Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 33

Untitled
Could somebody please fix this page so that it's readable? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Update the Approval Rating Graph
Someone has created I Second that. Wow his rating has dropped yet another 5 percent. We need to update this!--Ewok Slayer 18:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to why no one simply asked me to update the previous image, which I made. Anyways, I've put the replacement up for deletion and have uploaded a new one which reflects the change more accurately. -- tomf688 {talk} 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheerleader
Wasn't Bush a cheerleader in college or whatever? If so this is worth brief mention in the first part about his early life since it is a frequently sited (or shown) thing. It may not say anything about Bush really nor is it a detail that is significant in itself of course and I'm sure there are loads of other small details that are not mentioned but this detail is worthy of mention IMHO because it has became a frequently cited part of Bush's early life. A short & simple line will do... 60.234.141.76 12:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I must start by saying that if you want it in the article, you probably should not write, "It may not say anything about Bush really nor is it a detail that is significant in itself of course". You are basically proving it's non-notability and unencyclopedic nature. However, if you can prove it is a very notable item in his life, then do so. Thanks. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  15:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Claim that Bush was told by God to invade Iraq and Afghanistan
The second paragraph in the section titled religious beliefs and practices, seems to be pretty weak:
 * Currently Bush is known for his private daily morning Bible study periods, and for the Thursday lunch Bible study meetings which he sponsors at the White House. While he invariably shies away from directly discussing the particulars of his faith, he is known to generally advocate conservative Christian religious values. His strong Christian beliefs might be evidenced in the extreme if he had really claimed that his invasion of Iraq was an instruction from God as reported by an Australian news site.

Is there a source for the first sentence discussing his Thursday lunch bible studies? I don't doubt it, but would prefer it to be sourced. The third sentence is pure POV and since it came through the BBC, well known to be hostile to Bush and American conservatives in general, I see little but hot air to the whole thing that Bush would actually state that he was instructed by God to invade Iraq and Afghanistan...especially since his pressman denies it and the "source" of the babble, Mahmoud Abbas, denies it as well.--MONGO 16:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're gonna have a hard time purging Wikipedia of citations from BBC based on the pretty weak claim that it is "well known to be hostile to Bush." In general I'm more inclined to believe a well-respected and established international news source than a random wikipedia editor, so you should cite sources for your contradictory claims. BBC is not the only source of this info - WaPo published it two years ago - and though Abbas denies it now, most articles I have seen seem to conclude that Abbas is backpedaling for political reasons; he was the source of the claim two years ago and did not issue denials then.  Plenty of recent article on this to go through; this claim should certainly be better contextualized, but it should not be deleted on the dubious claim that BBC is a suspect source of information.--csloat 17:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Then even though most would agree that the BBC is hostile to Bush and American conservatives in general, we should keep the innuendo that is based on refuted testimony of the supposed originating parties of the gossip? It serves no purpose except to further villianize the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq...did John Kerry or Hilliary Clinton also hear a voice from Heaven...because they also authorized the use of force in Iraq, or did the BBC forget to examine that possiblity? I take what the BBC has to say, as far as American politics go, and especially as far as conservative American politics go as pure POV. Regardless, the innuendo is unfounded and the source of the speculation is refuted and it therefore falls into the realm of nonsense.--MONGO 00:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to impune the BBS to impune the "divine instruction" assertion? Here's what I read in the link:
 * A BBC program says US President George W Bush has claimed he was instructed by God to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.


 * The claim comes from the first meeting between the US leader, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, and his then foreign minister in June 2003.


 * So basically, the French news agency AAP (?) claims that a BBC production claims, not "reported by the BBC", that Abbas claims that Bush claims he was "instructed by God to invade Iraq and Afghanistan" and to create a Palestinian state. And now, Abbas denies he made such a claim.  And aside from the BBC production, there is no evidence that any of the claims are factual.  Does this chain of claims summarize the "divine instruction" we're talking about?  This isn't even a rumor.  It's a rumor of a rumor.


 * I can easily imagine a misunderstanding based on language differences that might lead to the same outcome. In a meeting between Bush and Abbas, Abbas says that his actions are guided by god, and Bush, who claims to be a very religious man, says that his actions too are guided by god, including the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  That doesn't mean that god, in the form of thicket set ablaze at the foot of his bed, literally said, "Hey Dub, I command you to wage war on the lands now known as Afghanistan and Iraq."  --JJLatWiki 22:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, does the line stay, go, or be reworded? (Being bold, doesnt always do the trick on this article.)  Ban e  s  19:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I took it out and someone else put it back in and neutralized it a little, and now it seems even less significant. The middle-east leader who supposedly witnessed the statements didn't take it literally.  The only people who seem to give a rat's arse about this are the Bush-haters.  "He's totally insane!  Not only does he believe in some farsical mythical being, but he actually thinks he's recieving instructions directly from him!  We better make sure school children getting their book report facts from the web know about this nut job."  --JJLatWiki 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite a few people would characterize me (unfairly in my opinion) as a "Bush-hater". My view, nevertheless, is that this item doesn't merit inclusion in the main bio article, though it might qualify for some other article.  I have no problem with the BBC as a source.  The problem is that, taking the BBC report to be perfectly accurate, BBC is telling us only that someone else (not a BBC reporter) claims to have heard Bush say this. JamesMLane 09:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, and that "someone else" has also stated that they didn't hear Bush say that, so I agree. I'll let you take it out if you want to....please.--MONGO 09:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I should qualify my "Bush-hater" classes. The "rabid" sub-class grasps at straws and insists those straws be wikified.  I agree that someone who has actually seen the BBC documentary should create a wiki about it, characterizing the entire show and highlighting items they think are significant.  --JJLatWiki 14:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

<-Back to left -- User:MONGO states: The third sentence is pure POV and since it came through the BBC, well known to be hostile to Bush and American conservatives in general .... . There is only one POV evident in that comment, what a load of baloney. The BBC remains one of the pre-eminent reliable world wide news sources and carry far more credibility than this one editor's personal POV. --84.66.163.150 15:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. I have yet to hear the BBC say one nonderogatory remark about Bush since the 2003 Iraq invasion. Regardless, the hearsay of the information makes it unecyclopedic on it's face even if it didn't come directly from "one of the pre-eminent reliable world wide news sources" as if that isn't POV and baloney.--MONGO 09:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * well, maybe that was because Bush hasn't done anything deserving of any other sort of comment since then. Just a thought. I mean, maybe he did something right in spite of himself, at some point, and nobody at the BBC noticed, you never know. 130.60.142.65 20:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A new section "Bush and God"
A new section is necessary to talk about Bush religious believes. It is not a secret that Bush talks about God many times in public and that takes pride of being a "Christian". Besides his religiosity has had an impact in the way he conducts himself, his government and all the US international affairs. --tequendamia 21:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Religious Beliefs and Practices is the second section. Also, with 88k articles new sections should be avoided as much as possible. Marskell 22:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Religious Beliefs and Practices" section seems (to me) to be fine. No need really to add another. Besides, the title "Bush and God" sounds a little strange, IMO.  Ban e  s  05:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Protection debate again
How many edits, out of the last say, 250, were not vandalism or vandalism-reverts? Hall Monitor 19:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I count around 33-odd out of 250 are not reverts or vandalism itself (or at least inapproriate edits). Say 13% legitimate edits and many of those were minors to clarify an initial edit. I don't know if there is a precedent for this but I'd suggest it be blocked to anons. That's anti-wiki but a page can effectively become useless when it is hit by this much shit. Marskell 20:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that technically possible? If so, we should do it, if not, it should be implemented. -Greg Asche (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rounding off then, 90% of the edits made to George W. Bush are vandalism-related. Would the blocking of anonymous edits require any effort on the part of our developers?  It would be nice if there were a flag that required an account not only be created, but aged over a certain period of days similar to how a newly created account cannot immediately move articles.  Hall Monitor 20:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I really have no clue on the development end. I know there's a lot of pestering on his page, but perhaps post on Jimbo's talk. At least there the idea will elicit comments and this isn't something that could (or should) be implemented at the Admin level. Perhaps just cut and paste these comments. Marskell 20:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Another interesting statistic to compile would be the average time between vandalism and reversion of that vandalism. This would give us an even more complete picture of what happens to this article. a ndroid 79  21:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a task for Durin. :-) Hall Monitor 21:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By my count, there were 20 reversions today, with a total of 25 minutes elapsing between vandalism and reversion, for an average of 1 minute, 15 seconds between vandalism and reversion. Of course, that's a pretty small sample size.--Scimitar parley 22:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * True. It would be most interesting to see how this changes, for example, during the weekend or during an hour when most of the sysops of the English language Wikipedia are sleeping, if there is such a lull.  Another problem is double vandalism or when an authentic edit is made right after a vandal edit, this can be overlooked for hours after if people are only watching diffs.  In any case, I've left notes with RobyWayne and Durin to see if they have any interest in analysing the history log here.  Hall Monitor 22:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting. So you are looking for an analysis of number of edits, anonymous edits vs. registered, edits that were reverted and the time between an edit and its subsequent reversion?  That would be an interesting statistic.  How long does a page remain vandalized for the world to see.
 * What I can do is this: write a script that grabs the history of a page (all edits), dump those to a mysql table....massage that to get the relationship between an edit and the previous edit--that gives the time between edits (in minutes, unfortunately).  If the edit summary has the character string "revert" or "vandal" or starts with the characters "rv", then I could assume that it is an attempt to revert the prior edit and mark the prior edit as "Vandalism".  Could also provide a list of the most pervasive IPs, if that is at all helpful.  Thoughts are appreciated before I head down that road ;-).  >:  Roby Wayne  Talk &bull;  Hist  &bull;  E@ 22:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as a heads up, there have been a rising number of vandals who now put comments such as "revert vandalism" in the edit summary while actually adding vandalism. Hall Monitor 22:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This would be interesting, but I think the point is ultimately secondary to the initial suggestions and I don't know if you need spend the time. Do we really need an extensive break-down of revert timing to show that this page has become perenially unstable? I think what you suggest has been done, incidentally, by a third party (based on a Jimbo interview I watched) and the result was under five minutes for reverting obvious vandalism.

To get back on point: should we block editing to everybody, nobody, to anons etc.? What is possible? I'd suggest:


 * Block anon edits.
 * Block edits from usernames that are less than 48 hours old.

The ability to block in this fashion should be absolutely a limited option. Indeed, you could call it the "current U.S. President block." I watch Bill Clinton, World War II and Terri Schiavo amongst others, all of which get random vandalism. None compare to this page. And this page, looking at the history, is in some ways ceasing to be useful. At any given moment the text is as likely to consist of I SCREWED YOUR MOM as anything else. We do need, I think, a unique form of blocking that isn't a permanent lock-down but does address the problem. Marskell 23:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, a feature which would limit editing specific articles akin to how we limit page moves would be most useful in this particular instance. This would reduce vandalism only to those who are truly determined enough to create sleeper accounts (ala WoW clones) and eliminate driveby vandalism completely.  Hall Monitor 23:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Equivalent to page moves" seems good to me. So where to bring this up more broadly? Again, this can't be instituted at an admin level. Marskell 23:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This precise idea in reference to this precise article was brought up a couple months ago. I don't recall the details, but I think there was discussion on the Village Pump, and maybe (don't hold me to this) the technicalities were that it would take a bit of work but would be doable.  The main proponent of it here was kizzle.  It's what he refers to as "semi-protection" in his coughing comment in Unprotection, below.  Maybe he remembers better what happened (or didn't happen) in the previous discussion. JamesMLane 09:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Despite a pretty strong showing of support on the bugtraq pages for such a feature, the dogmatic rebuttal always is the same:
 * We don't want to turn away anons. Anons are people too.
 * Vandalism will escalate with a bunch of new accounts being created


 * However, it will eliminate drive-by vandalism completely, which is what I estimate constitutes most of the vandalism that occurs. So as it stands, it received tremendous support on the Village Pump page but the response was, in effect, "I'm just an admin. You need to find a developer to make the changes."  Thus, we took it to the bugtraq pages, where it once again received a pretty good amount of support.  However, i believe its just sitting in limbo right now.  The next step would probably be to take it to the main Wikipedia mailing list for discussion. --kizzle 21:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I say toss it into the Village Pump and then if everyone goes over there and chimes in, maybe something will happen.--MONGO 09:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that's the point. This already went through village pump with heavy support.  But the developers don't monitor the village pump, so they said "you need to find someone to write the code for you. --kizzle 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kizzle, do you have an archive link to the discussion which took place on the Village pump regarding this earlier "semi-protection" proposal? Perhaps you and I can work together to bring something before the developers for consideration.  Hall Monitor 16:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As Hall Monitor noted above, some vandals are using edit summaries to make it appear they are reverting vandalism when in fact they are not. Thus, in order to generate realistic statistics on editing/vandalism trends on this page, something like the IBM study would need to be constructed. This is difficult, but doable. I have the technical capability to do it, but the time investment is quite large. At this time, I do not personally have the time to do it. I am also concerned about the return on investment (ROI); if it was done for only this article, that would be low. If it was a tool that could be used to objectively evaluate vandalism for any page a user specifies, then the ROI would be high. I suspect that somebody has already done something along these lines to ascertain that this article is the most vandalized article in Wikipedia. Thus, if I were pursuing this, my first step would be to find out how it was determined this is the most vandalized article and work from there. --Durin 16:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstracting the overall issue to a broader picture, the suggested policy change needs to be considered within the broader context of what it is that Wikipedia is attempting to achive. I believe goal #1 is a good, if imperfect, encyclopedia type reference. For a page such as this that suffers such mass vandalism, does having a page that suffers in this manner contribute to take away from that goal? Is this article a unique case or is there a class of articles that we need to view as a subset of the entire set of articles? What is the threshold for applying semi-protection and what is the rationale for it? There's substantial abstraction of the issues that need to be addressed I think. Maybe this has been done before, maybe not. If it hasn't been done, it needs to be done before bringing it to the attention of the developers again. There is precedent with the page moves, but there needs to be a solid basis of rationale before implementation could begin. --Durin 16:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Diversity and civil rights
I read through this section and it didn't seem biased. Although it should be noted that earlier this week his popularity amongst the african-american community showed only 2% favor in the polls. glocks out 00:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Though oft repeated on the web, is there any factual source for the statement: "In total, Bush has appointed more women and minorities to high level positions within his administration than any other U.S. President"?--RichardMathews 21:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences to mention the fact that Bush introduced the first ban on racial profiling among federal agents. There were exceptions to the ban relating to possible terrorist threats, but I felt it was not reasonable to say flatly that he was a supporter of racial profiling when he has done more to restrict it than his predecessors did. (NYT) Ordinary Person 08:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting
This page obviously isn't a candidate for long term protection. Just revert vandalism. --Tony Sidaway Talk 02:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * (cough)... semi-protection... (cough) --kizzle 02:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I restored the page move thingie right away.

RN has restored the incorrect notice. However much fun it might be to have a misleading notice to scare people off from naughty editing, I don't think it's a good idea to mislead people about Wikipedia blocking policy even in HTML comments. --Tony Sidaway Talk 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know this was instituted by Golbez and the blocks helped keep vandals away from the page. Anyway, I don't really have an opinion about the matter but that notice has been there for a while, so it seems as though there's a consensus for that for this page. Ryan Norton T 02:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK - I rolledback myself. If anyone wants the warning back in feel free to do so I guess :) (even though it seems against blocking policy). Ryan Norton T 03:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We might as well take it out, but I see that Golbez was only trying to head people up and inform them that vandalism to this page was not going to be tolerated in any way...it doesn't seem to be working though.--MONGO 09:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be a bit more vandalism than there was. I feel that just treating this page as we used to worked quite well, and it probably only provokes more dedicated vandals to treat it as a special case.--Tony Sidaway Talk  11:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my edit summary here when I reverted vandalism, questioned whether the labels were just further invitation...a challenge of sorts.--MONGO 11:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting rid of Vandalism
Watching and helping to revert much of the vandalism here, I've noticed that all of it seems to be just people who want to express their outrage at President Bush and feel that their voice is being suppressed. Yet, outrage against President Bush is part of the story. The lengths that people are willing to travel to speak their mind about the president is useful information. I would go so far as to say that our article incorrectly captures the feelings of people and what they say about the leader of the United States. People who want to know the real scoop about Bush ask their friends instead of coming here, because our resource is sanitized and politically correct to the point of fault. There should be a place for people to express their outrage. This outrage is part of the story of President Bush. People want to know what others feel about the president, how divided the country has become under his leadership, and what happens when you type "worst president ever" at Google.com and press the [I'm Feeling Lucky] button. If we put a reference to a main Criticism article in the first paragraph, it give people a place to express themselves in a constructive way, and would certainly be more informative than what baseball team President Bush owns.

Perhaps we could reword the first paragraph as follows:


 * George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States, a former Governor of the State of Texas, and a lifelong member of the Republican Party. Bush has strong religious beliefs, an aggressive foreign policy, a conservative based domestic-law policy, a liberal spending history, and more instances of public criticism than any president in history.

How does that sound? --Zephram Stark 22:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you define "more instances of public criticism"? Did half the nation secede under Bush?  Did Congress vote to impeach Bush?  Was Bush assassinated?  Was Bush forced to step down?  As it is, it sounds as though it is your opinion that Bush is more criticized than any other President in history. Kainaw 23:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was simply stating a matter of fact. There are 32.4 million public statements of criticism of George W. Bush as compared to 3.9 million for Bill Clinton, 1.4 million for Ronald Reagan, 1.0 million for Jack Kennedy, and 0.7 million for Abraham Lincoln.  Maybe it would be better to say that George W. Bush has received more instances of public criticism than all other presidents in history, combined.


 * In addition to "worst president ever", try entering "failure" at Google.com and hitting [I'm Feeling Lucky], or "Asshole." My point is that you really don't get a sense of why terrorism exists from reading this article.  You don't feel the rage that hundreds of millions or maybe even billions of people harbor toward this man, the exasperation that comes naturally when government is no longer at the consent of the governed.  Instead of trying to plug the rising flood waters, why not give them back a little of that control of their own destiny?  Why not let them express themselves as a necessary and informative part of this article?    --Zephram Stark 00:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Where do you get your numbers? Kainaw 00:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's just the Google count. I'm sure when you take newspapers, magazines, and books into consideration the number would be much higher.  Try going to the library and looking at the new section.  Up to half of it consists of books slamming George W. Bush.  There is a real rage here that is not represented in the article.  I hate to say it, but feelings of the vandals needs to be represented as well.  It is relevant to the subject.  --Zephram Stark 01:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Because terrorism didn't exist until January 2001. Criminy. --Golbez 00:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's my point. We need to get this cat out of the bag so we can deal with it objectively.  People are exaggerating their focus on George Bush when the problem is much bigger.  Obviously the foreign policy that created terrorism was around long before President Bush took office.  Likewise, the FISA seeds of the USA PATRIOT Act were around before Bush, but it took something like 9/11 to wake us up to the fact that we can't just sit around and let our leaders make all the calls.  We live in a government of the people.  George Bush is not at fault for the sins of America.  We are.  --Zephram Stark 01:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Until some sort of professional, peer-reviewed, and neutral investigation is conducted by respectable sources regarding whether or not Bush is, in fact, the "most heavily-critized president in history", it shouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia. Certainly there is a large amount of criticism, but any serious research would have to take into account an immense amount of information from each era for such a statement to be made accurately.

In the meantime, the problem with vandals on this page would be best resolved by having the young, frustrated, and liberal vandals given a good smack to the face. That's just silly, though. -- tomf688 {talk} 02:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can really cite the demographic of the vandals until we conduct a professional, peer-reviewed, and neutral investigation by respectable sources regarding whether or not they are young, frustrated, or liberal. --Zephram Stark 03:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "There should be a place for people to express their outrage." Isn't that what blogs are for? Water coolers? Letters to the editor sections? I know it's not what Wikipedia is here for. Marskell 03:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about venting. Communication comes in many forms.  Vandalism is one of those forms.  Granted, it's not as effective as other methods, but everyone has a fundamental need to convey information and have it make a difference in society.  The trick is to funnel that need into something productive.  --Zephram Stark 03:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, but you're talking about "expressing outrage" here, which surely is the distant cousin of venting. First of all, just because you get a top hit on google doesn't mean anything. The reason why Bush shows up when you google failure is not because of the amount of people calling him that, but because of a concerted effort by webmasters to game the google pagerank system in order to returning Bush's page at such a high point.  This isn't my opinion, this is a fact, go read slashdot if you disagree. Second, calling the president the "most criticized president in history" needs citation of some sort, and a simple google search is not sufficient.  He still hasn't hit Jimmy Carter levels of approval, and he hasn't been impeached yet. On such a contested page as this, Verifiability is an essential document to read, especially regarding such changes as you propose. --kizzle 04:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that outrage can be expressed through venting practices, like vandalism, but the effects of venting are only temporary. Venting doesn't fix the problem, or even contribute toward a solution.  In fact, expression without effect generally leads one to try more outrageous methods of communication.  I think that's what we are seeing here.  What would happen if, instead, we allowed people to add their feelings to a list of complaints, and we referenced that list in the main article near the top where potential vandals could see the link?  If we set it up right, it would become more effective for outraged citizens to list their grievances in a visible place that is permanent than change the article for a few seconds.  As the list grows, it would be a fairly accurate representation of how strongly people feel about starting wars based on lies, going into debt more than two trillion additional dollars, circumventing the Bill of Rights, etcetera.  The combined strength of those feelings is relevant to this article and could be used constructively to pinpoint exactly when it was that the citizens of the United States lost confidence in their federal government.  --Zephram Stark 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You have a page to say anything you like about Bush. I'll even provide a link for you: User:Zephram_Stark. Kainaw 14:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're getting the wrong idea here, Kainaw. I wouldn't add anything to the criticism.  I voted for George W. Bush.  I'm talking about a more productive forum for vandals.  --Zephram Stark 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Zephram, your idea doesn't work for several reasons. For starters, people who frequent Wikipedia aren't an accurate reflection of general American opinion, because the demograpics are different.  Internet users in general are far younger than national average.  Also, not all Wikipedians are Americans, and Bush is far more likely to be criticized outside his country.  Furthermore, such a list would only encourage vandalism.  I'm not talking about the "Bush killed 20000 people" type vandalism, but the far more prevalent "Bush is dumb"-type vandalism.  We don't cater to vandals; we revert and block.--Scimitar parley 14:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If you introduced the article on Criticism of George W. Bush as personal opinions, and placed a big notice on the top of the article disclaiming any relationship of the personal opinions expressed with the official position of Wikipedia, I'm sure you would be alright. It's done all the time in the commentary on DVDs. In such a case however, I think you would find that the Criticism sub-article polices itself. Critics of George W. Bush don't want to come across as mindless idiots. If you gave them a place to put some thought into their criticism, I think you would find more constructive arguments than "Bush is dumb." As for whether or not they are United States citizens, I don't think that matters. The policies of President Bush extend far beyond our borders, which is entirely the reason that non-Americans are critics. Their opinions are relevant too. --Zephram Stark 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty evident that Bush has recieved more instances of public criticism than any other president, if for no other reason than because millions of additional people are able to make critical public remarks via the internet, but if you don't want to note it, that's fine. Perhaps we could reword the first paragraph as follows:


 * George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States, a former Governor of the State of Texas, and a lifelong member of the Republican Party. Bush has strong religious beliefs, an aggressive foreign policy, a conservative based domestic-law policy, a liberal spending history, and numerous outspoken critics.  (See Personal Opinions about George W. Bush)

How does that sound? --Zephram Stark 15:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal opinions are not going to be verifyable and probably original research. Wikipedia is not the place for political activism.Geni 15:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If the editor who has the personal opinion states it and signs it, I'm sure that becomes verification enough that he or she actually feels that way. The question comes down to one of relevance.  How relevant is one opinion in a world of billions?  In the context of a concise article about George W. Bush, it is not very relevant, which is why we revert personal opinions there.  In this particular case, however, the sheer number of personal opinions along the same lines is entirely relevant.  In this medium, we have the capacity to give direct evidence of this phenomenon.  You might argue that millions of personal opinions against George Bush could weigh down the Wikipedia system, but storing repeated vandalism in history must surely be more of a drain than letting each person express their opinion once.  By encouraging people to express themselves, we can lighten the load on Wikipedia, reduce the work of editors who stand watch over this article,  and make our information more factually correct by acknowledging the existence of these relevant virtual demonstrations.  --Zephram Stark 15:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a blog," which is exactly what you're advocating. Further, "I'm talking about a more productive forum for vandals" is a contradiction in terms. A page like you describe would be a hopeless mess. Marskell 16:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, personal opinions of Bush, excepting perhaps those of members of Congress or heads-of-state, etc., are not encyclopedic. "Bill Joe Jackson hates bush and thinks he lied" "Jane Lee Thompson thinks Bush saved America and thinks he's a saint" No one cares. Public opinion polls are far different than having a place for people to express their own specific opinions. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  16:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly your choice. If you want to treat vandalism like Bush treats terrorism, I'm sure you'll get the same results: more of it. Have fun. I won't be helping to stem the rising tide any longer. --Zephram Stark 17:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, your argument is in order to curb the rising tide of vandalism, you want to add an unsourced opinion to the intro paragraph, which in your mind will somehow reduce vandalism? --kizzle 17:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's an encyclopedia. It isn't a blog or a forum. We're not converting Wikipedia into a blog or a forum for people to air their personal opinions.  What you describe runs exactly counter to what Wikipedia is.--Scimitar parley 17:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is what we make it. We can shape this encyclopedia to be anything we want.  We are not bound by conventional restraints.  We can think outside the box to do more than any other resource.  If we do, we maximize the power of consensus of thousands of disparate opinions.  Conversely, if we suppress the opinions we don't like, Wikipedia will have all the flaws of regular encyclopedias with none of the benefits.  You decide.  Wikipedia is what we make it.  --Zephram Stark 17:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NOT.--Scimitar parley 18:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah but if you're seriously proposing we mold Wikipedia anywhere close to a blog or forum, I think it would be unanimously considered a step down. The reduction of verifiability you propose simply has no purpose but to allow insertion of unsourced point of views. --kizzle 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Who is the "we" in "what we make it" and "anything we want"? Have you asked for a formal vote for turning Wikipedia into a blog?  So far, I see a variety of people who have voiced that they don't want it turned into a blog and your alone requesting to turn it into a blog. Kainaw 18:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is a silly discussion. A "add your own personal opinion here" section would turn this encyclopedia article into a not-an-encyclopedia article. It's contrary to Wikipedia's core goals and principles. a ndroid 79  18:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting a blog. I'm proposing the citing of a combined expert opinion.  One person may not be a relevant opinion, but a million opinions along the same line is relevant.  There is definitely widespread criticism of President Bush.  We are simply trying to hide that fact under the guise of "controlling vandalism."  As was pointed out, we currently have no way to quantify or objectively point to that criticism.  What can we say about the outrage against Bush that would accurately reflect how far-reaching it is?  My suggestion is to state the facts that we can point to, that these people said these things.  If we make sure to note that the opinions are those of the authors, like we do when we cite any expert opinion, we can objectively show this relevant part of George Bush's presidency.  In essence, we kill two birds with one stone.  We add an important part to the article that any reader could tell you is brazenly absent, and we get rid of vandalism.  If anyone has any alternate ideas about how to accomplish either of these goals, I would love to hear them.


 * Vandalism and terrorism occur when government is not at the consent of the governed. Trying to stem these things through force makes government even more at odds with the will of the public.  It always makes it worse, but if you don't see that, I guess you'll have to find out the hard way.  Please don't consider that a threat because I won't have anything to do with it and I certainly have no control over the most self-evident aspects of human nature.  These are simple truths that each generation has to learn one way or the other.  Some people learn by studying the great documents of history and others learn by trying to control the will of their peers.  --Zephram Stark 18:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that is way too simple. Not everyone will always agree on how to be governed. When some people get marginalized, bad things start to happen; greed, jealousy etc. And what about people from ouside the jurisdiction of the government, i.e. people from other countries? The U.S. could be governed at the consent of the people, but that is not going to stop people from other countries from flying planes into buildings. Unless you are advocating some kind of "World Government". And even then, we get back to the rights of a minority. Oh well. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  18:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You did not propose a citing of "combined expert opinion". You proposed turning this article into a blog for angry vandals.  It is a common trolling technique to state something stupid and then, when called on it, restate it in a palatable way with the attitude that it is what you meant all along.  And, yes, there are millions of people who don't like Bush - at least 59 million people.  On the other hand, at least 62 million people liked him enough to vote for him.  Finally, another common trolling technique: End your posts with some idealistic diatribe such as "Vandalism and terrorism occue when government is not at the consent of the governed." Kainaw 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You talk as if I'm suggesting that this is something we can give people to make the world a better place. I'm afraid that God or Evolution already beat me to the punch.  It's already something that every one of us has, kind of like the will to breath.  If someone threatened to kill all of your friends and family unless you gave up the right to breath, you could hold your breath for a long time, but eventually you would breath and your family & friends would die.  It's simply a part of human nature that you can't give up.  Trying to give up your right to liberty would end in the same result.  It would take longer, but you can't give up your right to liberty any more than you can give up your right to breath.  These things are unalienable.


 * Those of you who think that the vandals will ever give up trying to make a difference here, regardless of how many tools we get to control them, should really read the Principles of the Declaration of Independence. These principles are the foundation of everything we did in my country for 200 years, and they worked amazingly well for as long as we followed them.  --Zephram Stark 19:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You talk about vandals as though they are some alienated force for good, with no other way to express themselves. Understand that vandals will forever plague people they disagree with, and it certainly isn't worth giving up WP:NOT, or giving up the "encyclopedia" in Wikipedia to placate them.--Scimitar parley 19:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think about vandals as being possessed of Satan, if that's what you mean. They are people, just like you and I.  They will edit in the way that is most effective.  Right now, they feel that their outrage is best expressed as vandalism.  If they had a more effective method of conveying their outrage, they certainly would take that option.  --Zephram Stark 19:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

No matter the language in which this idea is framed, at its core, it is still contrary to WP:NOT, WP:NOR, and WP:V. I see no reason to continue this discussion. a ndroid 79  19:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The NOR isn't written in stone. If we wanted to change it, we certainly could, but I don't think that is necessary.  If you gave this project a chance, I think you would see that the critics could come up with a very good article.  --Zephram Stark 19:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR is, indeed, written in stone. a ndroid 79  20:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's funny because the little yellow box at the top talks about how to change it. --Zephram Stark 20:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It says how to update it, not to change it fundamentally or repeal it. That requires consensus, as the little yellow box also makes clear. If you want to do that, the village pump is this way. Good luck with that. a ndroid 79  20:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good luck with what? As I said above, I don't think it's necessary.  Anyone can create a Criticism of George W. Bush page.  All I'm proposing is that we link to it as a relevant part of the George W. Bush article.  Nothing in that proposal violates any NOR, NOT, V consensus.  You could, however, also argue that the Criticism page be deleted, and you would probably get a lot of support.  My suggestion is that we allow the link and the page to exist, thereby giving critics a chance to express themselves in a constructive way.  I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the results.  Every one of us has it within ourselves to be vandals or terrorists.  Certainly if our nation was invaded or controlled from outside, we would fight back.  This part of our humanity can't be taken away, but it can be used in constructive pursuits when such avenues are open to us.  In fact, I'm quite sure that every outraged vandal out there would rather help write a permanent page, linked from the first paragraph of this article, about the amount of criticism there is regarding the president.


 * I'm sure we would rather just kill all the vandals and terrorists, but that doesn't seem to work any better than trying to control information. In fact, it just makes the corruption more evident.  --Zephram Stark 20:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think funneling all criticism to a separate article, and letting vandals (or "critics") run wild on it, would stop people from replacing GWB's photo with that of Emperor Palpatine, you're sadly mistaken. A Criticism of George W. Bush article with the parameters you suggest ought to be and would be deleted quickly. I'm going to take my own advice and ignore this discussion from this point forward, as it's simply a waste of time. a ndroid 79  20:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we give it a try and see what happens. The critics can have one month to get their article up to Wikipedia standards. On November 17, we will review the critic's page and the effect on vandalism to the George Bush article. If vandalism has significantly dropped off and the critics page is within Wikipedia standards, we will leave the link to the critic's page in the first paragraph of the article. Agree or Disagree?


 * Agree --Zephram Stark 20:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Er... no. I don't even know why I'm arguing this anymore. If we were to create that article, would we remove all criticism of Bush from this article? If so this article would lean POV. And the "critic's" article stands no chance of being NPOV. Ever. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  21:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you'll agree that many people have a deep sense of frustration that is not coming through in the article. I would argue that it's coming through as vandalism, but it doesn't have to.  --Zephram Stark 22:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Almost definitely. However, the problem comes in that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to "vent frustration". It is not a soapbox. There is already stated criticism of Bush in the article, and a separate page would not add anything to WP. Instead, it would just cause more problems. And also, about your earlier statment about public outcry, as bad as George W. Bush get it, there have clearly been worse presidents in history. But maybe that's my anti-James K. Polk POV shining through. :) -- Lord Vold e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  22:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A lot of people think that pictures and descriptions of demonstrations and public outcry are relevant to a piece on George Bush, but they don't belong in the main article. It may be true that the criticism page will get a lot of vandalism, at least at first, but I think that would be better than dealing with it here.  Ultimately, I think that the critics will create a coherent page entirely within Wikipedia standards.  If they didn't, it would only reflect negatively on them and we wouldn't have to use it.  There's really no downside to this proposal, except for those who are trying to hide the truth about the existence of this outrage.  --Zephram Stark 22:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely No. What kind of idiot thinks that the world is on his side and then claims that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence love him too?  He says that I "would rather just kill all the vandals and terrorists".  I prefer to just kill him before he grows up and has children for claiming that I want to kill someone.  He claims a man who plead guilty to 100 counts of possessing child pornography is innocent and then claims that I want to kill all the vandals and terrorists.  That is a great definition of who he is. Kainaw 23:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm really quite flattered to have my own stalker, especially someone as handsome and talented as you, Kainaw, but I'm afraid that I have to be frank. The truth is that I'm happy in my current relationship.  --Zephram Stark 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting rid of this thread
Let's not participate in this thread. By doing so, we are feeding the trolls. (For more information, see Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark and decide for yourself.)   [ +t, +c, +m,  +e  ] 22:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As I'm sure you know, the arbitration has already been opened, but you tried to hide that fact because the unsubstantiated claims in the request for arbitration serve your purposes better than the truth. By the same token, it's pretty obvious that you are trying to keep people from thinking about the truths found in the Declaration of Independence as well.  But evidence of those truths hits the main article dozens of times every day.  Instead of working with the people who are frustrated at President Bush, you try to suppress them, pretend that no frustration exists, and call anyone a troll who suggests otherwise.  You are blatantly misrepresenting the facts and you have this vandalism to show for it.  You merely have to open up a history book to know that it will only get worse as long as you hope to control the will of other people.  Instead, you can misrepresent the facts and use the increase in vandalism to ask for more administrative control, but that only feeds the beast that will ultimately consume you.  --Zephram Stark 22:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that Zephram is a troll. He is discussing the article in a rationale, calm manner. -- Lord Vold e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  22:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You apparently have no clue what a troll is. Zephram has no interest in Wikipedia.  He is only interested in making others upset.  That is what a troll does: makes posts with the intent of making others upset.  It has nothing to do with being calm and rational.  If he wasn't a troll, you could show one constructive thing that Zephram has written - ever. Kainaw 23:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not a troll. Message board trolls came from the word trolling.  My friend Johnny F. used the terms troll and trolling back in the days of mainframe message boards to mean that he was trying to lure someone with an inconsistent reality into talking about things the catch believed to be truths, but were no more than constructs.  After Johnny asked a dozen or so fringe questions, the reality of the catch would come crashing down around him.  After Johnny became famous, people would ask him if he remembered trolling them, like it was some great honor.  --Zephram Stark 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's really lame. --kizzle 02:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to realize that anyone who could access a message board back then was no idiot. These were all mainframe programmers and network administrators, MENSA members and similar, so trolling was quite a challenge and even involved risk that you could become the catch if the other person's reality was more stable than yours.  Take the Unalienable Rights discussion on my user talk page, for instance.  That conversation started when I saw ElectricRay out trolling on some of the political discussion boards with the question, "Can anyone make a solid argument against Bentham?"  I said, "I'll bite," which told him that I knew he was trolling and also that I was willing to play the catch if he was willing to risk it.  He was pretty good at questioning my reality without admitting his own for a while, but his absurdist views kept hinting that he didn't believe in God.  Eventually, I got him to demand that the conversation be conducted based on the premise that there was no God.  That's when he became the catch.  In the Eleventh Dimension section, I used a parable to show how a demand for a Godless reality was fundamentally no different than a demand for a God-based reality.  I then evinced a more consistent test for subjective morality as "a professed belief that nobody in the history of the world has ever been evil."  A rational thinker could never believe a person could be evil, of course, but ElectricRay's exclusion of God-believers betrayed such a fundamental bias.  I never heard from him again.  --Zephram Stark 13:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Getting someone to admit inconsistencies in their argument is called debating, not trolling. Why your friend would get famous for simply trying to point out holes in another person's worldview is beyond me. And congratulations on winning a debate with ElectricRay. I hope you win many more. --kizzle 18:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Next thread. --kizzle 01:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether Zephram is a troll is irrelevant.
 * 2) Wikipedia is not going to turn into a blog or forum anytime soon.
 * 3) Zephram, go propose changes to Verifiability or WP:NOR if you disagree with policy. Until then, follow policy.  Such changes as you propose require significant change to core Wikipedia policies, go take your case to their respective pages so that you don't clutter this page up.
 * Yeah...what good does adding a section of critisms of GWB do...half the subarticles are attack pages against the man. I don't doubt Bush has endured the most critism of any President in the history of the world wide web...Clinton was on the scene when the web was younger and fewer people had net access, and Bush is a current event, so no wonder it Googles more. As far as whether terrorism is worse due to Bush's actions...nah, I don't see that...it's about the same, but there hasn't been anything to rival 9/11 which was mostly planned out prior to Bush being sworn in the first time...I also think that in some ways, Bush et al acted with more restraint than I would have...good thing I didn't have few MOAB's at my disposal on 9/11.--MONGO 01:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

New Trivia Section: does John Quincy really belong in the first paragraph of this article?
I'm going to try to sitetrack all the political/POV crap for a moment with the Trivia section I just added at the end of the article. I think it's a good spot for minor stuff like only father of twins, second son-of-a-president, etc. A fair amount of the other wiki articles on presidents have a trivia section in the same spot. What do y'all think? EricN 09:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The following Presidents have a trivia section in their article: Washington, Monroe, Q Adams, Van Buren, Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, B Harrison, McKinley, Taft, Wilson, Harding, LBJ, Nixon, Bush Sr., Clinton. Some of the Bush Jr. factoids are a little discordant in the article where they currently rest.

I know the article is already very long, but the purpose of this new section is not to add length, but to collate the out of place sentences from the rest of the article. For example, I don't think John Quincy Adams is sufficiently relevant to GWB that he needs mentioning in the first paragraph of the summary.

MONGO, if you see that an edit is done in good faith, can you at least leave it up longer than two minutes, even if you disagree with it? On this article it can get buried pretty quickly before anyone else can see if they like it. Thanks. EricN 09:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, EricN...I have no problem with the trivia, just it is already in the text for the most part...what we can do is just see if editors want it to continue to be in the body of the text or in a separate section...historically, putting it in a separate section usually ends up creating a window for vandals to add things such as :Bush was born on Ur-anus and is a space alien, or Bush is the product of incest...etc. When we leave it in the body of the text, there is less opportunity for ridiculous and outlandish or even just plain boring stuff that isn't of an encyclopedic nature to be added.--MONGO 09:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't that actually a benefit? If the vandals are attracted to a section at the bottom of the page, a reader won't immediately see it.  Editors still find it just as easily.  EricN 09:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Created a vote tally below...vote as you please of course.--MONGO 09:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Give it a few days and then we'll do as the concesnsus demands. I appreciate your very wiki way of handling the issue...congrats.--MONGO 09:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph should be an overview——a summary of the most relevant parts——for those who want to get a quick idea of who President Bush is and what people think about him without reading the whole article. Whether or not the trivia currently in the first paragraph is placed in a special trivia section, we definitely need to prioritize our information and let the most relevant things rise to the top.  --Zephram Stark 14:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be short and not dwell on trivia...but at what point do we say what is and what isn't trivia? I think a lot of the sections have information full of trivialities that are there more to hen-peck the subject matter than to enlighten the reader, unless we are to consider "tabloidish" rhetoric as encyclopedic...but that is an old battle.--MONGO 15:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In order to win that battle, we will have to step back from the forest to see it. We have to ask ourselves, "What would a reader most want to see?" not, "What would we most want to show a reader?"
 * The first question has an objective answer that we can reach a consensus about. The second question does not.  It's pretty easy to see who is biasing the consensus by simply noticing which question the editor is trying to answer.  No blocking is necessary in such a case.  You simply call them on their corruption and invite them to mend their integrity.  I have never sought to be an administrator because no administration power is needed in a transparent system like Wikipedia.  The integrity of one person can override the artificial power of a dozen corrupt administrators when their actions cannot be hidden and when communication is enabled.
 * I propose that we ask "What concise summary of facts would a reader most want to read?" and place that summary on top. Even if we would rather that some of the facts of that summary remain hidden, the integrity of the article is paramount.  --Zephram Stark 15:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was wondering what this edit was all about.--MONGO 15:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's exactly what is says it was, a revert to the previous Khaosworks edit. I didn't know at the time that Khaosworks had made a bad revert, but he immediately fixed it (after my revert to him) so that I didn't have to.  --Zephram Stark 15:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This supposes that you know the mind of every reader. Since we don't we can't suppose that all readers want the same thing an introduction should only "introduce" the article and not "summarize" it for those who want the National Enquirer condensed version. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing an example of why the current article answers the question, "What would we most want to show a reader?"
 * Would anyone like to try an example of "What concise summary of facts would a reader most want to read?" I feel confident that by letting go of our personal bias, we can come up with a great introduction.  --Zephram Stark 16:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Those in favor of a seperate section for trivia

 * 1) EricN 09:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Gives us a place to send non-notable factoids without cluttering up the main article. Brandon39 11:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Does anyone really care what baseball team he owns?  Maybe a trivia buff.  --Zephram Stark 14:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) It'd make the page flow much better and not lengthen the article. Matt Yeager 03:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Those in favor of keeping trivia within the body of the text

 * 1) MONGO 09:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) The article is quite long enough already.Geni 10:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) As long as the trivia is kept to a minimum, and is relevant to the section it's placed in (yeah, I know, that's a bit contradictory for trivia) I see no need for a separate section. <b style="color:green;">a</b> ndroid  79  11:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) No need for a separate section. WP is not just a list of facts. Especially, as Brandon39 points out, "non-notable factoids". If some things are worked into the body, that's fine, but there is no need to trya nd pull out a bunch of facts to create a new section. -- Lord Vold  e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  14:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) The article is long enough. But, John Kerry, when I last looked, had a special trivia section.  Ban  e  s  05:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Against trivia sections in general. Rhobite 13:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Request rescinded. EricN 21:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Elections
Why does article mention (in the first paragraph) whom Bush defeated in the 2000 and 2004 elections? At the least it needs to be re-written. One sentence reads, "Bush was elected to a second term, defeating Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts." But Bush also defeated many other national candidates. There is no need to mention who was defeated, only that he won. In the presidential campaigns the information about Gore is repeated, and is redundant. At the minimum, it should be phrased to say "the leading candidate was Democrat Al Gore, the incumbent Vice President," or John Kerry in 2004. I'm looking to not only clear up a misconception that there was only one candidate running against Bush, but to also reduce redundancy in the article. Perhaps the same should be true of all political figures. The first paragraph can state, IMO, when they were elected, and when they were sworn in, but a seperate section for each campaign should be made to discuss the actual process, including the alternative candidates, how many electoral/popular votes he received, etc. glocks out 18:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia article on GWB himself doesn't need to mention every single person that received a vote in the 2000/2004 elections. Limiting this article to mentioning Gore/Kerry and possibly Nader's influence the in vote distributions should suffice. There should be wiki info about the dozens of political parties that get candidates on the ballot in myriad districts and the handful that consistently get on the ballot nationwide, but that's not relevant to this article.
 * Is it necessary to include any of this information in the introductory paragraph though? The date of the election and swearing in should be more than sufficient to establish his Presidency, not any person running against him. Who was running against him is irrelevant (to the introduction). For example, and article about George Westinghouse might introduce him as the man responsible for establishing AC electricity. You wouldn't introduce him as defeating Edison in the "War of Currents." I hope I'm making sense. glocks out 20:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You can probably tell by now that I'm in favor of trimming a ton of crap out of this article. As far as mentioning Gore/Kerry in the summary, I could be swayed to agree with you if you come up with a snappy replacement paragraph.  I do think Gore needs mentioning in the Campaign section, because 2000 was one of the more interesting elections in history.  I'm ambivalent on Kerry staying in.
 * That's basically what I'm getting at. If we're going to mention someone Bush defeated in the election, we should be mentioning all of them in a broader article. This article should be about Bush, and who he was, unfortunately it's turning into everything associated with him, and events surrounding him that aren't even related to him. This is probably, in my estimation, the fault of those whom hate Bush adding things negative about him and people compensating the bias by levelling out something that shouldn't even be in the article. I think I may be so bold as to re-word the opening paragraph. Gore should definately be mentioned in this article because the campaign included so much legal workings it's as important as Watergate. Kerry is only a margin in this article at most. But neither one, in my humble opinion, needs to be mentioned in the introduction. glocks out 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm...not sure I like the reorg. Texas ANG is good to add to the first para, but I think major events should be left as the second para and expanded a slight bit.  9/11, Iraq, and Katrina are more important than his election opponents and should take precedence in the summary.  I think the wording of the family para is nice and spiffy without the JQA tidbit.  EricN 22:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was trying to put things by catagory. If you don't think it flows as well, feel free to move it back. I was just trying to put his political parts together, and his family is related to him, and major events that happened in his time aren't related to him, they are just events of significance. I'm really desiring to cut so much out of this article that isn't about the person of George W. Bush... glocks out 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

shift left I agree that the primary focus should be GWB the person and that much of this article can be trimmed. However, not so many readers would visit this article if GWB retired as Texas Gov. I think this article, as the main GWB one, needs to fill a dual role of covering the person and the presidency. That's why I think the huge US-related events from 2001-2008 are summary worthy, even though they aren't directly related to GWB the person.
 * I agree this should cover his actions during his presidency. But this doesn't mean it needs to cover the administration, the congress, senate, random people, et al. glocks out 18:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Carlson Interview revert war
In 1999, near the start of the 2000 Republican Presidential primary race, Tucker Carlson interviewed George W. Bush for Talk Magazine. Carlson wrote: - - "In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Fay Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them," he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, "What would you say to Governor Bush?" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill me." I must look shocked--ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel--because he immediately stops smirking." Bush denies that he had intended to make light of the issue.

I added the source just like Mongo wanted and the some jerk reverts the whole thing whithout saying why -- Grazon


 * Grazon keeps adding an article in the "Presidential campaigns" section which is being removed because of its obvious irrelevance to the campaign. In fact, the "interview" is irrelevant to all of the GWB article. There is no context for this article at all. glocks out 20:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The section on the entire 2000 campaign is five paragraphs long. It would be a poor editorial choice to add a full paragraph which consists of a paraphrased quote from an opinion article. Karla Faye Tucker's case deserves at most a single sentence in this article - it probably shouldn't be mentioned at all. I feel like I'm repeating myself whenever I write a message on this talk page, but we have to keep in mind that this is one of the most-read, most-scrutinized, and largest articles on Wikipedia. This is a "big picture" article - narrow issues such as Bush's reaction to a question by Tucker Carlson do not belong here. Rhobite 20:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A simpler reason: copyright violation. EricN 20:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks for explaining that. -- Grazon


 * I suggest offering additions and deletions in this discussion before actually adding/deleting content. In an article of this nature it's important to find a consensus first to avoid a war.glocks out 20:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

And, that summary of the interview interjects a lot of speculation on the author's part. There would be no way of confirming any of the feelings the interviewer got. Also, I agree with Rhobite: this should focus on the "big picture", not evrything that happens. Think about writing this from a perspective of 100 years down the line. What will be important to people then? -- Lord Vold e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  20:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So many critics cited...
Why are so many critics cited on this page? It seems like every other sentence or statement of Bush's is met with several sentences of what his critics say. Wouldn't it be more NPOV to simply state what he says, and perhaps mention "there are criticisms of this policy" or something along those lines? --JamesR1701E 21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

2004 Election...troublesome paragraph
"massive and unprecedented voter irregularities and anomalies].'"

I've been staring at this paragraph for half an hour, and I still don't see where to begin. It's a messy summary of an even messier article, and it doesn't do much to inform the reader. Unless someone wants to rewrite it from scratch, I'm going to delete it. EricN 21:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't really have to do with "Bush the man", so I would say delete it. But just make sure somewhere in the article there is a mention of possible irregularities in the election. I'm not sure how you would re-write that. -- Lord Vold e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I say delete it since this is an article about George W. Bush, not the events of the 2004 election. Perhaps a sentence like the following can be added to the section about the 2000 election controversy: "These claims emerged again in the 2004 election in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but the challenge was withdrawn because the congressional certification of the electoral votes had rendered the case moot ." Or something better. glocks out 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To be clear "the events of the 2004 election" directly relate to "George Bush the man." What do we want? His height, weight and marital status and leave it at that? The paragraph is messy I'm just not sure about the logic being employed here. Marskell 23:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The events of the 2004 election are not George Bush. In an article about a person, you relate events to that person, not the other way around unless that person is responsible for what happens. An article about one person doesn't need to document all the actions of everyone. The events of the election were the effects of millions of people. The result was Geroge W Bush was elected into office. This is important to the facts relating to George Bush. The paragraph in question isn't related to George W Bush, it is about controversy around an election process. There is a difference between a process, the people in Ohio, Wisconsin, etc, and George Bush as a person. As stated earlier, it is worth mentioning, but we don't have to document all the facts related to this event in an article about a man. Seriously, where do we stop? I hope i'm making sense. glocks out 23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Any ideas?
I'm trying to write about Bush's playing the guitar on August 30th.

how is what I've written not a NPOV?

grazon 22:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * <-- This is probably a better place to write about Bush playing the guitar

funny EricN.

grazon 22:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina
The entire Hurricane Katrina section isn't about George W. Bush. It doesn't even relate directly to him. It's about Hurricane Katrina, and should be in the Hurricane Katrina article, not the George W. Bush article. As a matter of fact, a lot of this article should be in here because it's either about the Bush Administration, or world events, and not about the person that is George W. Bush. I don't want to put a bunch of "mergeto" tags on this article either. I would hate to see Geraldo Rivera's article receive the same treatment as this one, we'd have a paragraph on every interview he's ever done. glocks out 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

what I wrote was about Bush.

grazon 22:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is, but should I write about him wiping his butt in the morning? Or maybe we can create a pretty table showing everything he's ever done in his life and things related to it? This article seems to get bigger and bigger because people keep adding onto peripheral subjects. There is a "main article" for Katrina, we don't need a three paragraph section about it in the George Bush article.glocks out 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

his playing the guitar as people drowned matters.

grazon 23:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And the fact that every day 30,000 people die of starvation when 1% of the national GDP could feed the entire world doesn't matter? What matters and doesn't matter doesn't correlate with what goes in an article about someone. Should we find out what George Bush was doing during the World Series? Or maybe Yom Kippur? Are we trying to keep track of every time this man sneezes and chronicle everything he's ever done, and write three paragraphs on events happening during everything he does, or are we trying to write an article about a man? Are we going to find out every time he was interviewed and make sure that gets in here too? An extensive and comprehensive database of everything about this guy? glocks out 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Instant blocking for vandalizing high-traffic articles
There's been some edit warring over the hidden block warning at the top of the article ("Anyone who vandalizes the page may be blocked for 24 hours or more without further warning"). In order to get consensus on whether it is OK to block people for vandalizing a high-visibility article, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Rhobite 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no mention to Skull and Bones?
Bush has openly admitted his membership to this secret society. Shouldn't the article at least mention that link and point to the article on Skull and Bones? I tried adding a single line mentioning this in passing, but it was removed. (preceding comment by 69.169.130.131) --Ashenai (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed that, and I only did so because I ddin't feel it belonged in the introduction. If it belongs in the article (I have no opinion on this), then I see no problem with putting it back. Just not in the intro paragraph, please; it's not important enough to be there.
 * Also, please sign your comments on talk pages by putting four tildes (like this: ~ ) after your comments. Thank you! :) --Ashenai (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Another deletable paragraph
"In August 2004, a 'Cyber Security Alert' from US-CERT was issued concerning the main vote tabulating software in the electronic voting machines provided by Diebold, warning that 'a vulnerability exists due to an undocumented backdoor account, which could allow a local or remote authenticated malicious user to modify votes'. Corrective action to close this software loophole was never taken, and it is yet unclear what effect this may have had on election results."

It would take some major word twisting to get this paragraph to even mention Bush's name. I think that's a good benchmark for something that doesn't belong in a Bush article. EricN 16:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree glocks out 18:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewording a hot-button topic
"In July of 2002, Bush cut off all funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Bush claimed that the UNFPA supported forced abortions and sterilizations in the People's Republic of China."

I expect this para has been through the wash a bunch of times, but I don't like the wording. "cut off all funding" seems incorrect (it's also funded by other nations) and POV (funds were shifted to a US agency with similar goals...maybe mention the isolationist aspect?). For now, I'm just going to add the least POV reference I could find (BBC News). Anyone want to try to improve this one? EricN 18:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Major events
I've seen a few things go into the Major Events in the introductory section. There's the spy plane incident, Space Shuttle Columbia's demise, Katrina, War on Terror (which isn't an event really), Iraq, and 9/11. Not all of these are there, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some that used to be there. We should decide what major events are going to go in here. glocks out 22:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Major events during Bush's presidency involving the United States include the September 11, 2001 attacks, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster."


 * I was worried about this when I put it in. Presentation in a list format just invites constant expansion, which I don't think is good for the summary.  I've been mulling over how to make this tight and stable.  Something along the lines of 9/11 and Iraq presenting security and foreign policy challenges and Katrina bringing up alot of domestic issues...but all my attempts are verbose and ugly, except for the simple list. EricN 22:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that paragraph needs to exist. Is it in other biographies? glocks out 22:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hear from us
What's the purpose of including this paragraph?

"In the week following the attacks on the twin towers in Manhattan in September 2001, President Bush made a brief but celebrated speech near the site of the collapsed buildings while surrounded by site workers. CNN reported, 'As he stood on a pile of rubble in Manhattan, some people in the crowd shouted they couldn't hear him.' In reply, Bush stated that the attackers would soon be 'hearing from all of us'."

Why are we picking out this specific speech and not all of his others?

glocks out 22:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That para does work as a nice transition from 9/11 to Afghanistan/Iraq, breaking up the prosaic list of "On X date, he did Y" sentences. It's got a little flair and is directly Bush related, so it's probably worth hanging on to.  Unfortunately ABM treaty and UNFPA are in they way.  Perhaps those two don't really need to sit the the proper chrono spots?


 * Question: are we writing a book or an encyclopedic entry? Yes, it should flow well, but it's an irrelevant paragraph about ... hearing people? glocks out 00:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a very notable speech (perhaps his 2nd most notable) and commonly referenced. It should probably stay. -- Lord Vold e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  15:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Article Size
The page is now 92 KB. I can tell this is a pretty important issue, because there are something like 30 talk pages, but as per Article Size, we have to break this off into sub-pages, DESPERATELY. Once this is done (effectively), I think this should be re-submitted for peer review. It is truly a great example of how a topic like this can bring people together to create a great encyclopedia article. Let's see Brittanica try to top this! - User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]00:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Spacing of Headers
What's with the spacing on this article? - RoyBoy 800 00:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * They've gotten messed up. Feel like fixing them? :-)  EricN 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hearsay and unsupported accusations
This paragraph is pure hearsay and unsupported accusations:


 * Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [6] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has refused to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [7] In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried." When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [8] [9]

If you include this for George Bush, why doesn't the section on Bill Clinton mention that his brother Roger Clinton, himself a convicted drug trafficker, is heard on an Arkansas State Police surveillance audio tape saying "Got to get some [cocaine] for my brother; he’s got a nose like a vacuum cleaner" and in 1990 Sharlene Wilson, an informant for the Seventh Judicial drug task force in Arkansas, testified under oath that she had supplied Governor Bill Clinton with cocaine? All the Bill Clinton section says is this bit of left wing spin:


 * Clinton's character and policies were viewed with intense, personal dislike by some conservative critics. Several unsubstantiated accusations were leveled on conservative talk radio programs. Among these were rumors of involvement with drug traffickers and personal cocaine use

Either the rumors and unsubstantiated accusations against Bush should be treated the same as those against Clinton or we need to the cocaine rumors and accusation related to Clinton added to his article.

This paragraph in the Bush article should be removed - not to mention it is covered in an entire hearsay/unsupported accusation section called "George W. Bush substance abuse controversy"

-LastVisibleDog 01:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your question answers itself; this is an article about George Bush, the Clinton article is about Bill Clinton, not Roger. This page has quotes from tapes, while the accussations against Clinton, however prominent, had no such solid information, hence "unsubstantiated". Thanks for your comments. Voice of All  @ ''' 01:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * NONSENSE Voice of All. The Roger Clinton quote is evidence that Bill Clinton was a cocaine user.  Somebody testified under oath they provided cocaine to Bill Clinton - there is no evidence that Bush ever did cocaine.  The "quotes from tapes" you speak of only show Bush would not comment and is not supporting evidence for any accusation. This is pure left-wing spin.  There is evidence Bill Clinton may have been a cocaine user - there is no evidence Bush used cocaine.  The evidence against Clinton is unsupported therefore it shouldn't be in Clinton’s article nor should this nonsense be in the Bush article.  -LastVisibleDog 01:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW Voice of All, the "quotes from tapes" you speak of only IMPLY Bush may have used marijuana while Bill Clinton admitted he used marijuana yet Bill Clinton’s article put a positive spin on this fact. I hope this is not a double-standard I have uncovered...-LastVisibleDog 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This article mentions Bush's comments on allegations against him, which are somewhat suggestive on there own, without any spin(and this is Bush himself).


 * "In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."


 * Nevertheless, such past events do not make him unfit to be a president now.


 * Also, "'Got to get some for my brother. He's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner." is not only far less implicative but it is not by Clinton himself(unlike Bush's damning statement.


 * The inclusion of possible, and highly discussed, past descretions without a smoking-gun is still encyclopedic. If you want to add any of Clinon's quotes about his possible drug use, along with Roger's claim, with proper citation(a source), then you are welcome to do so. I assumed that Clinton's possible drug use was already covered in Bill Clinton. I will have to have a look at that.


 * Finally, please refrain from using all-caps. Thank you.  Voice of All  @ ''' 01:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * An innuendo statement on the tape implies Bush may have used marijuana and you claim "Nevertheless, such past events make him [Bush] unfit to be a president now". So Clinton using marijuana is fine but some innuendo that Bush might have used marijuana makes him unfit to be president. This is the double-standard - isn't it? -LastVisibleDog 03:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I use all-caps when needed - they were needed. So what you are saying is the unsupported accusations (you admit they are unsupported) against Bush should remain and what I need to do is add unsupported accusations to Bill Clinton's article.  It seems to me this type of nonsense is at least part of the reasons for the resent articles about inaccuracies of Wikipedia.  If Wikipedia really wants to be neutral on information they should remove spin rather than encouraging the addition of more spin.  The accusations of drug use against Bush are weaker than the accusations of drug use against Bill Clinton although both accusations are far from conclusive.  I am going to fight to have this nonsense removed – this is not factual information, this is spin in support of somebody’s agenda.  This only discredits Wikipedia and that is too bad because this is a great service. -LastVisibleDog 02:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe VOA said that the Bush accusations were unsupported. The tape seems like pretty good evidence that Bush used drugs at some point in his life. Anyway let's focus on Bush in this article, not Clinton. Rhobite 03:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The "evidence" in pure innuendo. Do you feel innuendo is "pretty good evidence"??? -LastVisibleDog 03:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I meant "do not make him unfit to be president", the negative was missing. The point there was to help show that I have no POV agenda, but that typo did the opposite(opps!!!).


 * "The accusations of drug use against Bush are weaker than the accusations of drug use against Bill Clinton although both accusations are far from conclusive." I would have to say they oppositte, given that George Bush gives the best evidence for him having done drugs before.


 * Finally, I never said that is was unsupported. As I said, if you want to add to the Bill Clinton article then do so, as long as it is encyclopedic. I already said that that issue needs to be addressed there. Voice of All  @] ] | [[Wikipedia:Esperanza| Esperanza | E M  |undefined 04:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Bush said he "wouldn't answer the marijuana question ... 'cause I don't want some little kid doing what I tried." and "But you gotta understand, I want to be president, I want to lead. I want to set -- Do you want your little kid to say, 'Hey daddy, President Bush tried marijuana, I think I will?'"
 * These are not innuendo, they are taped admissions that Bush used drugs. I fail to see how they aren't conclusive evidence that Bush admitted to drug use. Rhobite 15:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Rhobite - it is pure innuendo because you are assuming that is what he meant when in fact that is not really what he said. He presented a hypothetical statement and you assume he is confessing when in fact that statement was hypothetical although it does seem to imply he may have used - this is pure innuendo.  Remember he was not president at the time he made the statement. It is highly likely he did smoke weed and I am all but certain Bill Clinton and George Bush smoked weed in the their youth (and Al Gore was up there with Cheech and Chong)(not to mention marijuana prohibition is a nonsensical waste of money that began as a form of racism) the point here is  - what is the point of adding this innuendo? To throw everything at the wall to see what might stick? -LastVisibleDog 22:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I skipped this paragraph in my current edit pass, but I think it needs some juicing up. The opening sentence is a limp fish; the followup needs to inform the reader why the expungement allegations are sufficiently grave to merit inclusion; and the closing reads like a schoolyard bicker, "No I didn't! Yes you did! No I didn't!". Anyone know of some meaty content to bulk up this section? EricN 20:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Geeze EricN, I thought editing was supposed to be natural - sounds like you may have an agenda. A convicted felon made the "expungement allegation" - this was not done in the body of his book - it was added at the last minute to - as you say - "juice up" the book.  When the publisher found out the convicted felon had absolutely no evidence to back up the allegation (he could not even name the alleged judge that was involved) the publisher cancelled and recalled the book.  I think that is juicy enough - somebody with an agenda wrote a book and to "juice it up" they added a bogus allegation they could not back up.  How much more juicy would you like it?  The story here seems to be Bush haters are willing to do anything to attack George Bush.  The issue is not schoolyard bickering - somebody attacked Bush with an allegation they could not back up and they got burned - Bush is peripheral to this story. I thought the paragraph should be deleted or added to an article about Hatfield because the only real connection to Bush is the bogus allegation involved Bush.  I was told the paragraph could not be removed so I just added the facts that had been left out.  -LastVisibleDog 22:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection again
Sorry for the repetition but I just had to point out...one hour, eight reversions. Let's say each bit of vandalism was up two minutes, then for a quarter of the last hour an interested browser coming here from Google or whatever was seeing vandalism (George vagina amongst others) not the true page. Sure, as Tony said above "just revert" but I still suggest that this page, at least for certain periods, is effectively useless. I really think we should block anons from editing. Marskell 15:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Vandalism lasted over an hour: Something has to change. This morning, the article read "George Bush is a son of a bitch" for an hour and a half. The problem was there were multiple vandals, and someone didn't check the history before reverting one of them. This edit was the culprit. Especially on this article, people need to look at the history and make sure they are reverting all vandalism. I agree that something needs to change about the article. Whether it's semi-protection or something else. The editors who say "just revert it" are clearly too far removed from vandal-fighting to understand the ramifications of being lenient. Rhobite 15:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats what I was about to say, then you edit conflicted me:-). This "son of a bitch" vandalism could have been seen by who knows how many people!  Ban e  s  15:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the "George Bush is a son of a bitch" vandalism remained for 1 hour and 40 minutes, and this is not the first time something like this has happened. This is yet another example of the vandalism-related problems this article is faced with; when it is defaced with "stacked vandalism" (two or more vandals editing back to back), often only the most recent diffs are reviewed.  Five minutes later when the article is hit again by two more anonymous drive-by vandals, the earlier entries become old news.
 * Offering semi-protection, as it is being proposed, would virtually eliminate all cases of drive-by vandalism. Yes, there would of course be those isolated instances of pre-meditated vandalism, but that is not what 90% of these edits are, and that is not what we are trying to resolve.  Full protection is not the answer, we should not limit our editors who are in good standing from editing an article about the current president of the United States.  Semi-protection would allow registered users to edit a high-traffic article which is frequently vandalised.  Full protection does not.  Hall Monitor 18:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think partial protection is a good answer to anything. We should count ourselves lucky that the vandals are anons; blocking anons is easy. If we force irate vandals to get usernames, it will only exacerbate our vandalism problems. I've seen what a single non-anonymous vandal can do, if he puts his mind to it, and it's not pretty.
 * In effect, forcing vandals to log in would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Protect the page totally, or not at all. --Ashenai (talk) ( Galatea! ) 15:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This semi-protection feature, as proposed, does not force a vandal to do anything. If anything, it would double as a cooling-off feature as it would temporarily delay editing by a would-be vandal.  On the contrary, I believe that a feature such as this would encourage those of our well-intended anonymous editors to create an account should they wish to contribute to a frequently vandalised high-traffic article.  Was restricting page moves to registered accounts a shot in the foot?  Hall Monitor 18:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

But the vast majority of the bullshit here is drive-by stuff. Multiple anons hitting it randomly. Yes, of course, a "dedicated vandal" with a username can cause serious trouble but they can do that anyway. I think partial protection would drastically cut the vandalism. Marskell 15:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And if someone replaced the page with "BUSH HATES BLACK PEOPLE" then he/she likely does not have the attention span to even login or make sockpuppet vandal accounts(Willy on Wheels anyone?). Those that do have the patience will be just as harmful as without semi-protection.


 * If RedWolf24 was here, he might argue that many spelling correction are also "drive-by". While that is true, I could answer that with the idea that Semi-Protection for vandalism would onyl be temporary, usually just a few hours; better that "Bush us BITCH" for 1.5 hours. Voice of All  @ ''' 16:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, anyone who thinks they can well explain the general logic as well as the more technical aspects could make a request at Feature requests. Notify here and people can second, third and fourth the motion (just don't let the vandals know...wait a minute, they could be watching right now...act quickly!). Marskell 16:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm still weakly opposed. Today's "GOERGE BUSH IS POOPOOHEAD!!1!" is tomorrow's writer of brilliant prose (OK, not tomorrow, but in 5-10 years). Casual vandalism is actually one of the ways new people experiment with the project, and I'm not happy about preventing it.
 * If some sort of partial solution is required, I'd like to suggest instant reversion. That is, the Wikisoftware allows edits to the article by anons, but reverts them instantly. The effect would be win-win; no one else would see the vandalism, but the vandal would (until he refreshes the page); this would show him that yeah, you can edit Wikipedia, willya look at that. --Ashenai (talk) ( Galatea! ) 16:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Quick note: you're not happy about preventing vandalism? What? Newbies have the sandbox to "experiment" stuff in. -- Lord Vold e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase that: I'm not happy about preventing people from interacting with the project, even if their interaction is initially vandalism. Most newbies are made aware that there is a sandbox through {test}... which they'll only get after their first test edit, of course.
 * There's a reason we have the {test}, {test2}, {test3}, {test4} sequence. --Ashenai (talk) ( Galatea! ) 16:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So, you're ok if 50% of the time this article says "Bush is oopoohead"? How does that benefit Wikipedia? -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please re-read my alternate suggestion. I am suggesting a software solution that would allow anons to interact with any pages they choose, without their edits ending up visible to anyone but themselves (and people choosing to browse the edit history). --Ashenai (talk) ( Galatea! ) 16:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So how do we let the good-natured anons edit this page then? How do we distinguish good anons from bad, vandalanons? -- Lord Vold e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  17:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This wasn't meant to be a perfect solution, just a solution that would (IMO) be superior to the original "partial protection" suggestion. Like the original suggestion, it should only be used when there is need. --Ashenai (talk) ( Galatea! ) 17:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the software solution is possible. However, the anons have plenty of other places to edit. Drive by anon contributions to this page are almost always vandalism. As said above, partial protection would prevent most vandals, the serious ones would create sockpuppet accounts regardless.  Ban e  s  18:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But what, if any, are the advantages of partial protection, as opposed to the software solution? --Ashenai (talk) ( Galatea! ) 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides the obvious advantage that it will virtually eliminate drive-by vandalism, there is the added advantage that it will encourage users to get register an account with Wikipedia in order to edit high-traffic articles which are frequently vandalised. I can't think of any reason a legitimate contributor could not understand that we need to provide some degree of protection to an article vandalised so severely as this one.  Beyond that, it will actually allow registered users to edit the article while under semi-protection, something that normal protection does not allow.  From my perspective, semi- or partial-protection provides a win-win-win solution all the way around.  Hall Monitor 19:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Another Deleteable Paragraph
Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974.  He has denied the allegation made by J.H. Hatfield in the book Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President (1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has refused to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. Hatfield, a convicted felon (solicitation of capital murder), was unable to provide any evidence for his accusation and his publisher, St. Martin's Press, suspended publication and recalled his book because of this unsupported accusation about George Bush.

A whole paragraph written in the negative? If someone wants to reword this so it reads as "A said this. B happened.  C responded", etc. go ahead. I'm dropping it in its current form of "A denied this, B refused this, C couldn't provide this". EricN 16:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Off topic: Page moves
How long does a newly registered user wait (hours/days) before they receive the ability to move pages? Hall Monitor 18:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is right away... let me register another account and check on it. -Greg Asche (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I am fairly positive that there is a short delay, in the neighbourhood of 48 hours or so, between account registration and the ability to move pages. Before I write a proposal, I would like to know exactly what the length of that delay is.  Hall Monitor 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please hold/move this discussion elsewhere. Thank you. -- Lord Vold e  mort  <sup style="color:#3D9140;">(Dark Mark)  19:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not entirely off-topic, as it relates to several of the threads above. This is not meant to be a drawn out discussion, I'm just looking for an answer; do you have one?  Hall Monitor 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just registered a new account and there is a delay, someone on IRC told me you can't move pages if you are in the top 1% of users by registration date (i.e 99% of users registered before you). -Greg Asche (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you Greg for the follow up, that is quite a strange way of delaying privileges but there you have it. Please accept my apologies if this tangental conversation caused anyone any sort of inconvenience.  This thread is now closed.  Hall Monitor 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet another deletable paragraph
"United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has declared he shares a close political relationship with the United States known as the 'Special Relationship' was asked by several parts of the media and anti-war protesters in Britain to apologize for backing his friend Bush just prior to the 2005 UK General Election, he declined, saying 'I can't say sorry, I have nothing to be sorry about, I believe I did the right thing'."


 * Good paragraph for a Tony Blair article. Bad paragraph for a GWB article.  Yoink. EricN 20:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * delete Rex071404 216.153.214.94  01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Popularity ratings
"thumb" Autopilot updated this today, and it has already been cut and reverted. It is clearly relevant to the article, but the latest graph is not accurate to the CNN/Gallup poll data it references. I'm reverting to Aug/05 graph until the update is fixed. EricN 21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This graph is way to POV and those who want it in know that. Rex071404 216.153.214.94  01:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: Bush's approval rating (according to CNN/USA Today/Gallop) was 40 percent in September and 39% this month. . So, you're right, the graph I made didn't fit the numbers, it didn't take September into account. The line is going to show a more severe drop now (between August and September, with some leveling between September and October. This graph is by no means POV, how can it be? It's a mathematical representation of poll numbers. Anyway, I will not change the article to fit my recent correction, I'll leave that to someone else. If anyone else feels that my graph is too "POV," by all means, edit it, I just don't understand how a 39% can be anything but a 39% Autopilots 17:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

A completely unsupported allegation and an innuendo statement
The following paragraph contains a completely unsupported allegation and an innuendo statement. The facts related to the "expunge" accusation have been removed to "juice up" the story. The allegation was made by a convicted felon in a book of which the publisher cancelled and recalled because the allegation could not be supported in any way (the source of the allegation was removed - I guess somebody wanted to hide the fact this allegation was totally debunked). The tapes only present innuendo based on a hypothetical statement - maybe Bush did it and maybe he did not. This paragraph has been turned into spin and must be removed:


 * Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [6] He has denied allegations that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine posses george bush deserves to burn in hell. he is a stupid asshole and needs to be die. sion in 1972, but has refused to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [7] In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried." When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [8] [9] Wead later admitted he had illegally recorded Bush without his permission. [10]

The George W. Bush substance abuse controversy article is where this kind of information should reside.

On a second point, this statement is factually incorrect: "He has denied allegations that family influence was used to expunge the record" - there was only one accusation - made by a convicted felon in a failed attempt to sell books.

-LastVisibleDog 23:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you'll notice further up, I already tried to cut that paragraph (an older version...GregAsche reverted and Voice of All(MTG) split the difference), so there's no need to take my "juice up" comment out of context. I don't care if the content stays or goes; I just think the writing is hollow. Let it sit for a few days, and if people want to keep it, I'll try a rewrite. EricN 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * First of, I don't think that anyone seems to care for this needless poll. Secondly, I have made another edit to the section. It also links to the author of the book instead of taking up article space. Voice of All  @ ''' 12:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm...with that edit, I'm in favor of dropping this bit. If the page is going to say the allegations were both unsupported and denied, linking to an author who does not appear to be otherwise notable, then I'm not sure why we have this tidbit at all.  What about just merging the Wead stuff into the prior paragraph? EricN 12:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Those in favor of deleting

 * delete Rex071404 216.153.214.94  01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Further Info and Reading
Well, I thought that the article was in serious need of being smaller, so I took the "further reading and info" and branched it off into a daughter article. It's not much, but I think it's a good idea (the list didn't REALLY belong in the article anyways, as NONE of us are actually going to go through and make sure that all the books are notable--really, let's be honest ;) ).

Any thoughts? Matt Yeager 03:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good call. I gave the subpage a more formal name (List of books and films about George W. Bush) and moved the 'see also' out of its own section and placed it with the rest. EricN 10:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Matt Yeager 01:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Need reference
"There is debate about whether the U.S. had evidence of Iraqi WMD or ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. A bipartisan intelligence review found no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, although the report did conclude that Hussein's government was actively attempting to acquire technology that would allow Iraq to produce WMD's as soon as U.N. sanctions were lifted. The report also concluded that Saddam's missiles had a range greater than that allowed by the UN sanctions. The report found 'no collaborative relationship' between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Bush has defended his decision, arguing that 'The world is safer today.'" I need a reference to the report quoting "no collaborative relationship". I want to pull WMDs out of this paragraph, since they are covered in the previous one, but that leaves only: "There is debate about whether the U.S. had evidence of ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. A bipartisan intelligence review found 'no collaborative relationship' between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Bush has defended his decision, arguing that 'The world is safer today.'" ...which is pretty thin. Anyone have this reference? I can't leave the quote in without it. EricN 12:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

2004 election
I would like to rewrite this section as it is convoluted. The following is what I propose:

In the 2004 election, Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. A record voter turnout gave him more popular votes than any previous presidential candidate (62,040,610 votes/50.7%). Challenger, Senator John Kerry (Democrat), carried 20 states, earning him 286 Electoral College votes (59,028,111 votes/48.3%). A faithless elector, pledged to Kerry, voted for Democratic Vice Presidential running mate, John Edwards, giving him one Electoral College vote. No other candidate won any Electoral College votes. Notable third-party candidates included Independent and Reform candidate Ralph Nader (463,653 votes/0.4%), Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik (397,265 votes/0.32%), Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka (144,498 votes/0.1%), and Green Party candidate David Cobb (119,859 votes/0.1%). Congress debated potential election irregularities, including allegations of voting irregularities in Ohio and electronic voting machine fraud.

Bush was inaugurated for his second term on 20 January 2005. The oath was administered by Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist. Bush's inaugural address centered mainly on a theme of spreading freedom and democracy around the world.

"'From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?'"

See also: U.S. presidential election, 2004

glocks out 22:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a mess because it was vandalized.  The version I trimmed it too was:
 * "In the 2004 election Bush carried 31 of 50 states and 286 Electoral College votes to defeat Senator John Kerry. A record voter turnout, split 50.7% for Bush, 48.3% for Kerry, gave both men more votes than any previous presidential candidate. Congress debated potential election irregularities. Notable third-party candidates included ...[snip]"
 * A1sdf went through and just deleted Kerry's name, turning it into the nonsense you see. Side note...Is a faithless elector for John Edwards over Kerry relevant to a Bush article? EricN 22:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Especially "John Ewards"? (see faithless elector for the details) ;) Matt Yeager 19:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The fact that it was a faithless elector isn't so important, but I was trying to show where all the votes went. Perhaps I was wrong. glocks out 23:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Atavistic 05:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)==Let me get this straight== This time the article is locked because the article was vandalized in a way that makes Bush look good? That's a first--172.170.158.50 03:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I heard some people even voted for him, as, like, for a politician. I know, it's hard to believe, but religion makes people do all sorts of things that would make no sense otherwise, so maybe the 'vandal' may have been sincere. 80.219.179.6 15:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles with current figures (politicians, businesses, people, countries etc) can not be composed without bias unless very strict boundries are layed down. Its all very well to source a newspaper, website or what have you, but as we all know these things have owners, writers, editors etc that have control over what they put out, and they themselves get their information off of someone else who in turn... Usually the facts can be filtered out by an unbiased person, but when the topic is a controversial president you're going to be hard pressed to find an unbiased person to compose the article. What ive said isnt new. I frequent the wiki projects as they are one of the most unbiased and complete sources around. Disputed articles are reasonably rare, although i have noticed that on some articles, the topic is given the benifit of the doubt, in others it goes the other way. it is a fine line, there will be a way to fix it, if anyone agrees with me i'd be happy to spend some time trying to come up with a solution, if not i can live with filtering the rare article as i read it.Atavistic 05:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Timeline needed
This page has grown out of control. It is fine if someone already knows a lot about Bush and can use the current outline to go tho the hurricane katrina section or something, but for other people It would be impossible to trace his presidency over time. I am suggesting we add an outline broken up into mounths that spells out in chronological order each action and event in his presidency. Like a tax cut here, court nomination here or a hurricane. This outline would be at the beginning of the page and each event in the timeline would link to diffrent sections in the page, what do you guys think?Ewok Slayer 16:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have started working on the timeline here. I will import it, when it is finished.--Ewok Slayer 21:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, there should be s "spin off" article "The Presidency of George W. Bush" Rex071404 216.153.214.94  05:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Check out George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States. Both could use a mop and a scrub brush. EricN 14:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't care about black people
Sorry bout that Appleboy and anon. With these wide diffs hard to see all the changes on screen sometimes. I reverted it back when Fire Star did a rollback, should stick now. - RoyBoy 800 04:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Grammar Question
About the sentence he married Laura Welch, a Democrat librarian originally from Midland.
 * First, the grammar point. Is this sentence correct, or is there a better way of stating this? Should it be  a ...Democratic_Party_(United_States)|Democratic  librarian... (with instead of bold)?
 * Second, is there a source that she was a democrat?

Autopilots 06:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1: Yes, there probably is a better way of phrasing that sentence. I prefer using "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" to distinguish between the political party and the form of government, but I agree the current form is a little awkward.
 * 2: My cursory search did not produce a reference. EricN 15:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought of changing it to "Democrat", but it didn't flow very well. When you say a senator is a Democrat you would say "Democratic Senator", so the form is fine. But it is confusing to say "Democratic librarian" because librarians usually don't have political affiliation. on the Laura Bush article is says her family was Democratic, but doesn't mention her affiliation. I say take that one word out, as it's irrelevant anyway, and we're good. "... a librarian originally from Midland." glocks out 20:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Nazi History?
Does anyone have a link to the Bush family's alleged connection to the Nazi party? -- Thearticulator 21:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Prescott Bush article has some external links at the bottom, as well as reporting on his Nazi ties. Autopilots 00:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Protected from moves
Following a bit of...fun...with moving, and recursive redirects; deletion and undeletion and complete loss of article history, we've now got this talk page protected against moves. Rob Church Talk 03:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Impeachment of Bush
This paragraph needs to be re-written. It basically compares Bush to Clinton. Why not to every President? It should mention that there is a movement supporting impeaching Bush with % support. It doesn't need to be compared to Clinton because this is an encyclopedia, not a news article. glocks out 00:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * After reading through the paragraph again, I don't think it even needs to be added. Maybe if it was re-written I'd change my mind. The paragraph leads the reader to believe there is a widespread call for impeachment, but there isn't. The polls mentioned are conditional, and hypothetical. Hypothetical polls shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. The paragraph states, "Polls show greater support for impeachment of Bush than ever seen for Clinton." This says there is a support for impeachment. The polls are phrased, "would support if." So there would be support, if, but there isn't any poll quoted showing an actual support of impeachment. This whole paragraph is misleading. If it is empirically shown Bush lied to engage in war, I would support his impeachment and war-criminal proseccution. But until this evidence is solidified, this paragraph is irrelevant. glocks out 19:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, note that the poll indicated (if anything), some support for consideration of impeachment, not impeachment itself.


 * It is obvious why there is a comparison to Clinton and not to other Presidents -- no other President since Nixon raised any serious talk of impeachment. The comparison with a recent case of actual impeachment puts the numbers in context.  For example, before Congress began taking any official action against Clinton but after the President admitted having an affair, the Washington Post asked, "If Starr reports to Congress that he has evidence that Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky and lied about it under oath, do you think Congress should or should not impeach Clinton and remove him from office?"  35% said he should be impeached.


 * Once the Clinton impeachment actually started, the polls asked about the actual impeachment of Clinton. The earlier polls, however, talked about "if" Clinton did so-and-so, should Congress begin formal proceedings toward impeachment?  This is extremely comparable to the current case with Bush.


 * The main reason that these public opinion polls should be included in the article is because the article claims to be addressing public opinion. The wording can be changed, but these polls do clearly fit the subject matter of this section.


 * The only reason I see for removal of these polls is that they do not support the opinion you want expressed. They are factual.  The wording of the paragraph accurately reflected the wording in the polls.  Removing them serves no purpose except promoting a POV.--RichardMathews 02:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Removing them doesn't promote a PoV at all. If something doesn't exist, it's not promoting anything. My argument for the removal of the paragraph is because it's not reflecting a public opinion of Bush. It reflects a hypothetical opinion about a hypothetical occurence. The poll plainly states the numbers are what someone's opinion would be if something happened. This is irrelevant to the fact that that thing hasn't happened yet. This poll is as irrelevant to this article as a poll asking is people would acknowledge Bush as King of the Moon if he pronounced it so. My objection doesn't come from my PoV because I most certainly did not vote for Bush, and I've been entirely active in expressing how much Bush sucks as a president. I've written a few critical essays on his policies. Bush is a terrible president, and I'd impeach him if empirical evidence came forth (senate commitee looks promising). But a hypothetical poll is irrelevant in expressing public opinion. glocks out 23:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The opinion is not hypothetical. It is really out there. When Zogby International first asked this question, they did not just invent this question out of nothing. Yesterday on the House floor, Nancy Pelosi accused Repubicans of a "cover-up." There really is an Impeach PAC raising money to support candidates who would support impeachment. You can go to the bookstore and find books on impeaching Bush (e.g., those by Bonifaz and by Dean). "Impeach Clinton" (with the quotes) finds 52,200 hits on Google. "Impeach Bush" finds 1,470,000 hits. Adding site:nytimes.com finds 13 hits -- similar results are found with other newspapers, even in red states. You even find "impeach bush" 15 times at Fox News.


 * It makes sense to reflect in the public opinion section of this article the opinions of all of those who wrote all those web pages, newspaper columns, and letters to the editor. Expressing it in terms of concrete numbers from the public opinion polls makes sense. Leaving it out misses an important aspect of how people view Bush.--RichardMathews 09:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you revisit the begining of this discussion, I said the paragraph simply needs to be re-written to reflect that this is a hypothetical poll. The opinion isn't hypothetical, but it based on hypothetical questions. This poll is hypothetical just as a poll asking if people would buy a car with 6 wheels if it was made by Ford is hypothetical. It just needs to be clear that this doesn't mean half the country wants to impeach bush, only that they would support congress considering the impeachment of Bush if certain events were true. This hypothetical poll is based on one condition, and the impeachment still isn't directly supported in the wording, only the consideration of impeachment. To say this poll says most people want to reflect Bush is spinning the truth. What I'm looking for is a NPoV paragraph about this. glocks out 01:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I was looking for new polls given the new senate look into this topic. I can't seem to find any recent polls. I did find this on the Zogby site though, it seems to be contradictory to what is in our article. (This is even linked directly after our article's figures).
 * "In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country. (...) A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed."
 * We should find the right numbers though (both links in our article show different numbers than in our article).
 * Right now I'm happy with how the paragraph is written. It has been worked over well. There is room for improvement though, as more polls come forth in the next few weeks. glocks out 02:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to keep numbers up to date. Someone once again deleted these paragraphs, and I have restored them. Impeachment is becoming a hot topic now that Sen. Kerry discussed it last week and Rep.Conyers has introduced a censure resolution today.