Talk:List of nicknames for George W. Bush

= content of page =

Newspapers occasionally refer to President George W. Bush by the initial W, sometimes spelled out as Dubya (a "Texan pronunciation" of "double-U"). This usage can often be seen in New York tabloids. And in a manner designed to infuriate the press, the president was quoted "Yes, I think people should be allowed to criticize me all they want, and they do. (Laughter.) Now what are you all laughing at over there? (Laughter.) Don't cheer him on. (Laughter.)

Look, there are some certain basic freedoms that we've got to protect. The freedom of people to express themselves must be protected. The freedom of people to be able to worship freely. That freedom is valuable." (Denver Post 3/10/06.) And Since the Current POTUS is not capable of indignant lip quivering and tears on demand--see "I did not have sex with that woman, what's her name, "what is the definiton of 'is'". Democrats should be most pleased that the current POTUS is an "idiot", by their definition.

Western journalists typically try to find the shortest possible term to refer to a subject, most often to spin their agenda, and the current US president uses the same common form of his name -- George Bush really--no kidding, DUH! I wonder why? as his father, who was president 8 years before him in an effort to disguise his policies, despite the fact that his father is close friends with Bill Clinton(neither of whom help Jimmy Carter build habitats for humanity.) The last Carter who actually promoted housing for the lower class was Billy, who endorsed mobile homes, and In this poster's experience was polite and educated unlike the 39'th President. The Mobile Home remote was a hoot in 1986! And if you can follow this path, all true, then you are a liberal.

Some reports indicate that members of the Bush family circle privately refer to the current president (served 2001- ) as Junior to distinguish him from his father. Yet it is by no means clear that this nickname is actually used, or in what context, except by Molly Ivins, who is getting what she deserves.

Neutral or positive
Some nicknames are used in a neutral sense, a positive sense, or in an ironic way mocking the positive sense:
 * W - distinguishing son from father by his middle initial
 * Dubya - folksy Texan pronunciation of his middle initial W
 * GW - the initials of both his first and middle names
 * Bush II - implying a dynastic succession from father to son
 * Bush-43 - meaning the 43rd president, distinguishing son from father (who is referred to as Bush-41)
 * Liberator of Baghdad - praising the US invasion of Iraq as a "liberation" of the Iraqi people from dictator Saddam Hussein
 * The Bushinator - likening his military prowess to that of the lead role in The Terminator

Negative
President Bush's political opponents often use nicknames for him in a disparaging sense, such as:


 * Dubya - folksy Texan pronunciation of his middle initial W
 * GW - the initials of both his first and middle names
 * King George, King George II, Little George - implying he's as oppressive as the British monarchy was toward the early American colonists - used by Howard Dean in a campaign speech September 23, 2003
 * Junior - suggesting that he's not on a par with his father
 * Baby Bush - distinguishing him from Poppy Bush (the nickname of choice for George H. W. Bush)
 * Bush Baby - a crack likening him to an African primate (see galago)
 * Shrub - pun on his last name, since he's a smaller Bush. This nickname was popularized by Texas newspaper columnist Molly Ivins.
 * Uncurious George - motivated by his chimp-like resemblance to fictional monkey Curious George and by his intolerance for diverging fact and opinion. Usual "I know you are but what am I liberal tag" (See "put some Ice on it, Bill Clinton)
 * Bushie - belittling diminutive (compare Moonie)
 * Dumbo - implying that Bush is an idiot
 * Dumbya - hybrid of Dumbo and Dubya
 * Shrubya - hybrid of Shrub and Dubya
 * Gush - coupled with "Bore" in descriptions of Election 2000 as the "Gush and Bore election", juxtaposing his surname spooneristically with that of Al Gore (whose only two nicknames, by marked contrast, are Al Bore and Al Snore)
 * Bushitler - used by his most extreme opponents to express hatred towards the US president and to liken him to Adolf Hitler.

from VfD
I think I will start a list tomorrow Food that George W. Bush Likes. Smith03 01:58, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * List of nicknames for George W. Bush. Is this page really necessary?  I won't comment as to the originator's motivations in including it, but if his/hers isn't political, this page will still turn political very quickly.  Besides, do we want "List of nicknames for ..." every person, famous or infamous, to get stated? RickK 00:10, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * My feeling is lists should go into the article they refer to, when possible. -- Cyan 00:40, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * We won't get lists of nicknames started for very many people at all, simply because most people have acquired no more than one or two nicknames. The president, on the other hand, is stated on his page to be known for his love of nicknames. If you'll count, the nickname page already has more than 20 appellations for George W. Bush alone. How many people could approach that? I created this page because George W. Bush lists a few of his nicknames and expands on their use but leaves some other popular names such as "Shrub" out, and doesn't offer room to list all his nicknames. (We had a vandalism a few days ago from someone who replaced his listed nicknames with "Shrub", "Moron" and some third name, then when cleaning up the vandalism the next person changed the three names right back to the original, without even keeping "Shrub".) And how can a mere list get political? If we're just listing straight names, we won't have to worry about POV comments creeping into the article. Wiwaxia 01:45, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * A list like this is very likely to become pov. If I have my own nickname for the President or anyone else can I add it or is there a certain criteria that a nickname must be used or known by x number of people or percentage of a population. Somewhat off topic, but it has occurred to me that Bush has been President for only about 3 years now not yet as long as JFK and certainly not as long as FDR was president or Lincoln or Washington yet I bet more has been written about W ( in Wikipedia) than all 4 of those Presidents combined, Can we have some sense of balance not everything a person does or every aspect of a person's personal habits needs to have a page.Smith03 01:55, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Then there obviously needs to be a list Food that George W. Bush Does Not Like. RickK 02:03, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Than we need to allow those foods or people who support those give a balance pov as why Bush is wrong in not liking those foods. Plus maybe there are some foods that he sometimes likes and sometimes doesn't like so maybe that could be a list:) Smith03 02:08, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * (sigh) The way to avoid POV, as always, is to state facts without editorializing. A list of popular nicknames, citing sources, will not be POV in and of itself. And folks, the whole sarcastic List of some other stupid thing rejoinder has grown really, really old. Just say, "I don't think that's a good idea because of X, Y, Z," instead of trying to be clever, and succeeding only in being repetitious. -- Cyan 03:42, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I can go over to FreeRepublic.com and get a few hundred nicknames for President Clinton, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, etc. Is it really a good idea for me to do that?  Is it really a good idea for someone to go over to DemocraticUnderground and add every name somebody calls George Bush to a list here?  Believe me, the Clinton and Gore lists can get very long and somebody like JoeM WILL do a tit-for-tat list and there will be no valid excuse for not allowing it.  Lets not do this.Ark30inf 23:53, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * My idea was that giving citations avoids the POV problem; whether lists of nicknames are appropriate at all is another question. As to the point about "retaliatory" lists, I can't say I find it compelling: if the lists are properly cited, then they contain valid information about the individual. By its nature Wikipedia will always have more pop culture information in it than other encyclopedias, so why not have extensive lists of stupid nicknames? (Always assuming that someone wants to go to the effort.) -- Cyan 02:23, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Note also that under the policy I espouse here, the current list is considered POV and should be blanked. If others agree, I will do this shortly. -- Cyan 02:28, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I understand Cyan's policy is that every nickname should be cited with an example of actual use? This sounds like a good idea, if everyone can agree that it's a good idea. But I'd like to have that agreement first - otherwise it won't be worth putting in the effort to get citations, only for them to be deleted anyway.

I moved this back because, for example, Cyan's proposed policy is relevant to content as well as deletion. Martin 08:38, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My idea is that the text of this article should read something like:


 * The following affectionate nicknames for George W. Bush are used by his family [reference]:




 * The following derogatory nicknames for George W. Bush have been used on the partisan website http://www.DemocraticUnderground.com:



Examples of actual use aren't necessary, as long as the instances in question are relatively easy to find. The POV problem is avoided by appropraite attribution of the use of the nicknames. -- Cyan 23:21, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page should certainly be deleted. It clearly exists for no reason other than insulting Bush, I can't believe that it isn't apparent to everyone. I mean stuff like "Bushitler" and "Dumbya". I don't even like the guy but I can clearly see that this is pure POV insulting of a political figure that some people dislike strongly. Come on. Maybe JoeM wasn't entirely incorrect. ThereIsNoSteve 06:27, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Somebody is going to have to go over to FreeRepublic now and cull out the 10,000 insulting and obnoxious nicknames for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary, or for that matter ANY politician and establish articles here listing them. When some jerk does that there will be absolutely NO REASON not to keep them since the precedent was set with this page.  Bush cannot be treated as a special case.  Keeping this page is such a bad decision I think. Ark30inf 19:07, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If anyone were arguing that the content isn't encyclopedic, I might agree. (After all, Wikipedia picks up a lot more pop culture than other encyclopedias, including some very marginal material.) But people here seem to have let this point slip (cf. "NO REASON" above), instead arguing that the list is POV. My id&eacute;e fixe is that as a general principle articles shouldn't be deleted for being POV - they should be rewritten. I will make this argument as forcefully at List of nicknames for Bill Clinton as I do here. (I won't speak for the motives of the person who created the article, but I personally don't care what epithets Americans hurl at their past presidents or the current one.) -- Cyan 21:35, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that its useless info AND POV at the same time which will generate opposing useless POV material which would then have to be accepted based on this precedent. I'm not sure that it is useful to know that somebody over at DemocraticUnderground once called Bush "Bushitler" or that someone at FreeRepublic called Hillary Clinton "Shitlery" or "The Clintoris".  Useless, POV, and with a high probability of provoking tit-for-tat ridiculous articles that can't be deleted.  Take your pick.  Regardless, the VfD failed and hopefully the list will fade into obscurity without provoking anything similar. Ark30inf 21:47, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * It's already setting a precedent, with the newly created List of nicknames for Hillary Rodham Clinton for example. If these things need to exist, they can go in the article about the person. I see no need to have them as separate pages. Angela 23:24, Sep 21, 2003 (UTC)

The original nomination was because the article was or would become political (which was interpreted to mean POV). After much discussion, there was no consensus on this point. You can always (re)nominate this list and others like it for VfD, on grounds of unencyclopedic material and uselessless. (Just mention the fact that it's a renomination on different grounds than the original nomination.) -- Cyan 00:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If you look at the size of the Bush article, its clear that there is no room there. The wiki has plenty of harddrive space for some lists of nicknames of famous people. Pizza Puzzle


 * In what sense does the main Bush article not have room? One place this list could go is under George W. Bush, which already has some discussion of Bush and nicknames. -- Cyan 00:45, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This article should only list common nicknames. A simple Google test can be applied. I removed, for example, "Shrubbleyou" which Google didn't find at all. --Wik 01:26, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Gee Bushitler Bushitler is a play on his last name to make a connection with to both Adolf Hitler and shit. Boy if some one put this in the main Bush page it would be removed for npov reasons but having this kind of page sure is a nice way around that policySmith03 02:51, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page still doesn't conform to my idea of a NPOV list - many of the nicknames on this list are uncited, and the citations that do exist are unsatisfactory. I am adding the NPOV dispute header, and I will try to put it into what I think is reasonable shape. When I am finished, I will note so here, but I will leave it to others to remove the header. -- Cyan 04:38, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My plan:
 * I will rely on Google to measure popular usage.
 * I will cite major usage.
 * Minor nicknames (as measured by Google) will be discarded. The exact threshold will be determined as I work and reported here during or after.

Cyan 04:40, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * At least its a plan. I would also say that you should measure the variety of websites using the term as well as the quantity of hits. For example if you hypothetically found 5,000 references to "Shitlery" but every single one of them was from FreeRepublic then it wouldn't be widespread usage despite the quantity. Ark30inf 04:51, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm finding a lot of name collisions, but I'm trying to narrow in on Bush nickname usages only. After surveying the nicknames, I am boldly establishing the threshold of 1000 Google hits; as a check, hits a quarter 100 down the list must still refer to the nickname in question. All denigrating nicknames will be prominently cited as such. -- Cyan 04:55, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's my bed time, so I'm stopping for now. What do you think? (I won't see your answers until tomorrow.) -- Cyan 05:20, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Better, but I'm not sure that the ones from a single website belong. The Hillary list needs to be done also but its my bedtime also. Ark30inf 05:29, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I think you mean the ones where I cite a single partisan website. These ones are actually in widespread use as measured by Google; the idea is to cite a prominent and clearly partisan source. I intend to move other nicknames into those lists. -- Cyan 19:15, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone would want to delete the nicknames that was added with explanations in what context they where added and with sources. Wasn't that the way to make them NPOV? BL 10:57, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I could run over to a website real quick and add a bunch of derogatory names, then come back and list those names and cite the website as the source. My uncle has said a lot of bad, bad, things about Hillary.  Is it useful for me to list those things and cite my uncle as the source?  Ark30inf 17:52, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by that? That you think I invented the nicknames I listed? Did you try to search for them? BL 22:35, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Some of these are prominent nicknames; such as "Pilot in Chief" or "King George". Pizza Puzzle

Oddly enough, the nicknames with cited usage that I deleted had among the lowest Google hit counts. Also, some of the cited links were broken when I tried them. I think 1000 Google hits is a fairly low threshold for popular usage - if a nickname doesn't even have that much presence on the web, then it ought not to be listed on Wikipedia. Case in point: "Pilot in Chief" falls far below the threshold I established, and many of the listed links aren't even using it as a nickname for GWB. -- Cyan 19:15, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have to go. I had enough time to respond to these comments, but not enough to actually make any changes. Doh! I'll do more in about six hours. -- Cyan 19:18, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

A general solution
I think I've found a general solution, that takes care of the partisanship issue. How about a List of nicknames for US Presidents page? We can start with Tricky Dick and 'the Father of his country'. If most of us can recognize which 2 presidents these nicknames refer to, then it means there is a venerable tradition of nicknames that stick.

I daresay there'll be a lot of anti-Bush nicknames, but I don't care. It's neutral to report that many people have partisan motives for making up nasty nicknames.

Better yet, list of nicknames for public figures and include everyone we can all think of. --Uncle Ed 19:22, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. -- Cyan 22:55, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think a threshold of 1000 is pretty high, 1000 is the current threshold to determine whether we write an article on a person at all; so we shouldnt require there to be 1000 websites using that nickname. Pizza Puzzle


 * Agree and disagree, there are many famous persons that get less than 1000 Google hits. BL 22:35, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with what google threshold is used for the creation of articles. What has been done here is that a new standard has been set, by which, any factual statement can be deleted from any article if that factual statement cannot be backed up with greater than 1000 google hits. -BuddhaInside

The door isn?t closed to other metrics, but I endorse Wik?s suggestion that only nicknames in wide usage are added. ?Wide usage? is of course a fuzzy concept, but I think it?s safe to say that anything below 1000 Google hits doesn?t qualify, other information notwithstanding. -- Cyan 02:58, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Again, there is nothing specific to the nicknames of George Bush here. The precedent being set is that any fact may be deleted from any page, if that fact can be supported by fewer than 1000 google hits. -BuddhaInside

Any fact? I am bemused by the suggestion. I would expect contributors to construe the precedent as applying only to derogatory nicknames, or even a subset such as derogatory nicknames of politicians. It's moot now... -- Cyan 22:05, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

--- If I went to Hillary Clinton's home page and put "Some people call her 'Shitlery'." it would rightfully be deleted (I hope) because it adds nothing. I suppose someone could come behind and put "Some people call her 'Wonder Woman' though." and that would make it fair and balanced in a way I guess. But neither would be particularly useful additions to an encyclopedia article. Putting them in a separate list doesn't improve their smell much. We would not smile on someone putting a bunch of anti-Semitic nicknames in Joe Lieberman's article nor would we be happy with a bunch of racist nicknames in Al Sharpton's article (I hope). So why would we think a separate page would improve the quality or usefulness of this information and make it worthwhile for inclusion? The current format opens the door for a page of these for every politician someone has complained about somerwhere (all of them). This will be my final comment on this one...I think my views have gotten a proper airing. I hope it works out to everyone's satisfaction. Ark30inf 23:13, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Peer Review
I?ve done my best to make this article NPOV by citing usage. I have also requested peer review at the appropriate page. -- Cyan 23:42, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Page protected to stop edit war. Please work this out people. --mav 06:29, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I really have no problem with the addition, or removal, of names based upon some sort of google/yahoo hit threshold -- but I think the threshold of 1000 is too high. I will concur that the term {Pilot-in-Chief) gets too few hits -- so pick a number between 50 and 1000; and maybe that will be better. Perhaps 500? Pizza Puzzle 00:11, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Why not, instead of someone choosing a (subjective) threshold, we (objectively) for completeness list how many hits each nickname gets on Google and/or other search engines? What would the potential reader want? BL 00:53, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There are two problems with this: (1) Google hits fluctuate; and (2) the potential reader probably couldn't care less about the information on this page. In fact, the potential reader is probably going to have a reduced opinion of Wikipedia because of this article. If this page had been nominated for deletion because it was unencyclopedic, instead of POV, I would never have opposed its deletion. (See Neutral point of view, point 9.6.) -- Cyan 02:30, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Using Google hits or entries as a basis for anything is a losing proposition as Google is not an objective source of information. Search results are continuously manipulated in several ways. Results are often affected by bots programmed to bury (or highlight) specific people, products and especially phrases in their search results. Google itself and its Reputation.com service, where you can effectively make things/people/events disappear from search results or go so far down the search results that nobody will ever see them for a fee or by Google itself for political reasons of their own. Newspapers and other publications de-list and remove pages from their searchable archives on a regular basis in response to changing political winds and to protect political figures. Using "other search engines" for most people is not a necessarily an easy or reliable source to find or use. How many search engines for newspaper and even other "search engine websites" will say "Powered by Google" if you look through the fine print on their websites long enough. Instances of nicknames or labels other than their specific name or title should be allowed, if the contributor has a specific reference where the name was used, whether or not Google search results back it up. RWBoomer (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)User:RWBoomer

Is it settled?
I think Cyan makes the best points and has shown the most concern for getting it right here, so I'm going to cooperate with Cyan. Martin and Mav also made good points, as usual, which I promise not to neglect.

I rewrote the page yesterday, emphasizing what I saw as various degrees of partisanship and/or an intent to disparage. I intended my version to be neutral on the question of whether Bush deserves such disparagement, but I was rather freely subjective about whether any given term constitutes disparagement.

Thus Dubya seems rather innocent, while Junior is ambiguous (could be nice, could be nasty). I daresay it's clear that Bushitler is extremely nasty; again, I'm not saying whether it's deserved or not but I recall reading a columnist who called it undeserved. I welcome a sentence (or two) giving the POV of an advocate who calls it deserved. That could segue into an explanation of how the half of the US who voted against really feels about him and why. But as far as nicknames go, perhaps this is a good start. --Uncle Ed 15:52, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Is it settled? Which it are you talking about?  Do we or do we not have a 1000 hit google rule for including facts in wikipedia articles.  That is what was proposed above, and that is what I resisted. -BuddhaInside


 * Whether there is a 1000 hits ruling on this page has no bearing on the rest of Wikipedia. Rules do not have to be globally applicable. Angela 16:13, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I won't support a 1000 hit google rule for including facts in Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, we'd have to delete everything I just wrote about anthropologist Irven DeVore. Bush is arguable the world's most prominent public figure. He attracts a lot of comment. Some support, some oppose his policies. Don't people often use nicknames and slogans to express their feelings? What are your main objections to the article, Buddha? --Uncle Ed 16:20, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to the article. I have no objections to a 1000 hit google rule for facts posted to articles, as long as that rule applies universally.  I object to using one rule for one article, and another rule for another article, depending on the political whims of the editors. -BuddhaInside


 * You are one of the editors. Please revise the article as you see fit. I claim no more right than anyone else to decide issues such as form, content, style or whether a particular fact is worthy of inclusion. In fact, I'm going to leave the article alone for the rest of the week so no one will feel I'm "defending my article against all intruders", as user:Anthere recently put it. --Uncle Ed 16:46, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * As I said, Ed, I have no objections to the article. -BuddhaInside
 * BuddhaInside, having a limit on number of Google hits actually has an advantage in an article like this one. It keeps the list useful by requiring that nicknames listed actually be used instead of just made up at whim without having to undergo any rigorous test of large-scale use by centripetal social forces. Ark30inf was worried about someone going over to FreeRepublic or another political site of choice and posting a note that made a newly invented "nickname" official, or going there and asking other people to create new nicknames so they can end 'em in. With a test count (be it Google or otherwise) we won't have to worry about it because one or two posts using a nickname won't count anyway (so why even bother to create new ones). It would take real effort for any Wikipedian to invent a new name and then get it used in a variety of 500 different posts over the Internet, so much that few Wikipedians would do it just to be able to place a new name that fits their own idiosyncratic political agenda on the list. The idea of a count rule is a good one. Wiwaxia 17:44, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

=
In light of the recent decision to delete List of Nicknames for Hillary Rodham Clinton I am planning on relisting this one on VfD in the next couple of days. Since a list that is exactly the same, except for a different political leader, received no objections there is no reason to expect that the community would be inconsistent.User:Ark30inf

Common on that is total outragous that Clinton is deleted and Bush 's is not This place has no sense of NPOV anymore Smith03 23:15, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC) Congrets people you may JoeM 100% right

I thought this was deleted? now its back? If people really want to list nicknames why not use List of nicknames of wellknown people that i am less against but having a page for each individual is stupid IMO. -fonzy
 * It was actually the List of nicknames for Hillary Rodham Clinton that got deleted. (Of course it, too, is back.) Wiwaxia 17:44, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Well its not back now. If I understand correctly, VfD'd articles that have not passed an un-VfD vote can be deleted on sight.  I sighted the Hillary one.Ark30inf 17:50, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that, especially when whoever undeleted it didn't even report that they had done it and the consensus on VfU was for it to stay deleted. Angela 19:52, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)

Please move the nicknames somewhere else, rather than deleting them entirely. How about List of nicknames for US public figures or US Presidential nicknames or list of nicknames for US presidents and their wives? --Uncle Ed 21:42, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * It is going to fail the VfD vote so there is no need to move it anywhere. The Hillary Clinton list was deleted but the Bush list is kept.  I have always tried to avoid being a utopian.  But here I went and fell for the concept of NPOV. Silly me.Ark30inf 21:47, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

secondary VfD listing

 * List of nicknames for George W. Bush, I've let this one sit for a time to let everyone chill. We deleted the nickname page for Hillary Clinton for very good reasons and I propose that those same reasons apply and consistency demands that we delete this one also.Ark30inf 01:11, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. InanimateCarbonRod 01:19, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * If you actually look at the record for deleting List of nicknames for Hillary Rodham Clinton, the log erroneously claimed that all the votes were in favor of deletion. If the votes had been counted correctly and mine added, it might not have been deleted in the first place. I was going to respond on the deletion page, but for some reason the article was prematurely removed from the VfD page (and the article prematurely deleted) before I got around to doing it. I'm not only opposed to deleting the George W. Bush page, but I was opposed to deleting the Hillary page as well, assuming there were actually a fair number of real nicknames on that page that they wouldn't have let fit on the main Hillary Rodham Clinton page. Wiwaxia 02:17, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you can get the Hillary page back, but it remains that deleting one, and leaving the other, is problematic.Ark30inf 02:20, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * The Hillary page can be undeleted via WP:VFU, and it probably should be if indeed it was deleted in error or otherwise irregularly. I don't have a problem with either page; the Bush one has useful information (albeit apparent redundancy).  They will have to be watched for abuse (only real nicknames please!), but so do other pages. -- VV 04:22, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dubya is already discussed on [George W. Bush]]. Other nicknames can be discussed in a formal, thoughtful manner, not just a smattering of listed items. Kingturtle 02:30, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * This article damages Wikipedia's reputation among those who admire Bush. Flamebait-a-licious. Delete. -- Cyan 03:53, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Above comment is not a convincing reason to delete an article. I say both stay or both go, and since Hillary was deleted prematurely, bring it back and keep Bush. Fuzheado
 * Delete both.&#25140;&#30505sv
 * Delete both and any others. Nobody has a list of well-known nicknames so long that it needs its own page.  --Morven 06:19, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that not even George W. Bush, the king of nicknames, has a list of nicknames too long to fit in its own article? I'll try to see if I can work all the information comprehensively into the main article then. People were complaining that the nickname section was too long originally. I'll try to work on the George W. Bush page and you all tell me how you like it. Wiwaxia 00:08, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Lists of random insults nicknames don't need to be documented in an encyclopedia. -- Onebyone 09:59, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. As argued above, including each word ever used to describe something is not a good thing to do. We should only have the terms that are commonly used to call him by. As far as I can see, but that's from across the Atlantic, only W and Dubya seem worth salvaging. Andre Engels 13:43, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * So you only recognize those two from across the Atlantic? Well, at least now if you hear an American refer to "Shrub" or visit a message board site on American politics, you'll know what they're talking about! By the way, what's wrong with including all the names for something? For the article I wrote on mamoncillo, I have redirects from "genip", "quenepa" and "Spanish lime"! I might even make a redirect for Melicoccus -- that depends on whether the mamoncillo is the only plant in the genus, I'll have to do some research. Wiwaxia 18:00, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all of its kinfolk. -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 14:04, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. No place as a separate page in Bush or Clinton examples, and probably nothing but troll bait anyewhere else. - Marshman 18:54, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Minesweeper 01:22, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. And I also think that the Hillary list should be undeleted if it was deleted prematurely and that IF compelling evidence is put forward that there is a large number of nicknames in common use about her, then that list should remain too. BL 05:00, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete and if the HRC is back delete as well (Same Standard for all nicknames of politicans).Smith03 22:06, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * This was not deleted prematurely. It was on VfD for at least 7 days and Wiwaxia did not vote on it, so I can't see how s/he is now claiming that his/her vote was not counted when one was not made. Angela 19:24, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
 * I just did a little research about all the pages that suddenly disappeared from the twenty-fourth and the twenty-fifth and it seems from the discussion on Wikipedia that these were deleted early because Wikipedia had reached enough kilobytes for this page. Is the Wikipedia time for deletion supposed to be faster or slower depending on how much stuff you have on the VfD page? Wiwaxia 00:03, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just too tempting a target for namecalling. -- Jake 08:53, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep -- How is it democratic to keep requring the "keeps" to keep coming back here, seeing this, and readding their vote? Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Many of the people who voted to delete this time did not voice an opinion last time. I think the process is working just fine. -- Cyan 02:05, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I voted to keep last time, and I still feel that way. The Hilary Clinton thing is a red herring, IMO. Martin 12:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Perhaps move a few highlights to Presidential trivia, along with small amounts of nickname text for well known wives of Presidents. If that page grows large enough it can be split with clear cause. JamesDay 21:27, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. Where else can you read through a great article that takes you on an expedition linking to everything from Moonies to Galago to the Al Gore to the Terminator to Spoonerism? Quinoaeater 20:33, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bush is the most powerful man in the world. If people want to call him names, let's describe those names neutrally. Besides, it brings traffic to the site. And we can reduce any redundancy by putting a link from George W. Bush to the nicknames article. --Uncle Ed 21:37, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * So if next nov Dean, Clark or someone else is elected president ( as the most powerful person in world) it will be okay for someone to create a similar list?Smith03 21:45, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, if Wesley Clark acquires lots of nicknames as the election approaches, I don't see anything wrong with including an explanation for all the colorful nicknames of this man. However, I don't know of a single nickname for Wesley Clark. As for Howard Dean, I can only think of one . . . Deano. Any others that would pass a Google test? List of nicknames for Wesley Clark and List of nicknames for Howard Dean were placed in the deletion log a few days ago. I know the reason was probably because the content was "Coming soon" for one and "Also coming" for the other rather than any other reason, but the fact that a nickname or two weren't readily provided for this list says something about the number of nicknames for these politicians. Wiwaxia 00:03, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Well, you folks have voted to delete the list of nicknames of Hillary Clinton but keep the list of nicknames for Bush. Wow.  And to think I strongly defended this community against charges of hypocrisy by JoeM and BuddhaInside.  Sheesh, am I a fool or what?Ark30inf 21:44, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. My previous vote to delete was removed from this list by User:Quinoaeater, in what I'll assume was a mistake. --Delirium 21:52, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * Vote count so far: 15-7 in favor of deletion (a clear 2/3 majority). --Delirium 21:55, Oct 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep. People won't be allowed just to come along and insert some exhilarating flames in this article. If they do they'll be deleted, just as they would on the Bush main page or on any other page about politics. Groessler 23:54, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as it won't work as a redirect to the information copied in the article on Bush. Donnie Ng 00:21, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)