Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 16

Factual Error?

 * His second term is scheduled to end January 20, 2009.

Wouldn't his second term end January 19, 2009, with the next Presidential winner beginning on January 20, 2009? How does the timing of that work out? Is the President the President until the very moment the subsequent President-elect takes the Oath of Office? WCityMike 22:22, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the outgoing President remains in office until sometime during the day on January 20, when his successor is sworn in. I think they usually do the Inauguration around noon.  JamesMLane 23:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's enshrined in law - the 20th amendment to the constitution reads "Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January [of the years in which such terms would have ended] and the terms of their successors shall then begin. "Manning 06:16, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

still no information about the deficit
why not? is it not  interesting?

This seems to be fixed Mir 03:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorten this page
Page is over 50K, past the recommended 32K limit. It is understandable to have lots of info for the President of the United States, but perhaps we could restructure this a bit. My recommendations: 1. Move some more election/re-election stuff to another page. 2. Remove (at least) one of the Al Gore photos - two is a bit much, especially considering there are no pictures of Kerry.

re-election
Please don't forget the part about this being the largest popular vote in the history of the US. Thanks.--66.53.136.79 08:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry dude, this isn't the largest popular vote in history. This is the largest popular vote since 1988 when his dad was elected. [User:Revmachine21|Revmachine21] 11:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)]

Dude....1988 popular vote: 48,882,808....2004 popular vote: 56,834,147....which number is bigger? http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/10092020.htm "But Bush's Electoral College victory - and the largest popular vote total ever for a presidential candidate - not only avenged his father's 1992 re-election defeat but also gave him new license to pursue the tax cuts and the war on terror that have been at the center of his platform." --66.53.136.79 16:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, that in itself is significant in modern American politics. I wouldn't put anything but the fact there but it deserves to be in the article. [User:GABaker|GABaker]

Please do not forget that the Little Bush re-election is the narrowest for a sitting President since Wilson in 1916 and that Kerry garnered for a challenger an extraordinary amount of votes (The largest in history!!!). Just over 100,000 extra Kerry votes in Ohio would have spelt the end of W. Forget the popular vote it is an interesting stat. but it does not matter in deciding the President.

Holden 27

Eh, the population gets bigger every year. You could point out that more people voted for Bush this time (or, if you prefer, Kerry) than the entire population of the US in the year 1800. That tells you lots about how many people were around in 1800, but not a lot about the mandate. Similarly, back in 2000, people used to point out that despite losing the popular vote, Bush had received more votes than Clinton had. So? What is interesting about this election is that Bush received both a plurality of votes cast, as well as a majority of votes case. He is the first president since his father to do so. Also interesting might be the turnout, which was quite high. What is not interesting is the raw numbers of votes, which tells you nothing about popularity, mandates, or winners. (Of course, had Ohio gone differently, Bush might have a popular vote majority and still lost, which is another reason not to obsess over popular vote counts). Codayus

Is there a reason that "The results of the 2004 election are still contested however, see 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities," got deleted? Is this something to revert? (This person also corrected his drunk driving to a DUI, which apparently was more accurate.) --Al Fox 21:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd imagine that the item was removed because the results aren't contested; the voting margin was significant, the challenger conceded, and the few people who continue to believe Kerry possibly won--Keith Olberman, etc.--have been refuted.--Dan Moore 01:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page suggestion: Reactions to the Reelection of George W. Bush
I would love to see an article on the public reactions to Bush's reelection. Everything from Michael Moore and that guy who shot himself at ground zero to Rush limbaugh and co. I don't feel I know enough about it to write it myself. Seabhcan 17:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bush, Kerry: Short term page protection?
The recent edit histories of George W. Bush and John Kerry have been a slew of petty vandalisms and their reverts. Barring some major unexpected developments that will necessitate serious additions to their respective articles, I suspect that more of the same is about all we can expect over the next few days. I think temporary vprotected status for both pages to election day might be warrented. Objections, comments? (this same text added at Talk:George W. Bush, Talk:John Kerry, and Wikipedia talk:Protected page). -- Infrogmation 19:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That's probably a good idea, but we'll need to make sure all disputes are sorted out before we place it under "house arrest". Also, "election day" could, could, be after 2nd November due to challenges in the process. What do we do about that?Chewyman 08:57, 29 Oct 2004 (NZT)


 * I would vote yes to Protection of all campigain related pages (with exception of major changed until after the election. PPGMD 20:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't support this. There is no telling what could happen during the week that might be pedia-worthy. Stick to the usual vprotect procedures. Things won't really get interesting here until after the election. Gazpacho 20:07, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have protected both pages. Please direct discussion to Protected page where it can be reviewed by people following either page as well as those Wikipedians concerned with page protection in general.  Please note, I have deliberately placed the  at the bottom of the page for cosmetic reasons.  Officially it is supposed to go at the top but that is merely a holdover from the days before a warning appeared when sysops edited a protected page, to be sure that any sysop would be aware of the protection before editing.  No longer justified now that we have the warning.  uc 20:09, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Regrettable, but I agree. -- ChrisO 20:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

bush eats babies.
 * That insightful comment was by User:68.46.245.19 PPGMD 22:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support this (although I didn't think it was necessary so early). I think all campaign-related pages should remain protected until at least 3rd November. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 22:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Grammatical change
Once the protection is lifted I would offer a minor grammatical editing of the last paragraph as follows.
 * His cabinet includes figures prominent in past Republican administrations, notably Colin Powell, who had served as and United States National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H. W. Bush, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had served in the same position under Gerald Ford.

to


 * His cabinet includes figures prominent in past Republican administrations, notably Colin Powell, who had served as United States National Security Advisor under Ronald Reagan and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H. W. Bush, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who had served in the same position under Gerald Ford.

pardon if I put this edit in the wrong place .lloydh
 * Nope, it's in the right place. I have made this minor change (removing an "and" in the first sentence). Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 22:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Slovenian interwiki
Please add:  George W. Bush --andrejj 19:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. -- ChrisO 20:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why the "Vote for Kerry" banner on the Bush page?
Please remove it and place it on the correct candidate's page while it's still Election Day.

I agree, it doesn't belong there. And if there is one on Kerry's page saying vote Bush it should be removed as well. This is suppose to be a non-partisan place people.


 * I don't see such a banner, even after clearing my cache. Probably one of the images was vandalized, being replaced by a pro-Kerry banner, but the vandalism was fixed.  Clear your cache and open the article again.  If you still see a banner or other inappropriate image, specify which one it is. JamesMLane 17:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It was there - quite a creative partisan added it to the protected page template, thus it was visible on all protected pages. andy 18:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoever did that? I think it is one of the sysops, whoever he/she is should be removed. This is unethical.


 * Now there is picture of hitler. Wikipedia can not be trusted I guess.


 * Thanks, the picture and the message are gone now.


 * Intermittent vandalism in the past has included the substitution of a Hitler picture for one of the intended ones. If you accessed the article during one of those periods, you may still see the wrong image, even if it's been fixed.  Clear your cache and look again.  If you still see a Hitler picture, specify which one it is, which will make the correction much easier. JamesMLane 19:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Let me give you facts. You'll have to take my word for it. The page history says this page has not been modified in the last so many days. But I swear, there were changes like - Hitler's image next to Bush's image. And instead of this page has been protected message there was this message that read this page has been protected by a Republican (I think) and that to protect your freedom of speech you should vote for Kerry. I am in one of the Labs in my university and everytime someone logs out the cache is cleared automatically. So it makes obvious sense that there is not issue with cache here. I think it has to do with this thing someone modified this if not the page itself.


 * Yes, the page itself wasn't changed. But the page includes other things - like the photo, or the protected warning text at top which can be edited. However now the vprotected cannot be edited anymore because it is also protected. And hopefully once the elections are over this article won't be the prime vandalism target anymore. But vandalism is an inherent feature of a wiki, but normally it is dealt with quite fast. andy 19:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone Changed Pictures
The Picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BushCAGovs.jpg has been changed at the source to a Political Statement over the image. This needs changed ASAP. This is stupid and unethical.


 * Fixed. If you still see the propaganda version you should clean your cache. I also protected that image, so it should be impossible to sneakily change that image anymore. andy 22:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone also changed the picture of Bush and his duaghters so it will flash "Kerry for President!". -DNewhall

i still see the flashing Kerry for President...that's pathetic to do to an encyclopedia article, i hope someone can fix it soon. -shane613

HELP - URGENT fix required
 check it out! it flashes 'kerry for president'. have refreshed and same thing. does anyone know how to fixs this? Nuclear man 05:30, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Whoops someone already said that - strange though, it's still showing 'kerry for president'. fix required ASAP. Nuclear man 05:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK cleared my browser cache, and the problem persists. This problem needs to be fixed as soon or sooner than possible. Nuclear man 05:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Problem still hasn't been fixed. This is the sort of thing that gives wikipedua a bad reputation.
 * It works for me. It's got to be a caching problem of some sort - perhaps your ISP's cache? -- ChrisO 08:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah could just be my ISP i suppose - although i wonder how many other people have the same problem, i mean surely theres more than 1 ISP that caches that sort of stuff... Nuclear man 10:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't see it, so obviously it has been fixed. That said, the way to get past "ISP problems" is that what you were seeing was probably from your ISP's proxy cache.  With most browsers if you hold sown the shift key while clicking reload/refresh it will force the proxy server to grab a new copy of the page/image/object rather than use the one it has got.  Otherwise, depending on the ISP's proxy configuration, you'd have to wait around 24 hours.  --BenM 12:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protected
Given the recent spate of vandalism, and the number of extremely angry/frustrated people in the U.S. (and abroad) today, I'm locking this down against vandals right now. If someone else wants to unprotect, they can, but then please do so knowing you'll watch this. The vandalism was literally so fast I couldn't keep up with it, from multiple IPs so that rollback was ineffective. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm unprotecting on a probationary period. If it gets out of hand, I'll have to reprotect.  I'm hoping that vandalism won't be as heavy since the election is now over, but I realize that people are still pretty angry.  This goes without saying, but I'll guard this page like a hawk. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 21:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gotta say that I think that's a bad idea. Having had numerous vandals editting the page less than an hour ago I expect to see it continue.  Hope it doesn't though. violet/riga (t) 22:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I also hope it doesn't. We've only had one vandalism so far (page move), but I suspect this is probably because most aren't aware that it's unprotected.  I'll watch the page closely. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 22:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've reprotected it as per Jamesday's request. I suggest that we leave this page protected until at least the weekend - I don't know about the rest of you, but having this page vandalised every minute (literally) is getting very wearing. -- ChrisO 22:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shows what people think of Bush.


 * No, it's juvenile idiocity - what's the point of taking your frustration out on Wikipedia? -- ChrisO 00:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Can someone at least repair the vandalized photo near the top of the page? I think we can all do without that. MisfitToys 23:26, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone get rid of the middle-finger screencap that's replaced the image above "The Bush family watches tee ball on the White House lawn."? Not sure if this is the same one MisfitToys was talking about. --Zantolak 23:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. The image is now locked. -- ChrisO 00:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should probably go ahead and add something about him winning the election, with or without mentioning the help of Diebold Electronics and ESS.

Shame to have to protect such a current topic that needs updating. I strongly feel we should try to leave this unprotected. How about unprotecting and 24-hour blocking vandals? J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 00:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. I tried unprotecting, but it was too much.  I couldn't revert if more than one vandalism occured with multiple IPs because I couldn't access the older versions (problem on wikimedia's end...something died).  It seems to be working now.  Since this topic is changing, I'll try unprotecting again after I have ensured that I'll be able to access older versions and after I'm done my homework ;) -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 01:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This specefic sequence of posts got mentioned in the New York Times yesterday. Now no matter what we've made a difference

List of recent vandals
Please help to add to this list so that we can ban repeat vandals and make wikipedia a better place. The easy way to find vandals of this page is to find an edit that has been reverted, check that it is indeed a vandalism, then add it to the list in the proper format.

The format
This should probably be kept to about 20 unique entries.

Format: Date, Time. IP(IP location)/Username: 'excerpt'

IP Locator

If the above IP locator doesn't work, then you can perform a WhoIs Query to find the location of the co. that is hosting that address.

The List
2004 Nov 6, 13:50. 216.152.26.75(Fayetteville, AR, US): 'ate babies'

2004 Nov 11, 12:31. 12.104.39.176(Downingtown, PA, US): 'with big business interests telling him what to do via a radio transmitter'

2004 Nov 11, 09:37. 205.222.241.3(Germantown, MD, US): 'Hadal Sucks'

2004 Nov 11, 14:40. 137.22.4.92(Northfield, MN, US): ' "*****." In response to the question ... by reporter David Fink. Bush was 42.'

2004 Nov 11, 13:29. 205.222.243.87(Germantown, MD, US): 'He was never elected.' 'Failed Businessman' 'FASCIST'

2004 Nov 11, 13:45. 64.30.78.222(Shrewsbury, MA, US): '"**** Bush"'

2004 Nov 11, 11:59. 66.12.191.164(San Pedro, CA, US): 'Warmonger'

2004 Nov 11, 09:49. 200.90.243.90(Santiago, RM, CL): 'By cheating and bribing'

2004 Nov 11, 09:45. 200.28.81.120(Santiago, RM, CL): 'got the margin by promoting fear' 'failed and stupid'

2004 Nov 11, 06:05. 193.44.212.150(Hallsberg, SE): 'Bush has many nicknames, such as idiot,'

2004 Nov 22, 11:57. 68.185.2.134(St. Louis, MO, US): 'George Bush smokes pot at Camp David'

2004 Nov 23, 12:15. 131.155.144.226(Eindhoven, NB, NL): replaced entire article with 'who?'

Discussion of recent vandals
Oh God... "He has since used the tragedy to forward an agressive policy of pre-empting any nation he feels is "evil." This would be quite typical of any fundamentalist, uncaring, moronic asshole, not unlike Mr. Bush." -delete.- I don't necessarily love the man, but come on! NPOV!! -15:53, 7 November 2004. -Thorns among our leaves

but its true, and im being perfectly serious 209.197.155.46 (Calgary, AB, CA)

Yeah, well. I've resisted the urge to vandalize this page, but this is not the place for political debate of any sort. Any comment in support of the man should be deleted with similar haste. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any pro-Bush comment in Talk:George_W._Bush or in the article itself? Again, I favoured another candidate Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate. -shrugs.- On Wikipedia, I put NPOV before my personal views, which is difficult at times. ;) - Thorns among our leaves 20:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added to the list directly above. I hope I got the right idea. --Al Fox 04:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the list, it really helps. I'm hoping that admins will drop by occasionally and ban any users on this list that haven't made any good edits. I resolved that last IP you added and it came from a small company in Sweden. What do people from Chile and Sweden (now the Netherlands also) have to contribute to this page? (PS, I'm not racist, this is an honest inquiry about whether foreigners can possibly know more about our president than we can.) --RW 21:34, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Crystal ball?
Is it really correct to put "2001-2009" for Bush's term of office (at the bottom of the page)? He could be assassinated, impeached, could resign, die in office... Unless someone has a crystal ball, this ought to be changed to "2001-present" or "2001-2009(expected)" or something like that. --Fermatprime 02:40, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea, 2001-2009(projected) would be accurate and NPOV. (Changing that right now (Oops, it's still protected)) --RW 21:56, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph gives the date on which his term is scheduled to end. That's why I think the table should just say "2001-", leaving the ending date blank. JamesMLane 22:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, or he might suddenly disappear from Earth in the "twinkling of an eye". I agree that "2001-present" or "2001- " is correct. JamesMLane 03:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Use an em dash (&mdash;). --Blade Hirato 03:43, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Common practice has been to mark it 2001–, while it is likely that he'll finish his term, there are no guarantees. We'll just agree that one of us will put 2009 in when he leaves office...Mackensen (talk) 08:01, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the exact same thing...anything can happen in four years. So who's allowed to edit this thing now? --Feitclub 12:36, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree, but for a different reason. I envisage no obstacle to a constitutional amendment removing Presidential term limits and President George W Bush being re-elected again. And again and again. Then another amendment allowing foreigners to take the top job. And we'll be ready for Arnie. Reithy 12:42, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's small consolation, but (to plagiarize Bill Maher here and make it relevant to your post) it can only be a step up to go to an ambitious immigrant who clearly loves and believes in this country and is, for the current Republican party, pretty centrist, after having had the former town drunk of Crawford Texas for 8 years. Gzuckier 16:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I doubt it. Messing with the Constitution is not something taken lightly. PPGMD


 * Except when it's to redefine marriage... Adambisset 14:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Only because it allows one state (a minority at the moment) to allow gay marriage, and all 49 of the remaining states have to recognize the gay marriages, under full faith and credit. If it wasn't for full faith and credit, it would truly be a state issue. PPGMD


 * But full faith and credit applies to all state laws concerning the status of individuals, and therefore if this makes something not "truly" a state issue, then nothing concerning the status of an individual can "truly" be a state issue. Kevin Baas | talk 00:31, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)


 * Both of the foregoing comments appear to assume that the law is clear and settled on this point. It is not.  At any rate, the issue is not one that should be addressed in any detail in this article, and no one seems to be suggesting that it should. JamesMLane 00:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, he gets to name 4 Supreme Court Justices. I guess with his cronies in place messing with the Constitution suddenly becomes very easy!
 * Well, the reason the rule was added was because we didn't want what the President to be reelected until he died (i.e. FDR). While I think Bush isn't going to be dead if a 3rd term was possible, FDR came under intense criticism for running again. In any case, I think it's better to be ambiguous in this case. We're not prophets and going with convention isn't always right. Moof

Personal favorite prediction... "2000 - December 2004 when evangelical aliens, needing a gung-ho Texan to show'em how to get their eagle on, abducted him ." Revmachine21 11:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image to move
I would recommend moving the photo from the St. Pete campaign rally to the page for the Bush campaign; there's plenty of informal photos on this article, and only one (from a debate) on the other page. The St. Pete photo really adds nothing here. MisfitToys 21:13, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think an informal campaign pic is worth keeping. I agree with you, though, that the campaign article could use a pic.  Instead of moving or duplicating this one, though, what would you think about using  -- a different pic of Bush at the same rally?  That photo, taken from a different angle, adds the sport of trying to guess what's in that notebook on the lectern.  :)  JamesMLane 01:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If that doesn't work for you, I have photos (and sun burn) from the Tampa rally held on October 31st. PPGMD


 * JamesMLane, I am not convinced. Please supply more proof. 216.153.214.94 03:55, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * For any of you who don't understand the foregoing comment -- welcome to the wild wacky wonderful world of Rex071404, a/k/a 216.153.214.94. In his few short months here, Rex has managed to convince just about everyone who's had any contact with him that he is, to put it mildly, a problem user.


 * Even for Rex, though, this edit is a classic. MisfitToys made a proposal about the use of images in this article.  I suggested another approach.  Rex's latest manifestation of his complete lack of Wikiquette is to go through all my recent edits in every article and insert an identical unspecific demand for "more proof".  As is his custom, he doesn't pay attention to what anyone else has actually said.  The result here is that he wants "proof" of a suggestion about which pic to use!


 * I'll add this to the mountain of evidence already accumulated at Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence. It is time that Rex be banned. JamesMLane 05:31, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please disregard JamesMLane's conjecture based assertion. His edits as of late indicate he's misunderstanding certain basic facts. Also, he continually refers to "Rex" for some weird reason. 216.153.214.94 05:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ugly officeholder boxes
Would anyone object if I merged the three ugly office holder boxes at the bottom of the page into one box, so it looks nicer? I promise I wouldn't edit the content of the article. Gentgeen 12:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * please do, it's been bothering me as well. same with reagan's article. Wolfman 13:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * When you do, please change the years he's president, it should be 2001-Present (not 2009, since that's not definite, see earlier discussion under Crystal Ball?) Lachatdelarue [[User talk:Lachatdelarue|(talk)]] 14:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

lead
erm, why isn't his party mentioned in the lead? or is that so obvious it's been missed off?
 * I think the convention is to put it in the fact table. --Xanadu 19:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of Bush
An anonymous editor deleted many of the critical sources from the "Further reading" list. When that attempt at censorship was reverted, the same anon came back and moved those sources to the bottom of the list. I suggest that the books by Bush should be listed first, perhaps under a subheading "By George W. Bush" or if not, then followed by a blank line to set them off from the others. The ones about Bush should then be listed either chronologically or, what would be my preference, alphabetically by author. Trying to give more prominence to the pro-Bush works is not NPOV. Many of these sources would fall neatly into "pro-Bush" or "anti-Bush" categories, but not all would, so I don't think we should try to organize them that way. Does anyone object to alpha by author?
 * I asked the person why, their response was, "I reordered the further reading list so that people can more easily find books that are in line with their political ideals." Due to the subjectiveness of such ordering, as you have mentioned; I'm in favor of alphabetical order.

The charge that the Taliban were harboring bin Laden can't be stated as an established fact. Given the limits of the Taliban's control of Afghanistan and the strength of bin Laden's own forces, there would have been a serious question whether the Taliban government could seize bin Laden even if it wanted to. The much more powerful U.S. military couldn't flush him out of the mountains where he was thought to be. Therefore, I've restored the "accused of harboring" language. JamesMLane 07:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That isn't consistant with the position the Taliban took at the time. They were pretty explicit in stating that bin Ladin was their guest, he was under their protection, and they would not be giving the US access to him. They weren't saying "we wish we could help, but we don't know where he is". Are we really disagreeing about the "accused" part, or is it that you think "harboring" is the wrong word? -CrucifiedChrist


 * It's certainly not the case that they said they wished they could help. They were hostile to the U.S. and also had a political interest in not admitting that they didn't control large chunks of the country.  Nevertheless, they weren't harboring him if he was actually holed up in the mountains beyond their reach.  I think "harboring" is the right word as long as it's presented as an accusation.  We could drop "accused" if we toned it down to something like "the Taliban didn't immediately seize bin Laden and hand him over", but that wouldn't be fair to Bush because it wouldn't fairly convey his rationale for invading, which was the accusation of harboring. JamesMLane 08:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Hello, I'm a frequent reader, but a new member.) Just pointing out the current bias/spin that may exist. I hope I found the right place.

"Although President Bush did meet with the National Urban League, he is the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover." True, but could somebody find the facts on how it was the NAACP's disrespect (or something along those lines) toward Bush that contributed to this? It might be a somewhat one-sided imbalance of facts not to note his reluctance to speak with people who so blatantly opposed him.


 * Your argument is valid, but I have one in return: Bush's policies in civil rights should justifiably be impugned. No wonder NAACP really, really disliked him. For an official flavor to all this, you can read the full report at this site by the US Commission on Civil Rights assailing Bush's record. Also, this may cause some outrageous responses, but respect doesn't come with the title. And for those Bush fans who will jump on this piece as being biased: the only approvable thing he probably has done in matters of race relations is having a racially diverse cabinet. DoesPHalt 05:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Similar to most of his domestic policy, he claims to be doing precisely the opposite of his actions..." Okay, that's obviously an anti-Bush opinion. But I don't trust myself to decide whether to remove it, or edit it slightly, or what. Is anyone here more knowledgeable on this environmental policy controversy? -Al Fox

If you can find sourced information that corroborates with this Al, I'd love to hear what you can contribute to the article. And editing an article is as easy as the post you just made, if you mess up or anything its no big deal. Why don't you try re-writing that second line to something that is a bit more neutral? I'd be interested in hearing more about the NAACP's initial disrespect towards Bush. Welcome to being an editor at wikipedia :) --kizzle 03:54, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Redundant material
I have moved to Talk:George W. Bush/First term some recently added material (by the stuart, I believe) that is redundant and has NPOV problems, but parts of it might be worth integrating into the appropriate sections. Gazpacho 22:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I moved the block of imformation in question to George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States, rewrote and added to it and placed it in cleanup to hopefully removed the "NPOV" problems. I also created a new section in this article called "Years in the white house" and created the article George W. Bush's second term as president of the United States and put links to both of these articles in it. Whew!--The_stuart 22:10, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Margin of defeat
Edits have been reverted claiming 2004 was both a narrow and large defeat over Kerry. Which was it, if either? That should be permanently added to the article somewhere. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It depends. In terms of percentage, he won by only 3% (51 to 48), which you might consider narrow. However, thanks to the large voter turnout, he won by 3.5 million votes. In terms of the electoral college votes, he won 279 to 252, which is 52.5% to 47.5%. If it were up to me, neither would be stated, as the two might both be considered opinions. (I guess I don't really know what a narrow or large defeat is either.)

--Al Fox 02:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * One could legitimately say that it was the nth closest election ever in terms of percentage of electoral college votes (or popular vote). This would take some research though... Evercat 02:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Most of the slinging around of the numbers belongs at U.S. presidential election, 2004, but we should hit the highlights here. I put in Bush's margin in number of votes and in percent, and noted one historical reference "each way": that he was the first candidate since his father to receive a majority, and that his percentage edge was close by historical standards. JamesMLane 21:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That seems fair enough, and about as close to neutral as were going to get. There's a lot of ways of spinning the results both pro and against (examples follow) but this is hardly the place for 'em.


 * Example pro spin: The only Democrats to match his popular vote share in the past century were FDR and LBJ.  All other Democrats in that period got lower shares - and only FDR, LBJ, and Carter even won majorities.


 * Example anti spin: For a republican, he won by a small margin and with a tiny  chunk of the popular vote.  Nixon, Harding, Hoover, and Coolidge all got a larger share of the popular vote.  If Hoover gets a bigger share of the vote than you, you know you have problems.--Codayus 22:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protect again?
Should we protect this page again? Another wave of vandal edits and it doesn't seem like it's going to stop any time soon. violet/riga (t) 21:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So far, the RC patrol seems to be able to handle it without much strain. Protection is a serious measure, and it looks like semi-useful edits are starting to trickle in again. (Knock on wood!) Wait a bit. JRM 21:47, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
 * Well, a day ago I caught a picture of the Bush "One Finger Salute" on the Wikipedia Article. I thought it was inappropriate and thus, erased it. -- tlaktan
 * I think we should a lot of anons trolling this article also--198 00:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NYTimes
The New York Times did a story about the edit war on this page: Mudslinging Weasels Into Online History. I guess it's good publicity, but it would be nice if the author had pointed out that all the vandalism here could be (and was) rapidly undone. Oh well.--Carl 03:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Patriotic's edits
Patriotic, while this is going on, your edits are being reverted by people; please don't take this personally and please don't put them back in until the discussion is settled. We can always restore things from the history if it proves necessary. Discuss things out on the talk page first before going into an edit war. JRM 16:29, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Here's an sample of your edits:

''In foreign policy, the evidence and post-election victory statements Bush made show he lied when he stated he was against using the U.S. armed forces in "nation building" attempts abroad. Rather, it has become clear that Bush envisions himself a religious crusader, wielding American military might to bring freedom to the world.''

This is a point of view from a single person (Malcolm L. Kantzler), and not a very substantive one. You cannot simply include a link that shows a doctored image of Bush as the pope in a section about Bush's foreign policy&mdash;this is a biased comparison, and not factual. Even if Kantzler thinks so, his opinion does not prove that Bush envisions himself as a religious crusader&mdash;to claim that, you'd need to have a quote from Bush where he identifies himself as such, or else clearly define what a "religious crusader" is and show that Bush matches the criteria. Without that, it's just one person's opinion, and that's hardly material for an encyclopedia&mdash;no matter how that opinion is presented. JRM 16:36, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)


 * Patriotic, first off, external links (non-Wikipedian) go under the "External links" section, not the "Related articles" section. Second, as I said, please don't edit the article to re-include an edit that people already reverted. That accomplishes nothing, because people clearly don't agree with what you're adding, and they'll just keep reverting you (and then you revert them, etc., etc...) Convince people on the talk page that your edits are right, respond to objections if necessary.


 * If you wish to claim that the neutrality of an article is disputed, add to the top. Only that and nothing more. Then discuss what's wrong with the article on the talk page. JRM 16:50, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

The picture is not the substance. The article beneath it cites facts, including Bush's own quotes that say, yes, he is being driven by his religious "vision," to put troops in harm's way for reasons other than defense, and I agree it is costing and will cost America dearly.
 * But an encyclopedia cannot just say "Bush is a religious crusader, just go here and read and it's obvious". For one thing, the site never uses the words "religious crusader", that's your interpretation. If this reference were to be used, it would have to be presented in a neutral, factual way, like this:


 * On April 13, 2004, Bush held a news conference in the White House. According to Malcolm L. Kantzler, this speech is indicative of Bush's religious bias, and that consequently Bush's stated intent of bringing freedom to Iraq will do great harm, citing "the evils done in the name of religion". He specifically accuses Bush's initiatives of being "faith-based".


 * Now, that's factual. You can go to the site and I'll be a cotton-pickin' fool if this doesn't accurately (if perhaps too tersely) express Kantzler's opinion.


 * But there we're not done. If we included that, we would have to ask: why is Malcolm Kantzler in this article? Is Malcolm Kantzler representing a common view? If so, how do we know? Are their associations or spokespersons of major groups who have expressed the same opinion? Who are they? What did they say, and when? Malcolm Kantzler's opinions are themselves not encyclopedic. JRM 17:22, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

If there is a three-time edit-reversion block, then those who revert me are subject to it, as well.
 * Of course. We're not trying to determine who's naughty and who's nice, and I'm not threatening you. I just wanted to alert you to the potential problem. Also, please sign your edits by typing four tildes ~, this will make it easier for people to see who said what when. This is me typing four tildes: JRM 17:22, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Patriotic, please stop adding broken external links to the "Related articles" section. As others have noted, you are already well past the three-time reversion limit - if you persist you will be blocked. -- ChrisO 17:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean "broken" external links? All links show as active to my browser. Patriotic 17:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The link referred to is, and it gives a 404 Not Found. Wikipedia doesn't actually check whether links point to anything. JRM 17:56, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

The links you added cannot go under Information:


 * Bush's first-term ethics
 * U.S. presidential election, 2004—Alternate ending. It would've been glorious

Both are blatantly POV. The information section contains only links to places where additional information can be found, in neutral directories (like Yahoo). It should not contain links to opinion pages&mdash;these go into the directories themselves. If you check the Yahoo directory, for example, you will notice the section "Opposing Views", containing a wealth of Bush-opposed sites. We link to those so we don't have to repeat all that here. Putting such links directly under information gives them more weight than all the others, and that's not acceptable. JRM 18:10, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

It makes no difference who the writer is--it's what is written, and the work of someone who cares enough to speak out truthfully on issues of life and death should not be squelched. There are no lies there. Bush's words and actions speak for themselves and are well-documented. There is a bibliography also. This is not a regular encyclopedia, and nothing should be removed except that which is slanderous, libelous, plain vulgar without social or ethical value, or hate based. Otherwise, all you have here is the propaganda of the biased majority who have the most time on their hands. Patriotic 18:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You, JRM, are beginning to sound like a right-wing-conservative censor. There certainly is NOTHING POV about about "First-term ethics" entry. It is all factual and supported by bibliographical data if you bother to read it or look. It is informative, based upon historical fact, not opinion, and belongs there. Patriotic 18:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * From that link, first sentence.
 * More than 1,000 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since President Bush stood like a rooster aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier and crowed his mistaken, short-sighted, and false proclamation of victory in his war.
 * The death toll is not the issue, that can be verified. But "stood like a rooster and crowed his mistaken, short-sighted, and false proclamation" doesn't sound particularly neutral or factual to me. The article goes on and on with condemnations of this sort: "the record is pointing to a Bush administration that has continuously demonstrated a regrettable lack of respect for these principles."
 * I do not contend that the opinions presented are based on facts. They wouldn't be worth much if they weren't. I do contend that these facts are used to build up a strong opinion that is not composed of facts alone.
 * Don't misunderstand me. There is nothing wrong with those opinions. People are as much entitled to those opinions as they are to any others, but that's not the issue. When people come to our encyclopedia, they expect to be given accurate, unbiased information&mdash;not that same information filtered through the lenses of pro- or contra-Bush advocates. If we give links, they have to be either completely factual themselves, or we must clearly attribute the opinions presented. Simply putting in a link to such an opinion under a section that contains neutral link directories gives off the wrong impression.
 * Now, I don't know about you, but three links to the same anti-Bush site, operated by one person, do not seem to add to a neutral point of view. Instead, they bias towards this one person's views, Malcolm Kantzler.
 * I'd like to ask you this. Reading the article as it was before your additions, do you agree or disagree that it contains only factual, neutral information, provides links to all points of view, even if it does not list all those points of view itself, and does this without either glorifying or demonizing Bush? If not, would you please indicate what's wrong with it and how we should fix it? I'm hoping to have the neutrality dispute resolved. JRM 18:52, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)


 * I agree that these links weren't worth including. There's no general prohibition against linking to opinionated sites, though.  The NPOV policy includes reporting (though not adopting) significant points of view.  It's OK to link to an external site for that purpose, although a wikilink is preferable if one is available. JamesMLane 04:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page is protected
I have protected this page. Pat (or is that Malcolm), you should read NPOV. Gentgeen 18:50, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, it is not neutral. How could it be when the article says Bush is not nation building, when he is, and there is nothing to counter the false statement? You can't be neutral if you relate false statements without contradiction.


 * Please quote the part where it say that Bush is not nation building. The only reference to it I could find was
 * In foreign policy, he stated that he was against using the U.S. armed forces in "nation building" attempts abroad.
 * Note that it doesn't say Bush is not nation building. It says that Bush stated he was against nation building by U.S. forces. Now, whether or not people think he is actually doing that is another matter, that could be discussed on the main article: Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration (which includes no small amount of reported criticism, by the way) and might include nation building, but the statement itself is factual. JRM 20:18, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Or pose a question to a locked page.
 * The talk page is never locked, and questions on the content don't go on the main page anyway. JRM 20:18, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)


 * new item on everyone's reading list: Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Gentgeen 20:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm off for today. Mull everything over, Patriotic. We're not all pro-Bush conspirators out to hide the truth here, I can assure you. On the contrary: Wikipedia is your best shot at getting accurate information, because it strives for neutrality through consensus (as we are doing right now, as a matter of fact). If it turns out that some POV is misrepresented or underrepresented, it'll get fixed. That's why Wikipedia is so great. JRM 20:18, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Your article on Bush makes him out to be a great and honorable president. He is neither, and to allow this impression to prevail as you banter over your editorial minutia without concern for objective impartiality on the facts, as his unjust war gets hot, and the death toll climbs, is a disservice to the truth, to the future, and to America's place in it. You, and the rest who brought Bush's second term upon us, through your consensus of fear, deserve the future he is going to bring to America, and to which you are contributing. I'm through with it here, now that I see what it's about. I just hope that, down the road, you'll remember this and what you didn't do, as the toll mounts and the quality and justice of life here, and the standing of America and its citizens in the world, rightly diminishes during his second term.

So go ahead and unlock your page. You have won.

But all of us, not on Bush's gravy train, are the losers, as soon enough you'll realize. Patriotic 20:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Winning isn't everything. On Wikipedia, it's nothing.


 * Have a nice day, and try to put things in perspective. If you're concerned about the future of your country, I suggest getting involved in other matters than trying to tell a free encyclopedia edited by hundreds what "objective impartiality on the facts" is, if indeed there is such a thing.


 * For the record: I'm not American, and had I been, Bush would have been the last person I'd have voted for. I thoroughly dislike both the man and his administration. But Wikipedia is not the real world, we just write about it as best as we can. I'm sorry you both disagree and see no way to improve things other than having everyone agree with you. JRM 20:41, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)


 * You guys are doing a thankless job, monitoring this mess. I'm sure that eventually it will all get sorted out...in the meantime, thanks for trying to keep it sane.

I've unprotected the page. Lets see if it can be kept civil and NPOV. Gentgeen 00:22, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Patriotic, the only one who objected to the neutrality, seems to have gone. I'm tentatively removing the NPOV tag. JRM 06:00, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Cabinet resignations
As I said on the POTUS talk page (regarding the end of Bush's term, the ending date for resigning Cabinet officials is on the last day of their position. Ashcroft will likeley be AG into 2005, as he stated he will remain until his successor is confirmed. -- Jwinters | Talk 03:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that's likely. They probably won't try to take up confirming Gonzales in this year's lame-duck session, given the impending firestorm over his legal advice about the Geneva Conventions and other "quaint" notions.  Nevertheless, I don't think we should give an ending date based on speculation.  We can just state the fact that he said he'd serve until the confirmation of his successor. JamesMLane 05:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Colin Powell resigned november 15

Quotes
A better question / point of order: How many quotes should be on this page, before refering someone to the WikiQuote?

One of the first quotes is not correct. Bush never said, "Either your with us, or your against us". Althought that may be what one can deduce from the statement, it isn't correct. "Every nation and every region now has a decision to make, either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The page got locked so I couldn't make the update.


 * The world isn't such a black and white place: there is no good or evil side of the fence... at least that is what I believe. And it was awfully simplistic, reductionist, and childish for Bush, the leader of the free world, to make such an obtuse statement. So, according to this knife quote, it divides the world into those with the US or with the terrorists. Definitely, France and Germany are not with us. I find this quote to be so symbolic of Bush's simplistic, foolish mind. I welcome comments. -DoesPHalt 09:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also think this one is appropriate: "I can hear you! I hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon!" - To rescue workers at the World Trade Center, New York, September 14, 2001


 * I think the quote section is needlessly bloating an already large article. It originally started off with one quote and now people are adding just about anything (half of which I can't tell of whether it's genuine or bogus&mdash;nothing is attributed). Wikiquote exists for a reason, and that's why we link to it. Its quote section on George Bush is particularly extensive. IMO, the quotes section should just go. We're already up to 9 quotes, and there are many more that could (and probably will) reasonably be added. We could limit it to two or three "defining" quotes, but then, how are we ever going to decide on that and stick to it? So many Bush quotes are defining (or considered such). JRM 22:35, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This page needs stuff split out, and the quote section is an obvious candidate.  And as you say - by luck, we've got Wikiquote already here.  It'd be silly not to use it.  Link to Wikiquote, and I'd say leave all other quotes off this page.  If we could find one, good, representitive, NPOV quote - sure, but that sounds a little tricky.  Everyone has their own pet quote they think just has to be on there.  Codayus 23:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * (@anon) It's actually correct: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:78505972&refid=ink_puballtnews&skeyword=&teaser= Chewyman 04:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Broken link. Looks like it was a cached search of some kind?  Or, then again, now it's working for me.  I blame small green elves.  However, the disputed quote appears nowhere in the body of the preview, and its unclear to me if the headline is a quote or a paraphrase.  It appears the article is talking about this speech already linked above - and the quote does not appear in the transcript.  Nor can I turn up a single other instance of that wording using Google.  The comments of presidents tend to be archived pretty completely - it shouldn't be hard to find a transcript if he did say it.  Codayus 05:53, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: the White House website has a nasty habit of rewording and/or removing content. Go for documentation on neutral sites. Timbo 22:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Latest protection
Because of the continuing and repeated vandalism of this page, I propose we leave it protected for a period of seven days, unless something happens that requires a major addition to this article.. Yea or nay? --Modemac 14:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What qualifies as "major"? That quotes section is bugging me already. :-)
 * Seven days is a long period. Why seven days? Why not a month? Why not keep it locked indefinitely unless someone asks permission? This is going to stay a high-profile article for quite some time. Pending some Wikipedia policy on (semi-)stable articles, we cannot just lock things down for long periods because we don't feel like dealing with the vandalism. Eventually we will probably need such a policy, but prolonged protection gives off the wrong message. It tells people that we're not capable of handling large-scale vandalism by any other means than just shutting down the Wiki and turning it into a webpage. I'd rather having explicit and documented exceptions to the blocking policy, something like
 * This is one of Wikipedia's high-profile articles. We feel it merits even more careful attention than usual, and are dedicated to protecting its integrity. Anyone can still edit this article and improve it, but do not vandalize this article or you will immediately be blocked from editing it.
 * Note that high-profile articles would link to an explanation of what it is and why you should leave it alone in the name of Wikipedia, not (Goddess forbid) to a list of such articles (let's not put a "kick me" sign on our collective back).
 * This warning will do nothing to quell the actual vandalism, because a great many vandalisms are single-shot, but it might scare off would-be vandals. It's better than seeing nothing and getting the idea it's a free-for-all. Of course you'd need a very strict definition of vandalism to prevent abuse of power, and assuming good faith is incredibly important to avoid scaring off genuine but misguided newcomers.
 * However, I'm distracting you with rambling that shouldn't be on this page. Pending a Great Unified Solution to the problem, perhaps a longer period of protection is in order. Seven days still sounds extreme to me, though. Three, tops. (Let's barter. :-) JRM 14:59, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)


 * The article is heavily vandalized but is also being widely watched. Yes, reverting the children is a nuisance, but I'd rather the page be unprotected. JamesMLane 18:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 7 days is way too long and not in the wiki spirit, even in the face of vandalism. Timbo 22:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 7 days is fine. One week of protection of one page is not going to kill, or even seriously hurt, the wiki. And maybe we'll even get lucky and have some of the vandals go away after trying and failing to be able to vandalize for a few days.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   15:56, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is in potential support of "high-profile articles", but relating to a below comment: The edit history does make it look like a series of one-hit vandalisms, but now I'm starting to wonder how many of them are people who go straight from one high-profile article to the next, like this anonymous user. (You might want to look around that link for things to revert.) --Al Fox 20:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Permanent Moderator?
How about appointing a permanent moderator for this sort of thing, in order to avoid a fiasco. Permanent watchdog, per se? Tlaktan 07:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I think it's a good idea. This and the John Kerry page are hotspots of controversy.Andre Wong 22:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What exactly are we talking about? Controversy as in "disputed edits" or controversy as in "lots of idiots vandalizing the page"? Not quite the same thing (no, really :-), and I don't see how permanent moderators are going to help in either case.
 * If you're talking about disputed edits, no moderator is going to help you&mdash;unless you have this superhuman moderator who is the living, breathing embodiment of NPOV. (I'm sure we have a few here on Wikipedia, but I'm also sure they're in such great demand that they don't have the time. :-)
 * If you're talking about vandalism, a moderator isn't going to help. Even Wikipedians need sleep. We're talking vandalism round the clock here. You'd need to appoint (OK, "voluntarily enlist" obviously) a team of moderators. But that's what we have now, because the RC patrol has enough people who scan RC and/or have this page on their watchlists to achieve the same effect.
 * Look at the edit history. The problem is not that we have a few persistent vandals, or that vandalism goes unchecked for long periods&mdash;the problem is that we have lots of one-shot vandalisms. There's not much we can do against that except what we're doing now: lots of people watching this page and reverting everything on sight. Annoying, but necessary. JRM 22:27, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Subsisting vandalism
George_W._Bush. --Blade Hirato 08:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Presidential Campaigns change
In this section, it mentions "As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised about inaccurate counting of votes and other irregularities, although in 2004 they did not lead to recounts that could affect the result." I suggest this is changed to "...they did not YET lead to recounts..." or further to "...and again in 2004, but this time by third party forces." because of stories like these: Slashdot: Greens and Libertarians Team Up to Demand Recount.

Dubya
Although a search for Dubya leads here, there is no information on Dubya, its etymology (Ancient variation of letter "W" in Texas)

Pronunciation: 'duhb-"yah


 * It's at the bottom of "Personal life, service, and education."--Blade Hirato 12:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clarification Error
The last paragraph under the section "Public perception and assessments" has this error:

'The former have focused on matters such as the economy, homeland security, and especially his leadership after the September 11 attacks; the latter on matters such as the economy, the controversial 2000 election, and the occupation of Iraq.'

So do both sides agree on the economy? If so, remove economy from the sentence, otherwise clarify.


 * Bush has been both praised and criticized for the performance of the economy, and for his handling of it. Exit polls from the election showed that opinions were split on whether the economy was doing well.  Those who thought it was tended to vote for Bush, those who thought it was not tended to vote for Kerry.  Similarly, some people think the tax cuts were a useful stimulis, others a wasteful profligacy.


 * I agree that the wording is confusing - and if it comes down to it, he's been both praised and criticized for homeland secuity, his leadership after Sept 11, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Perhaps it should be reworded to indicate the level and scope of disagreement?


 * 'He has come into high praise and stringent criticism for such matters as the economy, his tax cuts, his handling of September 11th, homeland security, the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, his education policy, his...' Well, that list could go on for a ways, but that's probably the core issues.  Thoughts?  Codayus 02:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quotations
I believe the last edit before protection was accurate. Bush's words were "with us or with the terrorists", while Condoleezza Rice's words were "you are either with us or against us." Gazpacho 14:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that the quotes are not accurate...I'm not sure, but it's pretty likely..Plus, that picture with Gray Davis and Arnold looks a little too suggestive from the angle it was taken...


 * I assume you mean the gesture. It's OK, the caption fills in the details. Gazpacho 00:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Corrected quotations:
 * "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists . And if you are with the terrorists, you will face the consequences."&mdash;''
 * "It was amazing I won..."&mdash;fill in
 * "more and more of our imports come from overseas ."&mdash;Beaverton, OR 9/25/2000
 * "I'm not part of the problem..."&mdash;spurious, previously attributed to Dan Quayle.
 * "If this were a dictatorship..."&mdash;Washington, DC 12/18/2000
 * "Rarely is the question asked..."&mdash;Florence, SC 1/11/2000 but it could also be transcribed as "Rarely is the question asked, "Is&mdash;Are children learning," and the article should show both.
 * "It's clearly a budget..."&mdash;''fill in
 * "I'm the master of low expectations."&mdash;aboard Air Force One 6/4/2003
 * "...like it's some kind of federal program"&mdash;St. Charles, MO 11/2/2000

I propose adding this below the Quotations heading:

Please provide the location and date for any new quotations.

Gazpacho 01:04, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As an alternative, I agree with the comments earlier on this page that the entire "Quotations" section should be deleted. JamesMLane 04:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ThinkExist Spam
Please note that there is some thinkexist spam on the protected page; please remove it when the page is unprotected. Elf-friend 16:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Add to Further Reading
Phillips, Kevin. "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush" ISBN: 0143034316

Add picture


this picture should be added.


 * I strongly disagree; if you add this, someone else will want to add Lynndie England or Nick Berg. Gazpacho 03:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * maybe it should go in the iraq war section then?

It looks photoshopped, anyway. Thre are several sites where you can write anything you want and they appear on signs like that. RickK 23:58, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

New cabinet
This page needs to be unprotected so info about Bush`s new cabinet can be added. --Ce garcon 03:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Can you add the information here? If it is uncontroversial I will add it to the article. Mark Richards 16:13, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * accuracy people, please - his cabinet has NOT CHANGED. Nothing changes until the people actually leave office (which might actually be the case with one or two of them, but so far, not all six) and the new ones (i.e. CONDOLEEZZA RICE) should NOT be added until CONFIRMED BY CONGRESS. --Golbez 16:29, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Golbez, though those who are leaving could be denoted as serving from 2001-2005, and those listed as serving to 2004 should be changed to 2005 as they are all continuning in office until replacements are confirmed, which will not happen until the new congress sits in the new year. -- Jord 03:36 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that "2004" is wrong, but so is "2005". One of these people might die in the next few weeks, making an ending date of 2004 correct, or some (highly unlikely) event might cause a change of plans so that the same Cabinet member continues in office to 2006 or beyond.  We don't know the date on which the person's Cabinet membership ends until it has actually ended.  For most or all of the departing Secretaries, that hasn't happened yet.  The dates in the table should be "2001- " (I take no position in the holy war over n-dashes versus m-dashes versus hyphens).  The paragraph preceding the table should note pending resignations and any announced nominations of successors (who shouldn't be added to the table unless and until they're confirmed). JamesMLane 12:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)