Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:33, 16 March 2006

Template:Bounty notice

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

George W. Bush received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
2002 - 2003 1, 2, 3 2004 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 2005 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 2006 39, 40, 41, 42, 43

Religious beliefs and practices

Under the section http://en.wikipedia.org/George_W._Bush#Religious_beliefs_and_practices%7CReligious beliefs and practices], it says "His decision to name a religious figure generated some criticism - even among religious conservatives such as Alan Keyes and Bill Kristol". However, Alan Keyes was running against Bush at the time, and the reference was a Crossfire interview. At the time, Keyes's comments on Bush are hardly a neutral prospective. Barneygumble 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that Keyes' comments be 'from a neutral perspective', just that they inform the article and corroborate any assertions. I simply do not see the problem you suggest with this section. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but anything a politician does or says while running for office will be "generate some criticism" by SOMEONE. The wording creates a POV that saying "Jesus" was huge political blunder, which it wasn't.Barneygumble 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words in article

This is the official Misplaced Pages policy on weasel words:

Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources. Weasel words give a statement the force of authority without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.

For example, "Montreal is the nicest city in the world," is a biased statement. So as to support the biasing while keeping with neutral point of view, one should give arguments and cite sources for the statement. However, application of a weasel word can give the illusion of neutral point of view: "Some people say Montreal is the nicest city in the world."

Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative. Who says that? You? Me? When did they say it? How many people think that? What kind of people think that? Where are they? What kind of bias do they have? Why is this of any significance?

Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source.

When you have a section that refuses to give any specific attribution, and refers consistently to everything as "His opponents believe" "His critics say" "His supporters believe", this is hearsay plain and simple!!! BlueGoose 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on what specifically you think are weasel words. Could you give some examples?--Hbutterfly 01:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

1. "His critics" 2. "Bush supporters" 3. "Bush opponents"

BlueGoose 01:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

There are some uses of these words that do need some references. However, it is my opinion that many of these uses are already properly referenced in the linked articles. The nature of this article discourages including details. Most sections are really just a summary of another article. Is it benificial to "clutter" the main article, when more than enough references are available to support most of these statements only a click away? I guess what I'm saying is: Maybe a Misplaced Pages link to a properly referenced article is a good enough reference in itself.

An example: "Opponents" and "Critics" under Public Perception. The linked articles to "Public Perception" and "PARTIOT ACT" do a good job detailing who has expressed these opinions - but imagine if they were all included in the Bush article? What BlueGoose is asking for is a single article that would have to be hundreds of pages. But currently, if someone wants more details, they readily available. Not hidden at all. Of course there are some bad apples. "critics" under "First term" is not explained at all by any nearby linked article.

Ehlkej 03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Erm, except that if Montreal is in fact the nicest city in the world (or merely the majority view that it is), then there is absolutely nothing weasely about writing that as fact. It may become necessary to include references to support this statement if it is widely disputed, but it is also true that cluttering every other word with a reference does nothing to improve the readability of an article. Sandpiper 12:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Another example of a weasel words in the section "Political ideology": "Some conservatives have questioned Bush's commitment to traditional conservative ideals because of his willingness to incur large budget deficits by permitting substantial spending increases." This sentence should be replaced by an example of a conservative questioning Bush's faithfulness to traditional conservative ideals. MrC 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

"First to appoint an openly gay man"

That's all well and good, and I applaud Bush for that. However, whenever the page becomes unprotected, I feel it will be necessary for purposes of balance to add that Bush is also the first American president to support a constitutional amendment which would legitimize discrimination against homosexuals. We have to be fair and balanced, of course. -Kasreyn 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, we have to be NPOV. There's a difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there? NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Misplaced Pages principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias Roy Harmon 17:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite a leap you made going from supporting that constitutional ammendment to declaring that it "legitimizes discrimination against homosexuals." It sounds POV to me. You can alsways say he supported the ammendment. But to draw the conclusion you did is a problem. --Tbeatty 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that we're in agreement about adding the information, then, since I will naturally take pains to ensure that it is represented in a NPOV manner, as I always do. Thanks! -Kasreyn 06:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Speaking out of curiosity, which amendment do you speak of? - 65.100.195.54 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The proposed "Defense of Marriage Amendment". You hadn't heard of it? -Kasreyn 23:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats concerning state constituional ammendments you're looking for the Federal Marriage Amendment, its a household name. --mitrebox 23:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, my mistake. Well, Federal Marriage Amendment or Defense of Marriage Amendment, the name doesn't stop it from being intended to legitimize discrimination against homosexuals, and his outspoken support for it was one of his campaign pledges to his "base". It definitely deserves mention. -Kasreyn 01:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think to not mention the constitutional amendment would paint a false picture of Bush -- I vote either mention the amendment, or remove the 'first president to have an openly gay man in his cabinet' distinction.--Xiaphias 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

See, that would be my position, too. I'm having a hard time finding a source that simply and flatly states something like "President Bush announced his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment". Most of them are articles about some OTHER politician talking about Bush's support, or Democrats railing against it, etc. etc. The original announcement seems to have been drowned out in the debate. -Kasreyn 09:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage." - George. W. Bush, 2/24/2004 Brandon39 12:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

CanI ask you what the difference is between Neutral Point of view NPOV and 'fair and balanced'? Of course I am running out of the topic, but you started it ...

(My IP adress is not a permanent one.) I am required to put four tildes on this page I think. So here it goes, 202.161.131.69 18:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Balanced would be something like giving two bias opinions. Ann Coulter Vs. Al Franken or something like that. NPOV gives you the facts without the bias. This is how I understand it. Davidav87 10:58, 5 March 2006

My understanding of NPOV is that the information provided should be displayed for the purpose of offering a fuller picture of the person in question. Since it seems to me Bush both genuinely supports the US Constitution Federal Marriage Amendment and was the first to appoint an openly gay man, they both warrant inclusion. The way it is displayd, however is where we may get into issues of bias. They both belong to very separate areas, unless we insert a specific Views on Homosexuality section or something (which I believe would actually be helpful for users specifically seeking such information). Binerman 22:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Military Service

A couple of minor but worthwhile points I think should be included:

• the article currently says "trained for two years". This should probably read "served on active duty for nearly two years" as I believe his AD time included time in an operational squadron, and his AD time was about 22 months. (By comparison, the article on Jimmy Carter doesn't distinguish between his time nuke and sub school and his other AD time.)
• given the ongoing AWOL fuss, it probably should be mentioned -- something perhaps like "While the exact details of his time in the TANG because contoversial campaign issues, he was honorably discharged in 1972."
• Actually, while he may of been honorably discharged, it was 18 months earlier than the end of his tour of duty, because he failed his dental exam.

-- Charlie (Colorado) 17:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Could we unprotect this article for a fortnight, see if any positive anon and new-user contributions come up?? Not all' anons who edit this article are necessarily vandals. Worth a shot?? --Sunfazer (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, a fortnight may be too long, but perhaps start with one day? --LV 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The three-to-six hour unprotections we have had so far have ruffled quite a few feathers. Although I strongly support these unprotections, and have performed most of them, I would find it difficult to support protections for a day or more unless the results of shorter unprotections show improvement.

Having said that, we did net a good edit by an anon in a recent unprotection. There were over a dozen instances of vandalism, all from anon IPs, in the same period. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not see the point in these unprotections. Don't we already know what would happens next? IMHO the article should be sprotected until 2008 abakharev 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So we can each calculate the cost/benefit of having this article unprotected according to our own value systems. As I have said before, the cost of vandalism is not merely the time & effort needed by editors in reverting it - that is a relatively minor cost in my value system. The real cost is that the article is being seen in a vandalized state by many thousands of users (readers, not editors). So, in some arbitrary value units, the benefit of unprotecting the article was +10 for the "good edit", and -1 x 1000 = -1000 for the vandalism (assuming just for the sake of argument that 1000 users saw a vandalized article). Net benefit: Negative (by a lot). That is why I think that the time-scale for "temporary" protections should be proportional to the degree of vandalism. Heavily vandalized articles might be "temporarily" protected for some months or even years. Is there a cost in the loss of editability? Yes, but it is far outweighed by the cost that would be incurred if an article is so frequently vandalized that readers often see it in its damaged state. - Hayne 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but what about all the readers coming to the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", except that not anyone can edit? This article is perhaps the most visible article we have. Shouldn't we make it a good example of what Misplaced Pages is all about? We don't semi-protect articles linked from the main page because we want people to "get" what WP is all about. We want to show people what a wiki is, etc. Well what separates these articles from this article? Not much as I see it. People see WP advertising itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so when we pull the bait and switch, what are people to think? --LV 02:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Most users come to Wiki not to edit but to learn. When they discover that most of the recent edits have been by cranks or vandals they will pretty quick lose confidence. Those who have something to say should register. In my opinion the ability of unregistered people to edit is the single worst aspect of Wiki. 95 out of 100 of these anon edits, in my experience, are trivial or have have damaged the article. Rjensen 02:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good thing that's your opinion. Anon editors are among the best editors we have. Without them, a lot of good edits would have gone undone. Yes, I know, <whine>"But, LV, a lot of vandalism is done by anons too"</whine>. But see #s 1, 2, and 3, here. Like I've said many times before, anons are people too. --LV 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anons are people too? who knows. If they really exist they can register. Rjensen 02:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? We don't force people to register, nor should we. See the standard {{anon}} welcome. --LV 02:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki I think is designed as a science model--one that works poorly when it comes to issues like current events. In fact We just discovered the Congressional offices have systematically put spin into their articles. I suspect that happens a lot. People who have an axe to grind FOR their cause have loaded Wiki down. That badly hurts our credibility outside science. Recently there was even a criminal case when one article for months had allegations that an editor was involved in the kennedy assassination. I suspect deliberate negative entries are less common than subtle positive ones. In other words, anonymous Wiki is a playground for PR spin by people PAID to generate that favorable publicity. Openness I think is the only cure. Rjensen 03:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Except requiring people to login actually increases anonymity by hiding their IP address. Not to mention the fact that it would make it much harder to track while doing RC Patrol. --LV 03:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point except there's a software fix for recording IP addresses on a registration page. When it comes to current events Wiki is unreliable right now and will stay that way until it gets reformed. Only in a few high visibility articles (like this one on Bush) is there enough multiple input to generate anything useful. The vast majority of articles have only a handful of people working on them, and are susceptible to being taken over by a group of say 4 people. That did happen to the articles on Congressmen as we learned last week. Rjensen 03:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The most important thing about Misplaced Pages is not that "anyone can edit", but that it is an encyclopedia - for many subjects the best available encyclopedia. And that it is readily and freely available. The wiki nature of Misplaced Pages is a means-to-an-end, not an end in itself. If magic fairies could go around and gather up the world's knowledge, then there would be no need for the wiki nature. So it comes down to what is the best means of getting the best encyclopedia and keeping it running. In this regard, for this particular article there should be no dispute - vandalism harms the readers' experience much more than it might suffer from the lack of a few "anon" edits. The readers are the most important thing - not the editors. - Hayne 03:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that there would be no Misplaced Pages if there were no editors, right? By your logic, why don't we require editors to be PhD's, and restrict their editing to their field of study? That way, we can ensure the editors actually know what they're talking about, and no bad, sneaky edits go through? There are much easier "means to an end", so why don't we do that too? --LV 03:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Give me a break. Obviously there is a need for editors. But for some articles (not this one at the current time since it concerns ongoing events) there will be less and less need for editors as time goes on after the article has reached a certain maturity. And (this part is relevant to the current article) for some articles, allowing completely uncontrolled editing demonstrably decreases the value of the article to the reader if there is substantial vandalism (see my pseudo-calculations above). I.e. each individual article needs an editorial policy that will maximize the value of that article for the readers. For almost all articles (close to a million of them), the best policy is complete openness. But for those very few articles that attract persistent vandalism, different policies are needed. Again, to emphasize the point, I think we should be optimizing for the readers, not for the editors. If someone is disappointed that they can't edit an article - too bad. But if thousands of people see a vandalized page on a regular basis - unacceptable. - Hayne 04:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. While anonymous edits may be appropriate for most pages, it is quite obvious that it is not appropriate for this page. Thue | talk 20:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm less worried about vandalism than about subversion. That is the deliberate use of Wiki to spread a particular "spin" on a person or event. I have in mind the PR staff rewriting an article on a congressman or a company or -- for that matter-- the tourist agency prettying up the article on a state or city. The Congressional spin was discovered by detective work matching IP to official Congressional computers. That was a asloppy mistake--next time they will do it from home and we can't stop it. The best defense I suggest is not asking for PhDs but just asking for names of the contributors. Rjensen 03:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And how do we stop false names? Ask for their national identification number? Their birth day and mother's maiden name, so we can track who people say they are? Nevermind, I think if we want to continue this discussion, as it has moved far from improving this article, we take it somewhere else. Perhaps WP:WHY? --LV

On an article about a major world leader that attracts a lot of vandalism, I don't think it is too much to ask people to have an account and be here for a few days. Constant vandalism and reversion means that people who are foolish enough to visit Misplaced Pages looking for unbiased information have a good chance of seeing crap. Not to mention the possibility that one of our many mirrors may pick up a corrupted version and diseeminate it long after it has been corrected here. As to the fact that anyone can register with a false name, such accounts can be blocked, where we often can't block an IP because of its being a dynamic IP for such as AOL. Having to continue to make new accounts just to make some idiotic changes to a Misplaced Pages article is more trouble than most vandals will go to. -- Cecropia 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets stick to the semi-protection policy. Semi-protection should only be used during periods of irregularly frequent vandalism. This article should not be protected from now until 2008. Regular levels of vandalism can be dealth with without sacraficing anonymous contributions and the integrity of the project. It does damage to wikipedia's credibility when people come to this article and find a persisitent semi-protection notice. Perhaps even more damage than the vandals themselves. If you want to lobby for a permanent semi-protection policy, go ahead. Savidan 08:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

GWB hasn't done anything newsworthy recently, that's my argument for unprotection. --Sunfazer (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• You don't think the cheney thing is going to attract vandals?--205.188.116.138 17:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Unprotected or not, we should maintain a "best recent edit" date/time/link on the talk page to redirect new users or visitors in the case of vandalism so that a good copy is still reasonable accessable in the case of a vandalism. For example:

In case of vandalism, here is an accurate and recent version of this article.

-Dave 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I copy/pasted my term paper from this article

and my teacher says I'm a terrible writer and gave me an D+, then called me a pinko... is this a sign that this article is poorly written liberally slanted crap?--205.188.116.138 16:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have cheated should you. That taught you a lesson didn't it.

I guess you get what you pay for. · Katefan0/poll 16:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily; please see "academic dishonesty". Accurizer 16:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, duh, joking--205.188.116.138 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • OMFG LOL!!!!11!!!eleventyone! – ClockworkSoul 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I take it as a good sign that this article is a well-written NPOV and factual article. Kevin Baas 21:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretzel

The article doesn't include the incident with the pretzel and the page is currently locked so I can't insert it. Can someone else do it please, as I am unable to do so.

So get a user id and do it yourself. The reason the page is locked against anonymous users such as yourself is that it is constantly being vandalized by anonymous users. If you want us to trust you, create an account. -Kasreyn 07:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, but, to be fair, (s)he still wouldn't be able to edit it. it also protects against newly created usernames. --jfg284 13:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh? That's weird. What's the criteria then? How "old" does a username need to be to qualify? -Kasreyn 07:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

4 days, according to the policy. -Zero 13:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Four days! Is that considered an impossible obstacle? Is the anonymous poster likely to forget his or her point in 96 hours? --Cubdriver 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that we don't require anyone to register to be able to edit. (Well, except for this page, seemingly) --LV 22:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Right: it's been often vandalized by anonymous posters. Asking for users to establish an identity seems a small inconvenience in exchange for not having to revert it every couple of hours. --Cubdriver 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer... we don't require anyone to register to be able to edit, nor should we. Logged in users can vandalise too. AND it provides them more anonymity. For proof that they do it too, head over to RC Patrol for awhile. --LV 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how allowing vandalism by anonymous posters alleviates the problem of vandalism by registered posters. I like the 96-hour rule. Perhaps it should be more widely applied. At the very least, it provides a Talk page where folks can beat on the vandal. --Cubdriver 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Linking Iraq war to 9-11

In the begining of the article it implies we went in to Iraq because of 9/11 which is not the case.

I have seen people stating that the link didn't exist on his page being RV'ed for POV - however the fact that there was no link was established by various intelligence reports given to the house/senate - IIRC, someone please produce proper links so this information can be added to his page in a NPOV manner (no usage of the term "lied")

All editors should watch Nightline tonight, Feb. 15

Nightline is going to report on the "Saddam Tapes."

Reportedly armed with 12 hours of Saddam Hussein's audio recordings, the organizers of an upcoming "Intelligence Summit" are describing the tapes as the "smoking gun evidence" that the Iraqi dictator possessed weapons of mass destruction in the period leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has already authenticated the tapes. These are the same tapes mentioned in Duelfer's Report that had not been translated at the time of the report. For some reason, the tapes were released through a very unusual manner - possibly because some in the intelligence community did not want the truth to come out. Read news story here. RonCram 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that a top Iraqi General had stated that the WMD's were relocated to Syria after that country had a natural catastrophe and that Saddam had used airplanes and truck shipments under the guise of humanitarian aid to relocate the majority of his WMD's there...I'll try and find the citations, but in my opinion, Iraqi had at best, only minimal WMD's and a lot of that stuff was given to him by the U.S. along with some technology as well.--MONGO 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Give it up. The WMD ruse has been exhausted, verified as bogus, and we have all moved on.

Fortunately for everyone, this is an encyclopedia, and those clamoring to ignore or disregard the truth are held in little regard here. Perhaps you might want to peddle your wares elsewhere. -Kasreyn 06:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The tapes were from 1995 and showed clearly Saddam's ties to Islamic terrorists when he claimed he threatened U.S. and British officials with WMD terrorist attacks. This is exactly what caused the U.S. and England to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Of course, the bigger story here is the bad light all of this puts on the CIA. Lots of similar evidence found in Iraq and turned over to the CIA can no longer be found. These tapes came out through non-official sources. If not for Loftus and Tierney, we would not know about these tapes tonight. This is a big story and more will be coming out in the future and literally hundreds of these tapes and documents still need to be translated. RonCram 06:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, so we can now what was going on in Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf war. Umm.. I think this intelligence, not to say anything about the credibility of the sources, is a little outdated, eh? Kevin Baas 15:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Oh I think Saddam is perfectly credibl when talking about gassing his own people. He's also the most likely choice as Hillary's running mate. ( VPs should always make P look more honest, intelligent, sane )--mitrebox 05:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Harsh and accusatory

I am concerned that this article is too harsh and accusatory. I will be making some edits to aim at a more genuine NPOV tone where possible. Merecat 08:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• You could start by deleting it. Its about as NPOV as Movement to Push Israel in to the sea (Allah's will be done)--mitrebox 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hells yeah! more bizaire conservative sockpuppets to help patroll this article talk page, just what we need--205.188.116.138 05:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, could be way worse. Chyko

Info removed (hopefully temporarily)

I removed the following:

Critics point out that most families do not have significant funds to put aside for additional retirement savings, most individual investors are not skilled at the management of complex financial instruments, and that both the Social Security and health care funding changes simply permit employers to spend less on benefits for employees, whether employees are able to replace the benefits or not. Individual employees are also weakly positioned to negotiate for better, or less expensive care. Perhaps most significantly, individuals who develop chronic illnesses relatively early (before age 55) are unlikely to have set aside sufficient money to even minimally meet the costs of their own care.

Can we please have a source? Which critics? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just googled a phrase, and it came right back to this page. A source and its all good! User: mrmanhattanproject

• Is google what passes for a scholarly source these days?? If NASA hired idiots like you the commies would probably have landed on the moon by now--IworkforNASA 01:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Inauguration

There is a mistake about his second inauguration. Here is written that his second inauguration was in 2000!!! And it was in 2005!

Thanks for pointing that out. It has now been corrected (by User:Rogerd). I note that this error came in during an edit by User:Jtdirl at 21:20, 11 February 2006. - Hayne 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I note that another error relating to the date of Bush's first inauguration was recently fixed by Shaileshnandwana (edit of 00:59, 1 March 2006) - this error was also introduced by the same edit by User:Jtdirl at 21:20, 11 February 2006. These errors show that the fact checking process is much impeded when a large edit (changing many things in many places) is done. I strongly encourage people to do edits in several small pieces rather than one large one - it makes the diffs much easier to read. - Hayne 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay

Shouldn't there be some reference to the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and the belief amongst many people including the British Cabinet member Peter Hain and the Archbishop of York that Camp Delta breaks Internation Law??? I feel that this has been overlooked by the people who have previously edited the page, surely this controversial issue and Bush's refusal to close the camp deserves some mention! Also, linked into Guantanamo, shouldn't there also be a mention of Extraordinary Rendition? This is a particularly controversial issue in Europe as we discover more details of the flights landing in European airports. This issue should not be just swept under the carpet which is what is happening at the moment Hypergreg 13:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Silly Englishman, American liberials only care about foreigners "rights" when they don't know about domestic spying programs --mitrebox 05:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Silly??? im sorry if i think that 2 of his most controversial foreign policies deserve to be mentioned but then i wouldnt expect any other response from an insular american. Oddly enough this is an INTERNATIONAL website and therefore needs to talk about George Bush's affect around the world not just in the USA and Guantanamo Bay is fairly important, I dont really care if it is or isnt being reported on in the USA, but it IS being reported on in the EU and therefore deserves mention as after all, the EU is quite a bit bigger than the USA in size and population. Hypergreg 21:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ground Zero

I found a litle mistake in the text below his ground zero image. There is writen "will hear all of us soon." and right version is "will soon hear all of us." I know this for sure.

Actually, no. It is "will hear all of us soon." See and . --LV 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles of impeachment from a Rhode Island senate candidate

http://www.carlsheeler.com/articles_impeachment_GA.asp

--James S. 08:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the point of this? android79 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A publicity stunt by a man running for Congress in Rhode Island. Anyone remember the Democrat that was pushing the bill to restart the draft until just after the 2004 election? After he got his political benefit from the bill suddenly he wasn't voting for the bill when it came up in Congress. PPGMD 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am posting these here so that these can be verified. Please stop deleting them. They are directly pertinent to the article.

Even if they can be verified, they are not directly pertinent to the article. Try discussiong this at Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush instead. The full text of the "amendment" is not necessary for discussion and is likely a violation of applicable copyright law. android79 19:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay --James S. 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding : provide some reliable source (i.e., not Sheeler's own website) that 23,000 people have signed this petition, and that it has any sort of momentum outside of his own campaign for Senate. android79 22:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

James appears to be spamming the Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush page with it also. Why did you send him over there? Totally inappropriate use of talk pages. -- Stbalbach 05:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is appropriate. Deleting other people's comments on talk pages goes against archiving. --James S. 05:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

WHY IS IT APPROPRIATE, JAMES? -- Stbalbach 05:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is still there. Why did you feel it appropriate to post three pages of cited material on a talk page? That's akin to spamming. --Mmx1 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Spam needn't be archived. android79 05:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Update the Economy Section

Isn't it about time to update to Economy section of the article? The unemployment rate is at 4.7% which now matches the rate when he took office for the first time, which seems relevant to me, and the employment numbers adjusted to population growth should be looking better to almost even when he took office since the unemployment rate is back to it's initial state. Your figures on that piece are 8 months old! 134.233.132.6 09:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Kswanks

67.169.195.133 04:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)You must have forgotten that unemployed citizens are removed from data after a couple years without work!

The point, Anonymous, isn't to agrue the standard by which unemployment rates are gauged, but to update the data. One could make those points for any president past or present which would make such data obselete to apply to any one president. Think before you post. If no one has any objections I'm going to at least update the latest unemployment rate to 4.8% as of February data that just came out. Kswanks 13:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please

Will you please Let this page be edited?68.96.23.7 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The article can be edited -- I made an addition this very day. However, you must establish a Wiki identity rather than post from an anonymous number. That seems a reasonable enough requirement. --Cubdriver 22:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Really. Pull yourself togeter and make an account man! The Republican 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Article removed from Misplaced Pages:Good articles

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there are stub sections and sections which lack sources. Worldtraveller 01:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A good article with section stubs??? This must be kind of a joke. A good article must not have section stubs and lots of sources and references. If this can be cleaned up, it can qualify for a good article again. --Terence Ong 06:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"thrice-decorated hero"

LOL, can we please keep kerry puffery contained to the John Kerry article--64.12.117.13 15:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

He has a point, so a changed it a bit to make it more NPOV, changed hero to navel officer. PPGMD 22:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading it over again, I removed the thrice part because it's not needed and not accurate, if they want more details on his medals they can visit his page on Misplaced Pages, which goes over the 5 medals he recieved in Nam. PPGMD 01:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

oh and look, it's protected again

I guess anyone who tires to remove personal attacks and other cheap shots from the article, is comitting "vandalism" worthy of page protection, LOL, the encylopedia anyone can edit, as long as you're an RL that is--64.12.117.13 15:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Or just a registered user. -- Psy guy 18:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

rolls eyes Yeah, that public opinion poll was definitely a personal attack. I'm sure millions of Americans woke up that day thinking, "Gee, today I'd like to tell a pollster I disapprove of the President, just to hurt his feelings." And listing his term to "present" is merely encyclopedic. The only one having paranoid delusions here is you - and your delusion is that "present" means teh paranoid libral fantasies of teh term limit removals!!1!!

Stop mistaking encyclopedic style for POV, quit blanking information you personally dislike, and get over yourself. -Kasreyn 05:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Article protection

This page should NEVER be semi-protected, either it should be allowed to have open editing, or {{vprotected}} Please, admins, this is important! It's a wiki, this will always have vandalism, live with it. Also, yes, he is a high-profile figure, but so are other politicians like John Kerry. --Katrina Whitmare 13:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes. It should always be open to vandalism . In all actuality, it should enjoy the same protection that every page on the Wiki should enjoy, no less. --Mhking 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

it's a pain for editors to fix all the vandalism and it really hurts Wiki's image when schoolkids click here and get %%$##@.Rjensen 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe said school children should stop vandalizing the article by adding %%$##@ in the first place, then they wouldn't have to get %%$##@--152.163.100.74 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Katrina's got a point. --Sunfazer (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Katrina Whitmare" turned out to be a vandal who has now been blocked indefinitely. -- Curps 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Harper's and Impeachment

Made a few edits, in the interest of NPOV and readability - plus, I threw a few factoids in as well. More than happy to discuss, etc. Please be assured this edit is made in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we include things that we know are "Bush" lies?

Before we proceed to rip me a new one, please hear me out. There are several things we can justifiably write about that Mr. Bush has said, done or not done that are unavoidably lies. Is it okay if maybe we can make a section somewhere near the bottom about things bush has said, done... that are lies? I am not talking about anything that deals with him draft doging or anything like that, I am more concerned with things like this: Katrina Lie. I am quite sure this is undeniable since he is on tape... I don't care about how people want to spin it, he knew about it and then later says, "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Which is BS. The same with his comment about not really caring about where Osama is, how he doesn't really look for him or what ever. Then a couple of weeks later he says that he said nothing of the sort. So yes, things like this. The reason I think it is important to put this in a wiki article is because (obviously I don't like him, that isn't why though) is because it is an unsavoury quality that I think people should know about, plus some of these things I think will lead to his impeachment, obviously not the one about looking for Osama, but not responding to the Katrina catastrophe is something I think he should be responsible for. I'm sure we have read the michael brown emails, the man was not fit for the job, period and I think that the federal government should have responded since FEMA sat on their hands and shrugged. So yes that is what I think, do me in now... (Sorry if I don't reply promptly, I am usually busy studying.) --DyslexicAnaboko 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

With due respect, it sounds like POV pushing to me. Brandon39 05:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand, what is POV pushing? If you think I am trying to smear Bush, then that is not what I am trying to do. I am just trying to let people know what he blatantly lied about. I don't think this is too far fetched. If it makes people feel better, do the same thing in the Clinton section. I just want the truth out there really. --DyslexicAnaboko 23:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please limit yourself to lies that the White House has admitted; the others are still POV. Rjensen 23:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, if I can give you sufficient information, especially audio clips that are dated, then you cannot conclude that it is a point of view (if that is what POV means). Rest assured though, I am not going to change anything unless I have support from other people and no one has any major problems with it. When I say problems, I mean problems concnerning the idea of misinformation. I do not want to misinform anyone, but I do want to call the president what he is, a liar about many things. So call it a POV, but if I can prove what he did, it is not a POV. Another thing to add to this list of lies is: Jack Abromoff says he knows the president, the president denys knowing Abromoff. The only reason the president wants to say he doesn't know Abromoff is because Abromoff is being tried for many many many crimes. Now for me to say that bush was involved in those crimes is definately a POV and I wouldn't try posting that. However, Bush did indeed lie about not knowing Abromoff. My proof is the testimony of Abromoff, invitations Abromoff recieved to the white house, the friendly conversations they would have and other details. So yes, the president is a liar and this is a lie I would like to make known to the public.--DyslexicAnaboko 20:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"POV pushing" means that it seems to me that you have an opinion on the subject (as opposed to objective fact), and that you appear to be "pushing" your opinion to be presented as if it were fact.

I have no doubt that George Bush has told lies. Everybody lies. I'm sure he has told lies in the course of his public duties. But the examples you give are not as cut-and-dried as you seem to think they are. The alternate interpretations of Bush's remarks that you characterize as "spin" are in fact just ... alternate interpretations. If you want to write a paragraph stating that there is controversy on this issue, I'd be fine with that. But I don't think you've made the case that Bush lied, period, end of story. Brandon39 14:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Brandon. The issue of "did Bush lie" pertaining to the levis requires a nuanced discussion of what is meant by "breech" and what is meant by "topped" etc. Furthermore we don't have access to the intention behind a false statement which is important. Did Bush forget something from the meeting? Did he intentionally mislead? Did he antagonistically mistate something? I don't pretend to know his intents, nor do I think anyone else could. It seems unnecessarily POV to have an entire section devoted to his lies without more hard evidence of intentional false statements. 165.97.45.67 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

TOC listing

The current version of this page requires some low resolution readers to scroll before hitting the Table of Contents. Does anyone else think that floating the TOC as seen in this version make for easier reading? xaosflux /_CVU 04:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The floating TOC causes a very narrow column of text in my browser, and that is something to usually avoid. Titoxd 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Duh, the easy way to take care of that is to trim the excessive intro. --LV 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

New Approval Rating

Can someone put the new CBS approval rating for this month in the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.6.245.98 (talk • contribs)

Thirty-four percent, his lowest ever. Still slightly ahead of Nixon, though. --James S. 01:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he still hasn't hit Clinton lows either, if I'm reading it correctly. --Tbeatty 23:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a different poll has him at 38%, which I consider to be more accurate, even as a Democrat, but it's still slipping. --A. Watts

Keep in mind the demographics of these polls. According to the best statics from the 2004 election approximtly 37% of the voters were D and 37% were R they rest were either independent, or other party affiliated. When you have a CBS poll which samples like this- 37% Democrats/34% Independents/27% Republicans (the unweighted sample is 40D/34I/26R). So what do you honestly expect when you have both Democrats and Independents outnumbering Republicans in the sample? Of course the numbers are going to look bad. It would be the same thing if the R outnumbered D and the approval numbers were in the 50s or so. It cuts both ways. Especially when the poll was taken over the weekend which always leans more towards Democrats. Look even at the Fox News poll (which is supposed to be an arm of the Republican Party) rating of 39%... Democrats 43%/Republicans 33%/Independents 18%. A 10 point edge for Democrats. When you are going to oversample one group over another the results will be skerewed which ever way.KLRMNKY 06:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

When a President is unpopular, many people in the moderate end of the spectrum who would normally self-identify with the President's party will indeed identify themselves as "Independent." It is not necessarily that they are over-sampling Democrats (it would seem odd that every poll would do so as a coincidence) but rather quite possible that some of the people who previously identified themselves as "Republican" have now decided to identify as "Independents", at least for the poll.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's crazy talk right there, clearly it's a liberal conspiracy--205.188.116.138 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush was told Katrina could breach the levees

At the moment, there are two passing references in the article to the (mis)handling of Katrina:

• Along with the criticism on issues of foreign policy, President Bush has also taken criticism for his domestic policies, such as his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, which many considered slow...

and

• The federal response to Hurricane Katrina and question of cronyism in August 2005 proved to be difficult for the president.

Leaving aside the question of whether this suggests some duplication in the article, it's not clear where to add a discussion of the following, which I think it should be added.

• "Video showing President George W Bush being warned on the eve of Hurricane Katrina that the storm could breach New Orleans' flood defences has emerged."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4765058.stm, also http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-katrina-video,1,5479105,print.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true, and a whole heap more.

On the other hand, this is not wikinews, we can wait a few days, even weeks, and see how it plays out. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This may also be of interest, http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/03/02/ap2567320.html and also:

The AP video does not include footage of Chertoff asking Brown whether he needs any other ::help or of Chertoff asking whether Brown wants him to approach the Department of Defense. ::Transcripts show that to both questions, Brown indicated that no additional assistance was ::needed. In the transcript of a briefing the following day, Aug. 29, Brown is quoted as saying  ::that Bush "is very engaged, and he's asking a lot of really good questions I would expect him to ::ask."

That Aug. 29 transcript showed that hours after the hurricane hit, federal and state officials ::remained optimistic about handling the disaster and were unaware that the levees in New Orleans ::were failing.

Arkon 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure it is relevant. Everyone was warned that the levees could be breached. The story before the storm hit was how a cat 5 hurricane would breach the levees and flood the bowl. This is what prompted the mandatory evacuation. The story the day after, and in all the major press, was how New Orleans "dodged the bullet" as the eye wall missed the eastern edge of the city. As we know now, that was not the case and the levies failed despite it not being a "worst case scenario." But any video that shows Bush was informed that the levies could fail before it hit would make him as informed as everyone else in the country.

Well that sounds like a good place to start for, you know, the president of the country. Kevin Baas 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this IS news to too many Americans - it's news to them that the president knew that the levies could fail, which makes it, sadly, interesting (WP:NPOV - "interesting and important").

And regarding "worse case scenario", they had examined what would happen in the case of a category 3 hurricane, and noted that the levies would probably break and flood. This was their "worst case scenario". Hurricane Katrina, however, was category 4. So much for worst case scenarios... Kevin Baas 06:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice that AP is now correcting its "breach" story. Charlie (Colorado) 04:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Aug 30 NYT headline: "HURRICANE KATRINA: NEW ORLEANS; Escaping Feared Knockout Punch, Barely, New Orleans Is One Lucky Big Mess"

--Tbeatty 04:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason it's news is because GWB later denied that anyone had anticipated the levees breaching :

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did appreciate a serious storm but these levees got breached and as a result much of New Orleans is flooded and now we're having to deal with it and will," he said.

Nil Einne 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be going in circles looking for a way to make political hay. IF a sufficiently powerful hurricane hit the city, the levees were expected to fail. Common sense. Such a hurricane did NOT hit the city. It missed. But the levees still failed... unexpectedly. keith 22:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum to Kyoto Protocol portion of Environment and Energy

I would move to add "Recently, some have also disputed Bush's assertion that the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the economy. According to Tom Potter, in a New York Times article, implementing Kyoto standards has actually improved the economy." after the sentence, "In January 2006, six former EPA directors, five of them Republican, warned of the consequence of continued inaction on global warming."

It would then read: "In January 2006, six former EPA directors, five of them Republican, warned of the consequence of continued inaction on global warming. Recently, some have also disputed Bush's assertion that the Kyoto Protocol would hurt the economy. According to Tom Potter, in a New York Times article, implementing Kyoto standards has actually improved the economy."

The reasoning behind this add is that it is a dispute over the economic effects of Kyoto in addition to the environment. --Ecopirate 03:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I'm not contesting the need for some sort of protection beyond tens of tireless vandal-beaters watching the page, but the sprotected notice clearly says that semi-protection is a temporary measure, as does Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy. Could somebody in the know please clarify how long this article is intended to be semi-protected? BigBlueFish 17:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See #Unprotection? for a typical response. -Splash 18:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Iran

Hmmm...With the recent events regarding Iran, should a portion be added to the page dealing specifically with this? I'm putting it out there for those of you who do have edit rights. I'm still a bit new. Ecopirate 20:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The page is semiprotected...what edits do you have to add?--MONGO 21:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Security needs to be added to cabinet posts

It's missing from the page: Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Done, and FYI, 2003 is the correct date as it wasn't until then that DHS formally became a cabinet post. --Easter Monkey 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

AIDS funding

IMHO, if it's going to be mentioned on the page that the contributions for AIDS funding is more then everyone else combined, brief mention needs to also be made of the controversy surrounding this funding. I don't know what exactly but perhaps something like: "However there is controversy surrounding the direction and restrictions placed on the funding". Nil Einne 19:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I just added that one quarter of the funding goes to religious groups, but I put it as a matter of fact, not as a controversay as it certainly has been for many people. Does anyone know of a good source that we could draw from to mention it? Binerman 02:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush appointments

Bush has appointed more women and minorities to high-level positions within his administration than any other U.S. President.

I question whether this is important or relevant point. If Bush has appointed twice as many people in total compared to other presidents to high-level positions then we would expect him to appoint more women and minorities then others. I have no idea whether Bush has made more appointments or less appointments or whatever, I'm simply raising the issue that IMHO percentages are more important. At the very least the percentages needed to be included as well.

A seperate issue and more controversial I expect is whether Bush's has really broken new ground. Generally speaking, I would say expect there has been an upward trend of women and minorities in high positions, both as it became more acceptable and as more qualified people (especially with regards to women) became available. I'm sure this is going to get all sorts of criticisms and NPOV claims and such but I feel it would also be relevant to consider whether Bush's increases are really unique or part of the general trend we would expect. I admit, this borders on original research so a cite would probably be needed but IMHO it would make a good addition if someone can find it Nil Einne 20:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

An opinion section of this article.

There are some beliefs/opinions on George W. Bush that should be allowed to be expressed, so I am requesting someone to make an opinion section or allow me to without reverting it as an act of vandalism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dean2008 (talk • contribs) .

If you're looking to insert your own opinions, that's a no-no. Opinions of notable commentators ought to go in the appropriate section. android79 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

POV opinions have no place on Misplaced Pages. There are plenty of places on the web for you to express your opinion on. --Mhking 15:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, why wouldn't they? Don't take me for a real poster here, I'm just trying ton understand why we couldn't. I'm a newbie, so forgive me for asking why we couldn't have a POV SECTION on this article. --t.z0n3 11:05, 7 March, 2006 (CTL)

Well, because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a message board. Encyclopedias don't have "pov sections". I am puzzled why anyone would want this; the rest of the Internet is basically one great big "pov section" already. There are fifty kajillion places to vent and give your opinion. --Ashenai 17:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a means to find pertinant information. It is a NPOV fact that many people have a strong POV about Bush. To that end, I see no reason why there could not be a section devoted to opinions. Agreed that it should focus on notable people or groups of people as opposed to any random person wanting to express/vent their personal opinion. But there should be a place for it. Binerman 02:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

F102 in Vietnam

This article says "... he was among the last to learn to fly the F-102, a plane not used in Vietnam and due to be retired." The F-102 article states otherwise, with quite a few facts regarding its roll in that conflict. Ottergoose 22:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, that is blatent POV, I suggest you add to the section, so that it might describe george bush's long and illustrious military career--152.163.100.74 22:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, we musn't forget to mention his defence of our homeland bars and night clubs while a member of the National Guard. He is obviously a Hero! --Scaife Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 22:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Has Bush quit drinking alcohol?

The official version claims that he did so in the mid 1980s. This video strongly suggests that is a lie. Please explain, if you care to do so, why this article should not be changed to say something like:

"Bush has admitted to abusing alcohol, and even though he claims to have quit drinking altogether in the mid-1980s, he seems to have relapsed at least one time since then. In Lubbock, Tex. in 1992, he attended the wedding reception of his friend Jamie Weiss. During this event he was filmed apparently consuming alcohol while already in a state strongly suggestive of inebriation. Moreover, the video shows that Bush repeatedly mocked Weiss and other individuals for not drinking alcohol, which would be strange behavior for the teetotaler he was supposed to be at the time."

Remember, history is not tantamount to a criminal trial. I certainly should not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bush drank alcohol at that party. A preponderance of evidence is more than enough to warrant mention, and any reasonable person would agree that the video provides that.

Wfgiuliano 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, I went and viewed the video, despite my slow, dial-up connection. I don't see that it proves much of anything. Bush's "interview" seemed obviously scripted. His speech did not appear to be slurred -- if anything, he was speaking more clearly than he sometimes does in off-the-cuff remarks made in public today. As to what's in the glass -- who knows? Ginger ale? Club soda? Bacardi 151? There is absolutely no excyclopedic value in a staged, 60 second video. Brandon39 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone living and working in downtown washington dc over the past five years knows that GW still drinks, but so what? That's his own business and not significant. There have been innumerable parties/office functions in dc during which he's been spotted with a beer. I don't think he'd ever get drunk, though. You can't be a Republican without drinking in this town.

Semiprotection

It's been more than ten days since the last test unprotect. The edit patterns of this article have been radically changed over the two months or so of semiprotection. Edit rates have plummeted, particularly in the past couple of weeks, while even with semiprotection vandalism rates have risen high again. Remember that the 24% vandalism revert rate in the last column equates to approximately half of all edits being vandalism-related. That is quite close to our highest ever rates of vandalism prior to semiprotection, while at that time the incidence of editing was about ten or twenty times what it is now. So what is semiprotection doing for our article? Well it's certainly driving away all kinds of editors.

I've instituted my regular unprotect and I (or someone else) should restore semiprotection, subject to vandalism, in a few hours. It is essential that we capture this data. --Tony Sidaway 03:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever can be said for your other points, I don't see how semiprotection drives away "all kinds of editors." -- Cecropia 05:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I. But this seems to have happened, and the abrupt change came when semiprotection was introduced. I hope that the recent extreme dip is due to some kind of seasonal factor, but it's still worrying. --Tony Sidaway 05:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to show that the vandalism didn't occur because you keep lifting the semi-protection. SlimVirgin 07:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Since the semiprotection is only lifted extremely sporadically, this would be very easy to show. --Tony Sidaway 08:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This was one of the reasons I opposed (and still oppose) constant semiprotection; I don't doubt that it reduces vandalism, but it also appears to lower the number of "good" edits and hinder progress on the article. Tony, I haven't spent a lot of time looking at your data, but in your opinion, from your several "tests", what is your opinion on the effect of semiprotection, judging from the data? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge plans

I'm planning on merging in some of the more obscure issues listed here. --James S. 05:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Obscure is right..obviously that data would be better linked from a Department of Labor info page than some private website.--MONGO 05:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that that's your own personal website, I'd say no. android79 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Should this be included?

miami herald BBC news reports of bush trying cricket with Inzamam-ul-Haq and Salman Butt. Quite funny too. --Hamedog 11:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this President is first search result under the word "failure" for Google :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was included, and then it was removed because it someone's opinion, as well as a "Google bombing".http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/google.asp Squiggyfm 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment

This section is non-neutral and should be removed! There is no call for the impeachment of Bush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.254.254 (talk • contribs)

I don't have the time to look for it because I am just browsing right now, but you are wrong. Listen to the radio and if you do already, then I am not sure what you are listening to. I am sure several senators have called for it. If I have time I will look for info on it for you. --DyslexicAnaboko 20:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. Also, that section doesn't seem to endorse it, just record it as what is happening. Just using a blog search tool that graphs the amount of discussion about it (both Technorati and BlogPulse have historical graphs) shows there is, at the least, a sharply rising interest in impeachment. --Halliburton Shill 04:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to adjust the following so that it is more a historical record than a POV attempt to discourage impeachment. From:

• However, since 1797, the House of Representatives has only impeached 16 Federal officials. Of those 16, only seven were convicted by the Senate.

To:

• Since 1797, the House of Representatives has only impeached 16 Federal officials. Of those 16, seven were also convicted by the Senate.--Halliburton Shill 04:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! The word "however" is POV. Kevin Baas 16:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Measure to censure

I created the original "Measure to censure" section on March 12 2006 with the terminology used by the mainstream media networks in reporting the facts surrounding the issue. Russell Feingold introduced the censure measure in response to Bush's domestic spying program. The ambiguity in calling it the NSA warrantless surveillance in this context does not reflect the point central to Feingold's alligation, which is what he perceives to be illegal activity. The NSA warrantless surveillance article itself named properly, but all wiki links to it need not be ambiguious without regard to context. Sysrpl 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Details of Frist's claims that the censure measure is aiding the enemy, and WaPo's characterization of Feingold, both seem highly aimed at POV-presentation instead of being informative. A brief, complete discussion seems, in fact, more informative than the twin tangents prior to my edit. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've streamlined the WaPo commentary, but allegations by a major liberal columnist about Feingold's motives seems to me to be relevant. Brandon39 05:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. I believe that Milbank's allegations about Feingold's supposed motives behind his measure to censure Bush for breaking the wiretap law aren't directly relevant, as this is George W. Bush's bio article, not the 'Feingold Censure' article.

But, Feingold's own words, which Milbanks reports on the article and which you excerpted, are at least tangentially relevant for readers here. So I'm ok with leaving that section you pared down in here for now, anyway. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that in reporting moves to impeach or censure a president (any president) it is relevant to examine whether this represents a groundswell of bipartisan public opinion that could drive the president from office, a la Nixon, mere grandstanding by his political opponents, or something in between. But for the moment, we seem to have reached a truce on the issue. Brandon39 06:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reporting that 'presidential ambitions' perspective as one that's 'generally held' is pretty unsubstantiated. For example, another writer, in the same source (WaPo), describes Republicans (Frist, in particular) as the originators and repeaters of the 'political' motive talking point:

"Republicans seized on Feingold's presidential ambitions as the motivation behind his bid. Feingold "should be ashamed of this political ploy," said Frist, who also has presidential ambitions"

Feingold's motives for introducing a resolution to censure (which, as a matter of Congressional process, is no longer 'about' his motive) are not nearly as important, for example, as the actual text of the censure. So I'd find your inclusion of this motive (and only this motive) to itself be unnecessary POV. However, as I already said, Feingold's words themselves are relevant enough for me not to decide to revert that edit. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 06:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Spying Program is loaded POV talking points. A neutral POV term, a la, NSA Surveillance Program or something similiar is needed. I added language that describes what happened (i.e. surveilling Foreign Terrorists contacting persons inside the U.S. outside the jusrisdicition of the FISA court.) --Tbeatty 06:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Surveilling Foreign Terrorists is repacking a term in an inheritantly POV way. It attempts to automatically imply that all surveillance is associated with people known to be terrorists, when the fact is that no one can be sure who is being spied upon because the root of controversy is the removal of oversight. Additionally, attempting to paint allegations as benign with the purpose of skewing any possible negative associations is POV. Further, most every major media reporting of the measure to censure by Feingold uses the term spying over surveillance by a ratio of 20:1. Sysrpl 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Wiki supposed to be just a wee bit more judicious (not to say accurate) than the Associated Press? --Cubdriver 09:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What am I missing here? A link to this column, with proper attribution to Dana Milbank, was removed as "POV", twice: , . android79 20:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Third person speculations of ulterior motives are inherent POV. Sysrpl 04:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not if they're properly attributed. However, I see that this was sorted out above; I agree with its removal. android79 04:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

When the reference is attributed to a newpaper editorial (i.e. an article in a publication expressing the opinion of its editors or publishers) then it's a point of view by proxy. User:RyanFreisling 04:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Worst Actor Razzie

I am not sure that this is note worthy, seems a bit POV as well. Thoughts? --Scaife Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've been maintaining the Razzie categories for some time now (the same issue also exists with Condoleezza Rice) He did win this award, and the Razzie category is totally verifiable. I should also mention that I'm not trying to make any political statement with this category, if I person was nominated/won I include them in their category regardless of occupation. As for the issue NPOV/POV, if he won an Oscar I bet people wouldn't be editing it out...--Fallout boy 03:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think it's POV; it probably says more about the people who give out the "awards" than it does about Bush. It is a little silly and out of place, but the category would be incomplete without Bush's inclusion. android79 04:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review