much as Hitler by a few people) --LV (Dark Mark) 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, besides the obvious hatred, I specualte vandals will continue to breach this article because they know we consider it a primary concern of our time. --LZ (maverick virus) ZeroTalk 19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Why imitate? Originate. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    May I ask why we need foramallity..? Or this "wishful thinking" and "experimentations"..? -ZeroTalk 19:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    We probably don't, but if we have to have it I can't complain. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    I just would like to know the point behind these releases. -Zero Welch ZeroTalk 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    There really isn't any—I just think that if some people really want them to happen I don't have any complaints. I find it amusing that my apathy is being more heavily questioned than anyone's actual opinions. And please—I know everyone wants to be me, but don't rip off my signature. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm quite sorry. I did not intent to rub anyone the wrong way. -ZeroTalk 06:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

m:Polls are evil

  1. Having said that I think semi-protection should be kept for now. Vandalism is way down and non-vandalism contributions are not that seriously affected. Semi-protection must be lifted fairly regularly for monitoring purposes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Vandalism has only been occurring when you decide to randomly unprotect the article for 11+ hours at a time, and let everyone else handle the vandal onslaught. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-17 22:14
      • Correct. Tony does the experiments. Everyone else then has to clear up the mess. Constantly. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Umm... this poll, in my opinion, is extremely vague, unclear, and biased. What is "continued" semi-protection? Does that mean permanently protecting it, protecting it and lifting it periodically, protecting it until 2009, or what? Also, the heading of the section along with the first words lead to bias. If we're going to do a poll, let's try and make it clearer exactly what we're polling about, and make it as unbiased as possible. (And sorry if this reads a bit harsh; that wasn't my intention.) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    It either means, for 2.5 more years or for extended durations, I guess. I am usuming the later, so I support.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actual, "support" is for no interruptions in semi-protection. Well, actually it is vague wording, but that was the discussion in the above thread, etc., so that's probably what piedras meant, and apparantly a few of the supporters feel so too. (We could ask him). --LV (Dark Mark) 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Until when? When do we test the water? Does that need consensus? If I don't get a clear answer I'll have to oppose. I just don't want to waste the time to frequently test the water and then cleanup.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. You don't get to choose which bits of policy you are going to pay attention to. Those evilvoting support are basing their views on Radiant's. Unfortunately, of course, Radiant is wrong since WP:SEMI says quite clearly what it is for, and what it is not for. It says it is not for this. You still don't get to overlook policy just because you disagree with part of it; that's how the approval processes work and no, editors of individual articles don't get to declare themselves beyond policy. It doesn't matter what those who think anons stink think (and that is the tone of much of the support section, especially the rather instransigent MegamanZero) wish was agreed to: the fact is that the policy would probably have been out on its ear had it provided for permanent protection as the discussion in its development and straw polling make very clear. Irrespective of the outcome of the polling here, which is based on a very narrow subsection of the community who are somewhat fixated by the vandalism here, they cannot claim any basis in policy or in community approval for indefinite protection of the article. -Splashtalk 23:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Splash, I already verified that I hold no transgression agaist anon editors which you have blantently rebuffed. I'm merely saying this article is an exception regarding SEMI agaisnt vandalism.

Your reply is not helpful. Having given the appearance of accusing me of dishonesty you compound it by confirming, with words such as " editors of individual articles don't get to declare themselves beyond policy", "It doesn't matter what those who think anons stink think", "and that is the tone of much of the support section, especially the rather instransigent MegamanZero", and so on. Instead of presenting evidence so that I can know what approaches you're talking about, you present a false accusation of me thinking of nafarious conflict.

Splash, I'm not saying SEMI is the best thing for wikipedia in a g3eneral sense, and its obvious that vandalism increses to ridiculous levels with it down so we're not better off. So that we can make progress, I'm going to ask what the point is of removing it if we know what will happen; if you will comply with my request. Where, specifically, does the history indicate that SEMI does more bad than good? You refer to my actions and demeanor as instransigent . Well no, it isn't, and I am truly vocing what I think is good for the article. I'm merely citing the obvious "progress" these pointless experiments and wishful thinking benefit. By establishing that, on the facts of the case, there is a side to this other than the supporters of SEMI thinking "un-wiki like". -ZeroTalk 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like reverting vandalism, don't include this page on your watchlist

  1. Being a wiki, reverting vandalism is totally voluntary. No one is forcing you to do it. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    It is possible to regularly revert vandalism and want this page indefinitely (in the strictest sense of the word) semi-protected. [[Sam Korn]] 21:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    So perhaps the heading should read,"If you don't like reverting vandalism on this page, don't include it on your watchlist"? --LV (Dark Mark) 21:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    It's not about liking it. It's about it being necessary. I want to stop vandalism. Semi-protection is the best way to avoid vandalism on this article. You are misunderstanding the intentions of people commenting here. [[Sam Korn]] 22:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, the best way to stop vandalism on this article would be to lock all editors from editing it. Even admins, BCrats, or Jimbo himself. That would definitely ensure no vandalism would take place. I understand the intentions, I just passionately disagree with the implementation. I happen to think circumventing policy, especially after specific assurances were made that it wouldn't happen to this article, is not right. I think permanently restricting non-registered user from editing this article is entirely anti-wiki. It goes against everything a wiki stands for. So like I said, if you don't want the "hassle" of reverting vandalism here, just don't do it. Someone will always be right there waiting in the wings, eager to revert. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    No. "...the best way to stop vandalism on this article would be to lock all editors from editing it." That's ridiculous. Why do you think people want semi protect implemented in the article..? How rare is it to have resgistered or named users actually vandalize the article...? Its stemming from anons and IP's and locking the entire article is completely misrepresenting what people whowant SEMI on are looking for. I'm confused at your answers because they are aimed at a person who would the article fully protected. -ZeroTalk 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    So you're saying logged-in users have never vandalised this article? And actually, Sam said that it is about stopping vandalism, and that "Semi-protection is the best way to avoid vandalism on this article." Tell me how completely locking this article would NOT be the most efficient way of stopping any vandalism. Please actually answer this question before yelling at me again. --LV (Dark Mark) 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Usually "yelling" on a comment pertains to a exclamation mark, caps letters, and/or bold lettering. I don't recall using any of the above in my statement. Please stop these fasle allegations regarding my behavior. Futhurmore, no, I'm not saying they haven't, but its much less common, and its a lot easier to take disiplinary action agaist registered users. I also don't expect vandalism to desist completetely ethier. But semi -protect has been working splendidly so far - let's us edit, and the vandalism is fairly low. Whereas with it disabled, there's no advantage at all. Just substantially more vandalism, and more pointless reverting. And I'd like clarification from you on what editors who (as you put it) "like to revert". We revert because its necessary, not because of "formallity" and just because people have it on thier watchlist. -ZeroTalk 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, vandalism is decreased, but at the sake of the wiki ideals of letting anyone edit. We already stopped creation of articles from anons, now you are trying to stop anons from ever editing certain articles (and basically back-handedly saying anons are not good editors). The decrease in vandalism (something that wasn't totally destroying Wikipedia as it was) should not be used to justify subverting policy, consensus, and the nature of a wiki. And my humblest apologies for using the word "yelling", perhaps I should have said, "trying to reprimand". Thanks for nitpicking the language I use, I am always happy to clarify my remarks to those whom don't understand what I was trying to say. Regarding the "liking to revert thing", I'll try to explain to the best of my ability. This is a voluntary project that anyone can (or was supposed to be able to) edit. It is a wiki. People edit here at Wikipedia because they like to, not because they are being made to. Reverting, technically, isn't necessary. It is a voluntary activity that some people do, because they feel that by doing it, they are making WP a better place. Vandalism will never cease (logged-in users even vandalise sometimes, by your account) unless fully locked from everyone. You are right in calling this ridiculous (I am not seriously advocating this, if you couldn't tell). People add this article to their watchlist because they want to keep an eye on this article, and revert if they feel so inclined. Being a voluntary task, no one is keeping anyone here. If you are just so sick and tired of reverting... just don't do it. But I guarantee someone behind you actually believes in the wiki principles and in building an encyclopedia. I like upholding the wiki, reverting where I feel needs it is just part of it. So having answered that, I have a question for you, and I would like a direct answer this time. What is your main concern with removing SEMI every couple of days? --LV (Dark Mark) 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There you go again. I've already confirmed to you that I deeply respect anon editors and I am not trying to subvert concensus or policy (Besides, it isn't that hard to make an account). And I thought the ultimate goal of this being a wiki, was so we could gather differing people and vast knowledge bases to ultimately make a expansive and comprehensive encyclopedia constructed on solid thesis and scholarly analysis. I love the ideal of "with people editting here because they like to", but if that is true across the board, then vandals vandalize here "because they like to", which is unacceptable. The programmers and developers have given us a new tool to wage war on these hooligans; I think we should put it to good use. And even then, I am only endorsing its full use on this one article, as it is clearly an exception. As for your main question, Its simple: There's no point to it. What's the point of formallity when we know what's going to happen..? Indeed, What's the point when these vandals only seek to sicken and pervert our fair encyclopedia..? Leaving SEMI off isn't fair to the editors, and makes them work more than they have to; essentially a slap in the face. You say it unwiki to not allow anons and such to create articles and not bypass SEMI. No, its wrong to allow anons to create articles and not give them the recongnition they deserve so they will continue, and its wrong to let people vandalize the encyclopedia for the sole reason of "everyone can edit". That is un-wiki. -ZeroTalk 02:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(de-indentify) You don't seem to want to listen to me. I will now choose to avoid this rather than escalate it. Saying anons cannot ever edit again (even if it is "only on one article") is un-wiki. Simple as that. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that anons cannot ever edit this article again. You seem to have a very short term definition of "ever". Once G.W. Bush fades into history this article will become much less likely to be a target of vandals. I don't see anything wrong with having heavily vandalized articles subject to constant "semi-protection". If this means that anons cannot edit certain articles during the time period that they remain so present in the general public view as to attract vandals, then so be it. - Hayne 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection will continue to be monitored

We do have a policy of semi-protecting pages that are under heavy vandalism, and I think semi-protection has been immensely successful in this case (see vandalism reverts by week). Although of course new editors will continue to be drawn to this article I'm not unduly worried by the current background level of vandalism, down to just over one vandalism incident per hour during the last period of unprotection, which corresponded to the US peak evening period. I'll probably choose a period when most Americans are asleep for the next test, and I'd be interested to see how much vandalism we get then.

To give an idea of what the state of play is, vandalism levels peaked during the first week of December, at around 2 instances of vandalism per hour. I'd like to see the background vandalism rate at about 1 instance every 3-5 hours or below before I'd consider lifting semi-protection. That was the vandalism rate of this article during the first half of last year, during which vandalism was not considered to be a serious problem by the editors at the time--while protected from page moves, the article was only fully protected on rare occasions during that period.

I do resent the suggestion that these experiments are just some kind of personal indulgence for which I expect others to pick up the tab. It is essential to semiprotection that it only be applied when necessary, so we must monitor this article to see if vandalism rates fall. We are already picking up valid edits by non-logged-in users during these periods when the page protection is lifted, from which we can say that semiprotection does come at a price to the encyclopedia.

It has been suggested that a reason for not lifting semiprotection for short periods is that during those periods there is a chance that someone may read a vandalised version of the page. This is a fact of life with a wiki, and not in itself a valid reason for protecting an article. The purpose of using a wiki is to produce an encyclopedia and if you cannot edit a page this is not possible. Visitors are made aware that this is a work in progress and they should not be too surprised if the work is less than perfect at the time they view it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling guidelines

  1. Your concensus is noted Mr. Sidaway. However, I think SEMI guidelines should be changed. --Zero|Talk 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
This isn't WT:SEMI... Ta/wangi 20:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Abramoff and Bush

Abramoff Was A Republican Insider And Who Had Strong Pull With Bush White House. Abramoff's lobbying partner boasted that he is a phone call away from the President. "Jack has a relationship with the President," Abramoff's former spokesman and fellow lobbyist Michael Scanlon once said. "He doesn't have a bat phone or anything, but if he wanted an appointment, he would have one." Scanlon has since pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe a congressman and other public officials. (New Times Broward-Palm Beach, 2/22/01; Washington Post, 11/29/05)

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58947

And this means...? Bush also has ties to Cindy Sheehan, even had a meeting with her! Does this mean that Bush and Sheehan are best buddies and she influences him? It appears Abramoff met with a lot of people. Adding this from the DNC would hardly be considered NPOV in my book. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Did sheehan brag about being able to have a meeting with the president whenever she wants? No. All this attention that has been focused on here recently is about here committed efforts to get a meeting with him, which she has not been able to get. Very bad analogy. Kevin baas 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, normally I do anagrams, not analogies. I just think this concerted effort to push anti-Bush POV into articles (not just this one) leads people to see Wikipedia as a joke. WP needs to remain NPOV, and adding something like, "Bush is best friends with Abramoff, and is really corrupt", even intimating that Bush was bribed, does not quite lend itself to being so. Abramoff could, and seemingly did, "meet" with politicians of both parties, so adding something like that is just a little dishonest. That's all I meant. My b, yo. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Really? You mean there are actually places other than free republic that think that wikipedia is some sort of vast left wing conspiracy? Oh well, luckily you people all trol- gravitate towards one article, so it's easier to keep an eye on you--152.163.100.9 02:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, one, the only time I have ever been to Free Republic was after Zoe (I think) said they were frepping (sp? Sending goons to regulate us.) us at AN/I a couple of days ago. Two, I'm definitely not a troll. Go through my contribs. Hate to disappoint you. --LV (Dark Mark) 02:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"(New Times Broward-Palm Beach, 2/22/01; Washington Post, 11/29/05)" are those those credible?

and a single photo op is different that being able to arange a meeting with him (somthing Sheehan has been unable to do).

Bush Plantation

Granddad George Walker, for whom GW Bush is named, had a plantation called "Duncannon" visited often by GW Bush and his daddy Poppy Bush (GHW Bush41). Duncannon Plantation is located in Barnwell County, South Carolina.

See Duncannon Plantation - Barnwell County, South Carolina SC President Bush, Sr. with his brother used to visit his grandfather Walker's Duncannon plantation and he and his family spent many Christmases there. ... south-carolina-plantations.com/barnwell/duncannon.html

See also Cromwell selling the Irish as slaves to sugar plantations after devastating Ireland esp from port of Duncannon for which this plantation is named.

Doyle Clan - Cromwell Devastates Ireland "I do not think that thirty of the whole number escaped with their lives," Cromwell later wrote. The survivors were sold as slaves to the sugar plantations ... www.doyle.com.au/cromwell.htm


20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)~

Wiretaps and FISA

I'm surprised that the longstanding (since 2002—going on four years!) program of wiretapping American citizens hasn't been mentioned in the article. Considering that a Zogby Poll shows that a majority of Americans think that it might be an impeachable offense, does it not merit a mention in the article?--RattBoy 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's in the public perception / polls section, but I don't think that poll is in there yet. It should be. Also, it might be worht considering moving that section elsewhere (upwards on the page), because it isn't so much about public perception as it is about the actions and policies of the president. Kevin baas 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't edit George W. Bush

The page when opened for edit shows a vandal warning. I am not a new user or a vandal. It was done by a non admin. How was it done and why if anyone has any info? Thanks.--Dakota ~ ε 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism warning in comments appears at the top of the article. To edit, you can scroll past it or use section editing. Everyone sees that warning, but I'll reword it now to make it less confusing. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Want to correct a miss spelled word. Thanks again.--Dakota ~ ε 02:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh

Nice little breakdown of who edits this page: [1] — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-18 03:55

I hope people don't consider this inappropriate to post here, but seeing as this is a high-traffic page and poeple here have probably had a lot of experience with disputes, I thought people might be interested in an Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll that just started. This is just a FYI. Kevin baas 22:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

German newspapers

Bildzeitung has published an article with a header "The silliest american president" as Bush was chosen. Was not sure if i should add it :) Elmagnon

  • You could add it to one of many articles on liberal media bias, but don't even think of putting it here--205.188.116.138 01:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Categorizing this article as "liberal media bias" would be POV original research. Nonetheless, I favor avoiding inflammatory article titles in links if possible. I'm not familiar with German newspapers; is Bildzeitung a major paper there, or is it considered fringe? If it's mainstream, it might deserve a link, inflammatory title notwithstanding. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Bildzeitung is the top-selling yellow-press paper. Its essentially conservative and pro-US. I hardly believe that there was such a headline.
It might be appropriate on the public perception main article. Kevin baas 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Bush has never yet vetoed a bill"

(From the "Other Issues" section) Is this true? I had heard that he has never vetoed a spending bill, but not that he's never vetoed a bill in general. Can we get a source for this? -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That is completely false. Bush has vetoed lots of bills, though not so much in his second term due to republican rule. Kevin baas 17:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Name one. He hasn't vetoed any bills yet. Period. Unless one happened in the last couple of days, without anyone knowing about it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Ya, whatever. You're the one making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of research is on you. Kevin baas 18:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rather an uncalled for snark there. I didn't make any extraordinary claim; I just stated a fact on a talk page. Were I putting on the article page, I'd have cited something. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, IIRC, Bush hasn't vetoed any bills. I think that actually is true. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I relucantly did your work for you, you know you could have cited an article or two, wouldn't have hurt too much. I believe now that he hasn't vetoed a bill, I must have been confusing veto threats with actual vetos. When congress knows the veto threat is genuine and that it won't have the power to override the veto, it often drops the legislation - so the veto threat often works like a tacit veto. Kevin baas 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I did it too.[2] Bush and 7 others never vetoed a bill. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Calling the Bild Zeitung (as it is spelled correctly) liberal is not quite right. It is considered as conservative.
Speaking as someone who covers this stuff professionally for a living, I can tell you that Bush has, in fact, never vetoed any bill at all, spending or otherwise. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 05:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's that Bush has never vetoed a spending bill. That isn't terribly important, because the Executive branch will generally communicate with Congress and iron out any differences before the bill is sent to the president's desk -- thus, while Bush may have effectively said no to certain provisions, he didn't have to veto them. This is particularly true when the Congress and the President are controlled by the same party. Ken 19:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

won electroal vote in 2000

according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1067820.stm, Bush won due to the supreme court decision, the electoral vote was never confirmed as the counted was stopped before it was finished. Is the BBC news article wrong? If the article is correct, then it would be inaccurate to say Bush "won the electoral vote", wouldn't it? I have removed the "won electoral vote" part until this can be confirmed if true or not. --Rebroad 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep fighting! Never give up the good fight! You see, I'm really the president of the United States! Not just some sad loser who won't admit that I lost the election to a better man!--John F. Kerry 17:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The BBC news article is correct. And you'll see on the 2000 presidential election page that the plurality of legal voters in florida actually voted for Kerry, so if how people voted determines the electoral vote, than Bush actually lost the electoral vote. Another interesting oddity in american history. Kevin baas 17:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
The US Constitution allows each state legislature to determine how electors are picked. Many electors have been picked by means other than using the popular vote (mostly in the early years). NoSeptember talk 18:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
From a legal standpoint, there was a legal winner of the electoral vote. Electors were certified pursuant to Florida law, those electors cast their votes, their votes were properly sent to the Congress, where Congress accepted them as legitimate. Despite the controversy over votes, the Secretary of State and Governor of the state had a legal function to perform in certifying electors and their votes, and they performed their function. Technically, all the US supreme court did was prevent the Florida supreme court from further directing state and county officials to do something they had decided not to do (namely to continue a recount of a certain category of votes). The US supreme court did not make any ruling on the election results itself, or interfere with the officials who were empowered to certify the electors. That is not a comment on what the political motives of any of the various people involved were, but on the technical question "Did Bush win the electoral vote?", the answer is yes. NoSeptember talk 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
You've got your history wrong, NoSeptember, firstly it remains to be determined whether the ballots were "regularly given" - from a legal standpoint that's something that is determined post facto (because from an investigative standpoint, it can't be determined pre-facto). But that technicality aside, Congress did not accept any electoral votes as legitimate - that is they did not certify the electoral ballots - until after the court decision. And while we're talking about legal process, I'll remind you that the option of a recount is part of the legal process, and the legitimacy of counts travels side-by-side with the legal steps. Now if the Supreme Court, as you suggest prevented state and county officials from doing something they decided not to do, then the Supreme Court was by that act acting outside its authority and neglecting its duty. Its duty is to make rulings based on the law, not what people want or don't want to do. What the supreme court essentially ruled is that expediency is above accuracy, when it comes to elections.
My point, which I believe I stated pretty clearly and concisely - I'll break it down for you:
  • IF Florida's popular vote was determined by how people voted instead of how votes were counted,
  • AND Florida's electoral college voted unanamously for the winner of said popular vote (as is traditionally done),
  • THEN Florida's electoral ballots would be for Kerry,
  • AND THEREFORE they wouldn't be for Bush.
See, I'm bringing the question down to one of jurisprudence; philosophy. Kevin baas 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh who cares?!?!?! It happened 6 years ago, nothing is going to change it so why do we keep having to have this discussion. I'll sum it up: Bush supporters are happy he won, Gore supportes don't think he won at all. Nothing is going to change it, so everyone just needs to move on. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If you seriously believe that a serious subversion of democratic process and constiutional law by excercise of mental reservation and outright lies is not worthy of debate, might I suggest that you move to a country where you won't be troubled by your democratic duties? By your reasoning, we should remove all pages relating to the crucifixion - after all, it happened 2000 years ago so who cares? A debate on the legitimacy of the Bush presidency aty least should be referenced from this page.

And you assertion about Bush supporters and Gore supporters merely underlines your naivety and unsuitability to contribute to a debate such as this. --Dazzla 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to discuss this at the U.S. presidential election, 2000 and related articles. Congress has procedures as to which electoral votes it will accept and how they may be contested (passed in the wake of the 1876 election), so Congress did indeed decide that Florida's electoral votes were legitimate. The state of Florida has laws about the proper certification of electoral votes that were followed. Note these laws do not rely on a definitive analysis of votes cast. State officials (the Gov and Sec of State) are charged by law with making determinations and are not legally obligated to make full investigations of vote results. Your reference "as is traditionally done" has no relevance to the legal situation. Mistakes can happen, including miscounts, but the state and federal laws were followed concerning certification, and the electoral votes are legally valid. People's opinions about who won the votes is a separate issue from whether the certification was legal. NoSeptember talk 18:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misconstrued me there. I agree w/everything you just said, except for a subtle point. When one's talking about jurisprudence one is talking about that whole mix of opinions, views, interpretation, issues, intent, purpose, etc., as it applies to prudent construction and application of law... one is talking about that grey area - one is posing questions at the very basis of law, of meaning of laws, etc. Some such questions are: is the purpose of an election to determine the will of the voters? and therefore are the laws and processes pursuant this end to always be interpreted so as to favor a more accurate determination? There are a lot of grounds for jurisprudential dispute, even if on the surface all the processes were followed. And that's another such question: is the validity of an election result determined by the following of a legal process, or by its coherence to the will of the voters? I hope you can understand from these examples what I mean when I say I am bringing this to a level of jurisprudence, which is properly (by its own definition) at the heart of the issue. Kevin baas 19:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruled that only doing recounts in certain counties (as the democrats wanted) would be unconstitutional, and that if there was going to be a recount, it had to be the whole state. The effect of this was that there wasn't enough time to do a state recount before the deadline that the Florida Supreme Court had given, so it was game set match for keeping the official results which Catherine Harris had certified. That's the summary of it, folks. It seems that democrats, just like with the Clinton impeachment, never really can understand (or choose to divert from) the real issues at hand. -- 2nd Piston Honda 20:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Please, I urge all parties to just drop this. Nothing is ever going to change the fact that Bush became President. So quit arguing. At least not here. Please. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I might be kicking a dead horse here, but I fully agree with NoSeptember. The vast majority of legal scholars, etc. agree that Bush won the electoral vote; he's the president. Period. Disputes on the electoral vote count can be mentioned elsewhere. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's removal of Category: Living people

I've removed this category because Bush is a member of Category: Current national leaders, making this redundant because the latter category is a menber of the former. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Expiration of term

In reference to this edit, I would note that this date is now enacted into the US Constitution, so only a constitutional amendment will change it. Unless we are going to change all references to US Senate and House term expirations as well (they could be changed by constitutional amendment too), the "expected to expire" phrase is inconsistent with our political articles and should be reverted, imo. (Note: the term is independent of the person filling the term and continues to expiration even if there is a vacancy filled during the term) NoSeptember talk 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd add, when the law changes, we can change our article. This is a wiki, hooray!!! --LV (Dark Mark) 18:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually we can't becuase the page has been protected again! Almost like the entire unprotection was a farce, and when no one bit, the unprotector came along and vandalized it himself to give him an excuse to re-protect--152.163.100.74 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

... I'm glad someone else noticed this, too. "expected to expire" suggests that the author of that sentence is trying to slip in a political dig by saying that they expect that GWB will somehow try to stay in power longer than constitutionally allowed. Get real, Wiki.

Done. When something changes, we can change too. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

are these rape charges real?

http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/index.php?q=node/2607 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.41.44 (talk • contribs) .

that link at the end says the woman was killed / x /ed out

yes, but she was fairly obviously deranged. see Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents Derex 22:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Public perception and assessments

This section hardly mentions praises and then elaborates on criticisms. More needs to be said about why Bush was reelected and why people continue to support him. -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the world's great mysteries... perhaps so little is said about it because so little is known. Kevin baas 18:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I knew i was setting myself up, but didn't think anyone was feeble-minded enough to bite. I could easily explain why Bush was re-elected and why so many people support him, and so could you, kevin bia..i mean baas. But honesty has never been a liberal's strong suit, has it. Anyway, i see the article isn't locked anymore, so i'll edit it if no one else will. -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Please try and avoid personal remarks and remain civil. Thanks --LV (Dark Mark) 23:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
2nd Piston, I can call you names too. It doesn't take any special talent. And I really can't come up with any legitimate reason why people continue to support him. I can come up with some opinions that people have given me in support of him, that I don't respect for multiple reasons (such as irrelevancy). I can say they support him because they believe, dubiously, that osama bin laden is from iraq, that al qaeda and saddam hussien were cooperating, that iraq had wmd's, etc. But in every reason I have heard that people support him, I can find no basis in reality. I do not mean to make a personal attack by saying this, I am just telling you my honest experience. Where you judge my earlier comment as being disingenuous, though it was somewhat of a joke, I was not being disingenuous. Though I know reasons that people cite, I don't know of any that are relevant, thoughtful, and based on truth rather than propaganda. Please don't take this personally. You can go ahead and add in gay marriage stuff and karl rove's demographic analysises, it's certainly interesting and important. Kevin baas 18:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Yeah we know, anyone who disagrees with your reasoning is a supporter of "irrelevant propaganda". Maybe you should get some friends who are less dumb. You seem to be surrounded by idiots. People like that Bush is aggressive vs terrorism, that certainly isn't propaganda (although you might argue that in your liberal stance). People like Bush because he is a man of faith and not afraid to admit it.

I know plenty of idiots who dislike Bush because he "looks dumb" and because he "wants to bring back slavery".

Please remain civil and cease the personal attacks on Kevin's friends. Thank you. --LV (Dark Mark) 23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

All I wanna do...

I'm a stickler for grammar and neatness in writing. All I want to do with this page is clean up some small but messy grammar and formatting mistakes. This sentence:

"in a particularly close and controversial general election." - although it doesn't show here, has an extra space between "controversial" and "general" due to an overextended hyperlink (I think - because when you put the cursor in between the space it highlights the link). But, I don't even know how to do that, so I'll leave that up to someone with more technical know-how.
This list should be separated by semicolons...
Bush is a member of a prominent political family: his father, George H. W. Bush, served as U.S. President for four years and as Vice President for eight(,) his brother Jeb Bush is the current Governor of Florida(,) and his grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a Republican United States Senator from Connecticut.

The commas in parentheses should be semicolons...I don't feel like explaining why! (it has to do with the type of list the punctuation is separating) paragon 02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

cheerleader

I think Bush was a cheerleader. [3] But if he's not famous for being a cheerleader, maybe the category doesn't belong. --Allen 04:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to list him in that category, he's not notable for being a cheerleader, but he is notable among cheerleaders. Similarly, we put people in from state X categories when they're from a state even if they're not notable for being from that state first gov. of state x etc.--Samuel J. Howard 07:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I hadn't thought of it that way, and it makes a lot of sense. --Allen 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Allen, you were originally right. If we're going to follow Samuel's line of reasoning, then we'd have to put Bush in every category for every activity he's ever done (baseball player, fisherman, checkers player, chef) and the same for every other president, celebrity, or head of state. Instead we should just put people in categories that they're famous for, as you said. -- 2nd Piston Honda 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Since Bush participated in cheerleading at Yale [4], he belongs in this category. This extracurricular activity at a prestigious institution is a well-known part of his past. Gilliamjf 00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
So are we prepared to go through every celebrity and government official's extracurricular activies at their colleges and put them in those groups? -- 2nd Piston Honda 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I offer a distinction between those professions and avocations (baseball player, chef, chess player) for which there are some number of people who are indisputably famous primarily for engaging in them, while there are others (checker player, cheerleader, poker playing -- the current Texas Holdem rage notwithstanding) for which there are none. Some US presidents (Truman, Harding, I believe) were well-known for their poker games in the White House. It would be reasonable to mention them in the article on poker. Listeners to radio talk show host Don Imus know that he plays chess, but to mention that fact in an arcticle along with Bobby Fischer and Deep Blue would be inappropriate. Therefore, by this criterion I suggest that George W. Bush belongs in the article about cheerleading, but not in the one about baseball. Samiam1955 22:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush owned a major league baseball club, which makes him eligible, later events notwithstanding. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add SourceWatch link

Admins: Please add a reference to this MediaWiki-based page on Pres. Bush. Slightly different emphasis, but pretty good: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_Walker_Bush

3rd term

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH: - According to this, there is some serious consideration to removing the limit 2 terms that a US president can serve, so it's probably accurate to say "this" term will expire, but not necessarily "his" term will expire, since George Bush may have the option and go on to win a 3rd term. --Rebroad 13:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

May God forbid. Note that when 2-term limit was imposed, it did NOT apply to current officeholder, Truman, who could have run for re-election in 1952 and chose not to. Precedent would thus suggest that any revision to the Constitution's procedure here would NOT apply to the current officeholder, Bush. Unless of course we argue that the first term didn't count because he wasn't actually elected to it, a rhetorical device I wouldn't put past Karl Rove. BYT 14:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
While I personally feel the 22nd Amendment is probably a bad addition to the Constitution (why shouldn't the people be able to elect who they want?), even if it were to be repealed, Bush, at this point an almost sure loser, would be challenged for the Republican nomination. And since even Republicans are starting to turn on him, he would be likely to lose. And that's beside the point because the 22nd will not be repealed. Okay, I'll stop now. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no serious consideration being given to repealing the two-term limit. Thomas.loc.gov clearly shows the bill was introduced and then tossed to a subcommittee to die (which is standard Congressional procedure). Bush is not going to given the option of running for a third term, period. --Aaron 16:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There IS a deadly serious attempt to constantly float the idea of W Bush surrogate to be the next president , his wife Laura Bush - her running floated over and over to gain what momentum it can. Or other stooge, Dr

Condi Rice, trotting the globe over in hip high leather boots with mini skirt and no drawers, campaigning v. global pollution while fuming about.

Actually, no, they have all said no, "never", to her running for any political office. There was a story just recently about her not running for office. Sorry. Now, Hillary on the other hand... ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 21:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn. Clinton could have come back to defeat Bush Jr. Just like he did to his daddy.

Only if there's a li'l Ross Perot to split the right again. Ruby 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Unique sprotection boiler

Why does this page not use the standard sprotection boiler. It has been edited to be smaller and look less dominating, so I don't see the need. -- Ec5618 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection.
  • Be bold and change it if you wish. Harro5 05:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd warn against that, it seems to me a consensus for the small template has been affirmed at Talk:#The_sprotected_tag. -Greg Asche (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that TfD has deleted {{sprotected-small}}, so 'consensus' isn't very clear. -Splashtalk 05:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
We should use the normal template, instead of a "special" template. Is there any difference with the templates, since the words are exactly the same? --Terence Ong 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Terence. I've added the normal tag, and would want solid reasoning (not just visual appearance stuff) before anyone changes this back. If you don't like the template, go edit it directly. Harro5 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
And I completely disagree. The information in that (still) dominating box is completely irrelevant to the subject people come here to read about. Why must we force our readers to start off learning something they don't care about? I'd like that note about who can and can't edit the article and why that is so to be as small as possible. Shanes 08:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not take up the discussion at the template's talk page? We can't push views on the template by boycotting it quietly and indirectly. Harro5 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I have taken it up there. But the box has a good purpose in that it screams "remove me" and so helps keeping us honest and strive for as little sprotection in wikipedia as possible. But in this article (and probably Adolf Hitler) screaming "remove me" is of no use since sprotection here has come to stay (except small almost futile attempts to test unprotection now and then). Actually, in this article the sprotection template text is a lie. It sais: "As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled." That's not true. The vandalism here isn't recent, it's constant. And it's not temporarily disabled, it's disabled 99% of the time. Shanes 09:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should stop fooling ourselves about the nature of the protection - the protection needed for this page (and a few others) is until-further-notice and thus we should be using a different (currently non-existent) mechanism. I propose that there should be a way to protect a page in such a way that no indication of the protected status appears on the page itself - or at least the indication should be much, much less prominent (e.g. only appearing in the left margin area). When a reader clicks on the edit button, that is the time to announce the protected status. The current mechanism and its visual manifestation derives from the idea that the most important thing about a page is that it can be edited. But for most readers, that is not the most important thing about a page - the most important thing about a page (or indeed about Wikipedia as a whole) is the information it contains. Details about protection status should be invisible for most readers as it is not relevant to them. In other words, Wikipedia pages ought to be designed with the readers' (as opposed to editors') needs in mind. Optimize for the 99.9% usage, not for the 0.1% - Hayne 10:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


It was deleted without consensus, and the only reason I, for one, voted for delete is because it is a single-use template. Please refer to the earlier discussion on the topic. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 08:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, there seem to be two basic points here. One, the template is here to stay, the page will forever be a subject of vandalism, and thus, should use a different template. Two, the standard template is too big. The latter is irrelevant of course, and no editor should vote to keep the template as it currently stands, simply because the current template is not to their liking. The first is more relevant, but I still say the standard template should be put back, though it could be modified to reflect the specific nature of the semi-protection of this page. But as it currently stands, the warning looks like a disambiguation warning, and is not obviously visible. Only when people try to edit the page wil they become aware of the problem, and very few editors to be would bother to turn to the Talk page to discuss their spelling check.
The standard template was designed for a reason. Yes, it could have been nothing but a subtle lock icon in the top right hand corne, but it isn't. Take it up with the template: -- Ec5618 10:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 As a result of persistent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page.


Maybe it's a firefox quirk, but the template makes the font on the rest of the page all weird. -- Pakaran 08:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have that problem, and I'm not quite qure what you mean. -- Ec5618 10:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Works for me Ashibaka tock 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Since there seem to be no objections, I'm going to implement my edited boiler, for the reasons noted above. -- Ec5618 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there have been plenty of objections, noted elsewhere on this talk page, against the idea of using a large and obtrusive warning. Semi-protection is of no interest to most of our readers. That, combined with the *fact* that this page will be semi-protected for most of the next three years, provides plenty of justification for using a less intrusive notice. The reason we have large "protected" and "semi-protected" templates is to discourage us from applying protection and semi-protection in the long term. That justification does not apply here. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reinserted the standard template. That is the one that is used on semi-protected pages. The other one is barely readable on firefox. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but many of the objections noted are in effect irrelevant. The template may be obtrusive, but it is the standard template. A less obtrusive template should be mediated through the Template talk page. The only true objection to the standard template was that the standard template refers to temporary protection, which apparently doesn't apply here. By adding a modified version of the template, that objection is no longer an issue either.
It would of course be silly to have each article contain a unique version of a template, and it would completely defeat the purpose of templates. -- Ec5618 00:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a unique situation—using a template at all would be useless because such a template would be a single-use template. I suggest Jtdirl get his eyes checked, as it looks fine in Safari and Firefox for me. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it wouldn't be useless; the mirrors would remove the template and everything would look lovely. Ashibaka tock 06:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If we have to have a template, I prefer the standard template. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I agree with Lord Voldemort, standard templates are much better. --Terence Ong 11:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Only administrators message

When editing this page the following message is currently displayed:

WARNING: This page has been locked so that only administrators can edit it. Be sure you are following the protected page guidelines.

However I can (as a non administrator) edit the page. the page is semi-protected, not fully protected. Thanks/wangi 12:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the devs appear to have changed something without telling anyone, or updating the protection notice, or providing an alternative protection notice. I'm positive they're aware of it, and I've mentioned it at WP:VPT, where the devs have soundly ignored the feature. I think the solution may be to reword (and format) the relevant Mediawiki: page so that it has some more generic message. After all, any admin worth half their salt should know better than to edit a protected page except in line with WP:PPol, which is all the red warning reminds them of. -Splashtalk 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You can see some discussion of the "Protected message" here (near bottom) or here. Hope this helps. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys. wangi 15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Spying

This article seems to be missing anything on the subject of Domestic Spying, even though it includes such information as his stance on affirmative action. I think this subject diserves its own article with a paragraph and main-article link from the GW page. Thoughts? Ken 19:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already in the "Public perception" section. ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 19:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The title "Domestic Spying" is misleading and POV. More approriate nomenclature would be "Terrorist Survailance". The government is not "spying" on your calls to Aunt Mabel. They are listening to calls that are made to/from known Al-Qaeda opperatives where at least one end originates overseas. Other Presidents have done this, Congress has known about it and is regularly briefed. It is in no way "Domestic Spying".

Just so we're clear what is being discussed here, we are talking about covert surveillance by the U.S. government of telephone calls placed by U.S. citizens while in the U.S. This would seem to be both a domestic matter and spying, so what part am I missing? Furthermore, the surveillance in question is not just of confirmed or even suspected terrorists, as this sets a legal precedent to allow the government to spy on your calls to Aunt Mabel. If you feel that "domestic spying" is not NPOV, then you certainly can't justify calling Aunt Mabel a terrorist just because someone in the current administration said so, or maybe you supported the Red Scare and McCarthyism. Please pay attention to the law and not the current rhetoric. I'm sure you are familiar with the quote from the man on the $100 bill, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 03:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The difference is that "Domestic Spying" would include innocent civilians, while "Terrorist Survailance" is a more accurate term for what's going on. The govt says they're only targeting those connected with terrorism, so unless you have proof to the contrary we should take them at their word. Innocent until proven guilty, my friend. - 2nd Piston Honda 04:58, 27

January 2006 (UTC)

Guilty. Wisco 05:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... is that link even about wiretapping? It looks like it's just about taking pictures of war protests. Did I miss something? --LV (Dark Mark) 15:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Domestic spying means spying on anyone living in the U.S., terrorist or not, citizen or not. "Domestic". It's illegal to do it without a warrant, and George W. Bush has admitted to doing it. I don't see what's so foggy or confusing about this issue. It's about as straightforward as you can get. Kevin Baastalk 18:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Except for the fact that the U.S. Congress gave the President broad executive powers to defend the U.S. Plus, members of Congress also knew, so should they all be taken down too? The whole thing about the name is ridiculous anyways. Why do people always fight over language? Everyone knows what is being done. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I frankly think that any use of the words terror or terrorism are POV, and by using the words wikipedia would implicitly be buying into the explanation of the administration. Also, not every president has conducted domestic spying in the way this has -- so that's why it's a controversy. If it were simply legal spying on of terror suspects, there would be no controversy and it wouldn't justify inclusion. Domestic is not POV, because it is spying on Americans, which for years has had an important legal distinction. It's purposed to be used only for national security, but that's what Nixon claimed too, and Nixon's use of domestic spying turned out to be almost completely political. It would be POV to aggressively speculate that the spying is being used for political means, but it's also POV to assume that is is used exclusively for national security.
Something on the order of, (1) The administration admits to initiating extra-judicial spying on Americans following 9/11. (2) Some groups have asserted that the program began earlier. (3) The administration claims the spying was used for national security, not for political means. Because there is no third party audit of it, this claim cannot be validated or invalidated. (4) Many legal scholars consider the spying to be against both statutory law, and the constitution. Leave the rest to the main article. Those are the undisputed facts - Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, but it should document the events without buying into (or rejecting) the party line.Ken 22:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... except those are not "undisputed facts". Many legal scholars consider it to be well within the presidential powers granted to him by Congress, and the way you frame your statements is not NPOV. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think the argument over the legality of the domestic spying is purely political -- inside of legal circles, there's no question over its illegality. But there is a political debate with considerable numbers of opinions on both sides, so the political debate over its legality is very real. I think it's fair to document that there is a debate instead of having wikipedia declare the program's illegality, but claiming that much of any plurality of experts is on the side of the administration is unverfiable, because it isn't true.
In fact, 14 of the country's top constitutional scholars will tell you as much.[5] -- Ken 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
More approriate nomenclature would be "Terrorist Survailance". The government is not "spying" on your calls to Aunt Mabel. They are listening to calls that are made to/from known Al-Qaeda opperatives where at least one end originates overseas.
Or so we've all been told. The point of requiring a warrant is that without such legal means, there is NO WAY to protect our civil liberties from encroachment. In every instance when a government is given power, it misuses it to some extent - or so 'small-government' Republicans used to believe. Minimizing the impact of this violation of the Constitution is incredibly un-American and non-factual. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I still think use of any words involving the root word terror is inherently POV. It should be survailance, because that's more precise than the word spying. I think domestic survailance is the most exact term and its status as either isn't really in question.-- Ken 03:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
'Surveillance' can be conducted legally, 'spying' has an illegal connotation, in my experience - making 'domestic spying' the perfect term in my opinion. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

real footage of him drunk?

http://www.digyourowngrave.com/george-bush-drunk-speech/

Without looking I would still bet that is the clip from the Late Late show. Arkon 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
you're good. 132.241.245.49 06:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, on the topic, there is legitimate footage of him a little 'tipsy' giving a mini-speech (toast?) at a friend's wedding, though it's certainly outdated footage, from long before he was President. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


September '01 Caption Incorrect

While reading this article, I came upon a mis-labeled caption stating that the pic of Bush with a bullhorn at the WTC site was taken on September 14th, 2001. According to all the major sources I have read (ABC News, NBC, the Associated Press) this pic was actually taken on September 13th, the day before. Could some one further verify this for me? This would be greatly appreaciated since I have no Wikipedia account.

According to the White House web site, Bush's visit to the WTC site was on September 14. This also matches my recollection. [6]Brandon39 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Link incorrectly labeled or missleading

"Audio archive of the Bush's weekly radio addresses" [7]in the External Links section is currently linked to "The Offical Official Parody of President Bush's Weekly Radio Address". This site has really amusing content but others may not share my sense of humor, the site is rather missleading, with the exact same look and feel as the White House site with the exception of the title bar. Could someone who has a wikipedia account please point the link to the offical site "White House Radio" [8] and/or rename the link so that it is clearly labeled as a parody site. -- Flyscan 143.238.68.131 12:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Good catch...I hadn't noticed that and I'll be glad to fix it.--MONGO 13:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan Keyes' criticism of George Bush for naming Jesus as his favorite philosopher

The best comment by Keyes can be found during an interview with Crossfire at the Alan Keyes archive:

Press: Well, the other night at the debate he showed some conviction when the question was asked about the political philosopher that's influenced you the most. You said the founding fathers. I thought it was a pretty good answer. George W. Bush said Jesus Christ. Do you think he was showing conviction there or was it pure political pragmatism?
Keyes: No, sad to say, I was -- I think he was showing an entire misunderstanding of the question. I found it kind of shocking and I think a lot of people did. Not, by the way, because of all the separation of church and state nonsense, no, but because G.W. Bush thinks that Jesus Christ was a philosopher, and this is not possible. Philosophers are people who seek the truth. Jesus Christ is the truth. And there is a vast difference between the one category and the other individual. If he puts Christ in that kind of a category, then he has secularized him to a degree that reduces, in fact, what he really is. I don't admire Christ, and he doesn't influence my life. I worship him. He is the living son of the living God, and he doesn't influence my mind, he shapes, guides and commands that mind, because he is the sovereign of my will. Now, if -- that's not a philosopher's role, and I just found it strange that asked that question, you would respond with Christ. The most influential figure, certainly, but thinker, political philosopher, Jesus Christ was not a thinker, quote/unquote. He was the word itself. And so I just found it to be kind of -- what can I say? I thought it was a little bit of a misunderstanding of the question. And I also thought that it reflected a misunderstanding of who Christ really is.
I have restored MONGO's deletion of this line, on the basis of this citation. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

C'mon, guys! This looks like the White House's official bio. -- NGerda 05:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the opposite is true. It's doubtful the White official bio would discuss in any detail the unfactual based accord of his "substance abuse" issues, or his "military controversy" or contradict the issues regarding the the War on Terror, or elaborate on international opinion polls.--MONGO 15:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If both sides are unhappy, it sounds like the ideal compromise. :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep...mutually assured destruction!--MONGO 16:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
MONGO and I now both have a great deal of mutual regard, and I consider him a great friend, but we first met when we clashed as foes on this article. Anyone who fancies a giggle should dig into the history of this talk page for our names, oh around February to June of last year I suppose. MONGO was new and I was still a bit wet behind the ears. I'm happy with the result and I think it's part of Wikipedia that makes me most proud. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Ditto for my experience. MONGO's a good guy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Made me blush...gee thanks!--MONGO 20:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Phony and Malicious "Controversy" over President Bush's National Guard Service

This article fails to make clear that this phony "controversy" is nothing but a malicious and baseless attack on President Bush from the Left. The unsubstantiated allegations about Bush skipping service, etc. are made to sound legitimate, which they are not.

This article must mention the disgraced leftist journalists Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' failed attempt to smear Bush's reputation in September 2004 (less than 2 months before the election) using proven forgeries purporting to be official National Guard records. CBS News has officially and unambiguously disavowed all claims to those documents' authenticity. Bush-hating leftist contributors might wish they were real, but this does not make it so.

I note that Wikipedia has locked the public out from fixing this ridiculous article. Why? To perpetuate your anti-Bush propaganda without further complication?

Unless this article is changed by its owners to make clear that this wrongly labeled "controversy" has never been proven to be anything other than a false and baseless attack against the president, then Wikipedia is engaging in leftist propaganda of its own and has damaged its credibility.

-ATS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.1.133 (talk • contribs) 23:45, January 14, 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia have plenty of right wing editors who have edited this article. If you would like to edit this article, which was protected due to anonomyous vandalism, sometimes at the rate of 3 vandals per minute, make an account and make a few edits to other articles first. Then you will automatically be granted access to protected articles. To be clear: this article was protected so that those who hate Bush - the LEFT wing - could not defame him here. Anyhoo, if you can factually prove your claims about Bush not showing up for duty as propaganda, do so on this talk page. Please support your case using reputable sources (i.e. not The Weekly Standard or The National Review). CastAStone|(talk) 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • (a) Shouting removed. (b) See WP:NPOV. "False and baseless attack" is as POV as anything you're complaining about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is to whomever is defending the claim.

The burden is on the accuser to produce evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty, and that his honorable discharge was therefore undeserved. Other than the proven forgeries you're evidently relying upon -- revealing you to be a leftie who will circulate any lie about Bush so long as it portrays him negatively -- what is your basis for leaving in this claim, without providing references, citations, proof or evidence of any kind? What are you using to "factually prove" your unsupported claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.26.82 (talk • contribs) 03:04, January 15, 2006 (UTC)

  • Please, no personal attacks. And sign your posts with ~~~~. Now, which claim are we leaving in? The article says "Critics say XXX; Bush supporters say YYY". Is there a particular sentence or paragraph you object to? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You know full well what you're doing. Critics of Bush also say he lied about WMDs, that he withheld evidence from Congress, etc., etc. Just because people who hate him say idiotic things which have NEVER been substantiated in any way -- such as the claim that he missed Guard duty solely on the basis of forged documents and that he therefore received an undeserved honorable discharge -- you are not justified in including these and other baseless assertions in an article pretending to be unbiased and encyclopedic in nature. Placing this unsupported claim in quotes, i.e., using the typical propagandist's phony and anonymous shield of "Critics say..." -- without providing any specific names, references or citations to support it -- betrays whoever posted it, and whoever refuses to change it, for precisely what they are.

Challenging you to defend your beliefs does not constitue a "personal attack", however it's not surprising that a person of the Left would respond that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.7.247 (talk • contribs) 16:58, January 15, 2006 (UTC)

  • ...revealing you to be a leftie who will circulate any lie about Bush... is both a personal attack and a violation of WP:AGF. And if you're talking about me, it's also inaccurate. At any rate, this conversation appears done; the issue was a significant one during the 2004 election (whether or not it had any basis in truth), and will be reported on in this article (as it is now) without giving any particular credence to either side. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

A call for calm (on both sides)

To the unregistered people who have concerns about the controversies about George W. Bush, your concerns are important to the registered members editing this article. However, bear in mind these controversies were moved to the elections section from the Bush prior to 2000 section to make the context of said controversies more fair and balanced. (If you see earlier I had tagged these articles for this exact controversy and nobody objected to my moving of these sections and adding a stub tag to the Bush prior to 2000 section).

In my humble opinion, the fact that these controversies are in the elections section now put the controversies in context by implying they were allegations leveled by the oppostion to Bush (it is an election after all).

BlueGoose 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me just make something clear hear: burden of proof always lies on the person making the extraordinary claim. In this case, that would be George W. Bush. Specifically, George W. Bush has claimed that he served honorably in the U.S. military. That's an exraordinary claim. Kevin Baastalk 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hehe... --LV (Dark Mark) 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Alan Keyes

"Alan Keyes did smile during the debates when Bush made the comment about Jesus Christ." (source:MSNBC debate video)

I need some input regarding this sentence. I had put it in and it was taken out because it was factual yet not relevant/unimportant. And I'm torn as to whether that argument is correct or whether this sentence or something analogous to it provides context to the motives of Keyes' criticism. BlueGoose 08:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Fact

To prove no one will ever be happy on how this entry is handled. This page is the most revised page in all of Wikipedia with 27809 revisions. More than 2 1/2 times the number 2 "wikipedia" with 11275. Here's the rest of the top 10 

3.  Jesus (10045 revisions)
4.  Adolf Hitler (9627 revisions)
5.  Hurricane Katrina (9200 revisions)
6.  United States (8365 revisions)
7.  2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (7231 revisions)
8.  September 2005 (7113 revisions)
9.  John Kerry (7049 revisions)

10. Michael Jackson (7029 revisions)

So, going by this, people are about 3 times likely to get upset about how Bush is portrayed than Jesus and Hitler. Squiggyfm 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

lol Well done, Squiggy. That last comment had me roaring with laughter. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Who thje hell cares about September 2005? BlueGoose 01:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I do damnit! I do!--152.163.100.74 22:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Connections to the bin Laden family

I see no mention of connections between the bin Laden family and the Bush family/George W. Bush here or at Bush family. Shouldn't something this important be on this page? It's on the bin Laden family page.[9] Cparker 00:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_38&oldid=1088639158"