Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:08, 17 January 2006

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.

Removed semi-protection

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

I support this; it's time to remove it and see what happens. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. -Splash 16:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I also support this, it has been seme-protected for too long. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adding to the pile-on; let's see what happens. You never know when someone anon or new might actually improve the article. Antandrus (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

I was just about to shatter the happiness and do it before you did...thanks :).Voice of All 20:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: the world did not end for having this page unprotected for a few hours. -Splash 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is ridiculous, obviously an article like this will get a lot of vandalism. I know this has already been discussed, but leaving an article unprotected for not even 12 hours and then re-protecting is not, IMO, how the WP:SEMI is meant to work. If this is intended to be semi'd for the long term, can we at least remove the notice at the top? -Greg Asche (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

How WP:SEMI is supposed to work is in response to serious vandalism irrelevant of how long it hasn't been applied. After GWB was un-semi'd, it got vandalized pretty heavily right afterwards, thus semi-protection was then justified again. --kizzle 02:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

But isn't semi-protection (and full protection, except for the main page) supposed to be a temporary solution? Obviously this will receive a lot of vandalism, semi-protection here will never be temporary. This is akin to protecting the Featured Article, something we very rarely do. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Agreed, it should be a gentlemen's rule to un-semi at least once a week. --kizzle 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say maybe a bit more often, perhaps SP for 24 hours, relax it to see what happens, and if vandalism spikes, SP again. A few hours a week doesn't seem to contibute to the "anyone can edit" mentality. Just my opinion though. --LV 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Famous drinkers

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

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

Removed. It's POV nonsense. android79 18:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the category because the category states, "The following articles concern people that have all been noted for their love of Alcoholic beverages and their participation in a wider 'Drinking culture'." From the information in the "Substance abuse controversy" section and George W. Bush substance abuse controversy article, Bush clearly meets these criteria. User:Flcelloguy argues, "the subject is not considered or widely accepted as a drinker know ". Surely the fact that Bush, ostensibly the single most powerful person in the world, is actively a teetotaller as a result of a previous drinking problem verging on alcoholism, is notable? I'm not defending the category itself, but, if drinking was apparently a large enough part of Bush's life to warrant a separate article, he is clearly a suitable subject for inclusion. The fact that he was arrested because of actions perpretrated while drunk - that drinking adversely shaped his life, leaving him with a criminal record, unusual in a president - is further reason for inclusion. McPhail 18:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Except drinking is not a part of his life, it was used as ammo to bash the President during the election nothing more. PPGMD 18:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The category includes Ernest Hemingway and Janis Joplin, and they are not famous for drinking either. Bush isn't famous for winning a "Worst Actor Razzie" or for being born in the year 1946, why not remove those categories too? Arguing, "X is not famous for Y, so should not be included in Category Y" is a superficial tactic that could be used to the point of absurdity to preclude the addition of virtually any byt the most germane categories. If the category exists in it current form, Bush should be included. If he cannot be included for the reasons you provide, the category is essentially redundant, as very few people become encyclopedia topics purely on the basis of their alcoholic intake. McPhail 18:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In which case the category should be deleted. In my opinion, including Bush in category (in its current state) is not right. Bush is not famous for drinking. Surely if he is a famous drinker most people would know him for drinking. They don't. And you can't argue that Bush should be included if other people in similar circumstances are included wrongly; for example, if I added Bush to the category Fictional Bats, does that mean that since the current president is included all previous presidents must be too? Deskana (talk page) 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't feel that the analogy to the "Worst Actor Razzie" is valid - that's a fact, while Bush being a famous drinker is an opinion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:195.153.219.170, check out Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Let's not call each other ignorant or any other names, eh? --Mr. Billion 09:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies if Deskana took offence, but I'm afraid not being aware of Bush's battle with the bottle is "ignorance" of that information. If I'd called him an eejit, I'd perhaps understand your haste in pointing me to wikipedia guidelines. And perhaps if you have any further comments to make about my conduct here, you'd put them on my talk page. I'm pretty certain that's the correct way of going about it. 195.153.219.170 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to irk you, but calling someone ignorant is understandably likely to cause offense. Deskana hasn't registered any offense, though, so it's no big deal. I just want good relations among Misplaced Pages users. Cheers! --Mr. Billion 20:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, almost all famous people have had a drink or been drunk. Heck, almost all adults had been drunk. Should we put every person of the modern culture in this catagory? And perhaps a better name would be "Famous people who died from drinking" or something shorter. I dont believe that if you ask someone what the President is famous for, they would say drinking. It is POV. Thank you for listening. American Patriot 1776 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is a pertinent point. After all, I get more looks being an adult and NOT drinking than if I did. Perhaps we should put a list together of famous non-drinkers? I agree this doesn't belong here. I believe that Famous Drinkers would imply that the person was a well-known drinker, not someone who had drank prior to becoming well known. DavidBailey 21:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The related Category:Famous drinkers has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

florida

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

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

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

Totally Disputed and Cleanup Tag Placed

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

Welcome to the fine dance of trying to be NPOV and not offending anybody. --LV 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Both can be fixed without the rewrite you are calling for. A rewrite is asking to throw away the existing text and start again. That's far too drastic. Which part of the article do you consider 'speculation' and 'conspiracy theory'? DJ Clayworth 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some links to Bush's previous history:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'cleanup' is used for much more serious things than this. We already have the 'neutrality and factual accuracy' dispute, which I think covers the article nicely. DJ Clayworth 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Bluegoose, I understand your argument that the page isn't yet neutral, but I don't understand your argument that the page contains factual errors. I can see why getting such a controversial article completely neutral might be a challenge, but I feel like we should be able to come to a rough agreement on the facts. --Allen 06:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My factual accuracy concern actually encompasses concerns on the material omission of facts (namely no information on Bush's governorship or any of his other political positions/candidacies) whilst spending quite a bit of space on discussing various speculative theories and claiming/implying via the header this is represenative of Bush "prior to 2000". BlueGoose 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Talking in slogans

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

Such a phrasing would be POV, and without sources, it would be just your opinion. Besides, slogans without substance is a recurring theme in nearly all of politics, not just GWB's administration. android79 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Such a phrasing would be POV if it wasn't true. It is and sources should be easy to come up with. And just because all NFL quaterbacks throw touchdowns, it doesn't mean that Peyton Manning isn't exceptional. The same goes for W's slogans (or propoganda if you want to call a spade a spade.)Arcarsenal 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

2004 Election Controversy

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

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

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

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

The sprotected tag

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

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

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

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

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

I just reduced the font from 9 to 8. I was one of the "2 lines max" fanatics, making sure that the template had small font and took up only two lines. It seems ok now, and is much better than the full protection template.Voice of All 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Shanes you are spot on. Absolutely. Please change that. Please. This article is the most viewed. That is so much more appropriate. I'm serious.--CastAStone| 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I too agree, a big template letting users know that they can't edit this article is awkward, most users just want to read about GBW. I know the -small template was on a one point, and I very much liked it. I've restored it. Please voice your disagreement here before reverting the change. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It is

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

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

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

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

Membership in Category:Christian leaders

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

Vandalism warning

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

Although I think the warning is intrusive and unnecessary (vandalism has plummeted since semiprotection was introduced) I think it's okay with some caveats. I've removed the NOEDITSECTION directive in view of the fact that this disproportionately impacts normal edits and because vandalism on this article is currently running at rates lower than they have been since mid-2004. I've also removed the incorrect statement that someone editing the article for the first time risks being blocked without further warning; we do not treat our users that way.

I've also removed the problematic sections from the template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree quite thoroughly with Tony's amendments to the template since drive-by vandals will almost certainly simply be allowed to get away with it, with, perhaps, only a warning. Few are the admins with the determination (and hardness of heart) to issue full-blown blocks for a simple bit of silliness that thousands of others have aso engaged in. Repeated silliness is, of course, another matter. I also agree that NOEDITSECTION should be unnecessary in the presence of sprotect. -Splash 04:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Signature

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

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

Yeah, it keeps on getting added here - it really should be culled IMHO WhiteNight 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how his signature adds to the information about him. I'm going to be bold and remove it. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm - I'm not sure what happened, but my edit seemed to do a lot of other stuff I didn't do. (All I did was remove the signature image.) Sorry for any confusion. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, I see what happened now - I must have checked the history to see who added the signature image, and then clicked "edit" from there, accidentally adding/removing/changed some stuff. Sorry 'bout that - my only intent was to remove the signature image. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• I'm baffled. What's wrong with including his signature? For gosh sakes, his office probably sends out a thousand copies of it every day. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Normally there's a heap of cranks saying it's feeding terrorists and such like... But in this case I think the argument is more along the lines of why? What is the encyclopedic interest?/wangi 01:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (a) Shouting removed. (b) See WP:NPOV. "False and baseless attack" is as POV as anything you're complaining about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is to whomever is defending the claim.

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

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

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

• I'm sorry, but if you persist in personal attacks you'll be ignored at best; this isn't a chat board. For the level of detail you request, see George W. Bush military service controversy, as referred to in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

A call for calm (on both sides)

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

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

BlueGoose 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why keep removing the semi-protection?

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

Wishful thinking. Katefan0/mrp 07:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Matt Yeager 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more :) The semi-protection policy was drafted specifically not for continuous use - if you want to change that the bet thing to do would be to make your point at WT:SEMI... But search the archives first! Thanks/wangi 00:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wangi, it wasn't intended for long term use, and using it on one of our most visible articles is a bad sight to show to new users. Welcome to the 💕 everyone can edit; you can't edit this article. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

I agree with phil; the vandalism will not desist, so why worry about "Bad sghting to new users"..? -Zero 07:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Phil puts it well. You remove it and it needs to be re-instated immediately. This page is exceptional and semi-protection should be be permenantly in place here. Marskell 08:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I would love leaving it off, but the actions of constanst vandelism nullifies it. Leave it on, as I have yet to see a "productive anon" contribute to the article anyway. -Zero 08:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

No, no, no, no, no... I can't say it enough. We were told SEMI would not be used proactively. That wasn't the intent of SEMI. Unless we want to go back to add "preventative measures" to the policy, we just can't leave it on. It was designed to be used if an outbreak of anon vandalism occurs, to be lifted shortly afterwards. Leaving it on for long periods of time is a violation of policy, and may I add, very unwiki-like. --LV 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

However, this is an exception. I don't really think you comprehend how much this page is vandalaisesd with SEMI no enabled. Are you aware we have over 800,000 articles that also need supervision..? And outbreaks of anon vandalism have and will continue to occur as long as we give them leeway and flaut our wishful thinking. I greatly endorse the fact of allowing anyone to edit, but this is utterly ridiculous. You say its un-wiki to leave it off..? I say its un-wiki to leave it off and make countless authors waste their time watching over one page when they could be doing something much more constructive. And I ask again: since when have anons made any signifigantly positive edits to this article..? -Zero 15:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No... definitely not. This was specifically brought up during the discussion of SEMI, and it was NOT to be used as an exception for this article. And trust me, I know very well the amount of vandalism that takes place here, but guess what? There is nothing that says you have to worry about it. There are plenty of editors who have this page on there watchlist and revert vandalism often. To me, I would rather vandals didn't do it, but I understand that it happens, and know that reverting is a part of the job. SEMI says right in the policy this is not for pre-emptive measures. This is why I didn't trust SEMI... well-intentioned editors would corrupt the policy to make "exceptions". --LV 15:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

..."No exception"..? I say sure there is. The point is really quite rudimentary. Do anons make useful contributions or do they not..? Are anons going to desist waves of destructive vandalism and sockpuppetry..? Are they ever going to stop..? The answer to these questions is sadly no. And the fact of the matter is if they don't desist, why should we..? Why even give them the chance..? -Zero 16:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And I quote, Semi-protection is only applied if the page in question is facing a serious vandalism problem. (It might, we have no idea if it is left on)

Semi-protection is only to be applied as a response to serious vandalism and not as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism (Are you reading this? It pretty much rules it out.), such as when certain pages suddenly become high profile due to current events or being linked from a high-traffic website. Only when there is evidence of a serious problem of vandalism should semi-protection be applied.

Administrators: note that semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure. (Again, with this pre-emptive thing) In the case of one or two static IP vandals hitting a page, blocking the vandal is a much better option than semi protection as semi protection causes more collateral damage.

Semi-protection is intended to allow good edits to be made even while there would otherwise be a serious vandalism problem on a page. This means that there are some situations that, whilst semi-protection would be technically possible, it is not to be applied. These are mentioned above, and summarized here. Semi-protection:

• • • • • • Is not intended for pre-emptive protection of articles that might get vandalized. This includes the day's Featured Article which should almost never be protected.
          • Is not intended to prohibit anonymous editing in general, and is thus not a solution to run-of-the-mill vandalism.

I am tired of indenting and trying to higlight the correct passages, because almost every sentence from WP:SEMI talks about no pre-emptive measures. Now that we have discussed the text of the policy, would you like to go into the discussions about exceptions from before the poilicy became enforced? --LV 16:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

You are correct, it will most likely get vandalised again, but we can't use a feature against policy. That's why people can't be blocked at the Admin's prerogative. Restricting people's editing should only be done within the scope of policy, and indefinite SEMI without breaks is clearly against policy. I don't really have a problem with it being semi-protected, but I do take umbridge with indefinite semi-protection. --LV 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My dear dark lord, I'm uterly flabbergasted at your reasoning. The only "editting" done by outside users is vandalism, and it will continue to be vanadalism. So you're saying we shouldn't "restrict people's editing" despite the fact its blatent vandalism again and again. Incredible. -Zero 18:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that semi-protection also disables editing to new users, don't you? And those outside users don't always come to vandalize. One example is this diff, which was my first edit in the Article namespace. As annoying as an vandalized article is, a permanently protected article IS as annoying. Titoxd 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

And you don't have to worry about this article then. Those of us who don't mind revert mindless vandalism can take care of this. Anons are not "outside users", either. This type of thinking is severely anti-wiki. They have as much right to edit this article as the rest of us. That's why permanant SEMI is unreasonable. There is a lot of good work done by Anons out there, and I'm getting a little sick and tired of people treating them like "second-class citizens". I know I am exaggerating, but what kind of message are we sending prospective editors by saying, "Anyone can edit (except for on certain articles where you can't edit if you don't log-in)"? You think this is a proper wiki attitude? --LV 19:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing semiprotection from this article on a regular basis so that we can monitor the background level of vandalism. Semiprotection is not intended as a permanent state for any article. During the latest period of unprotection, alhough there just over a dozen instances of vandalism (one by a logged-in user), there were four bona fide edits, all by a non-logged-in user, and one test edit which was self-reverted. This is a wiki and the intention of a wiki is that it should be freely editable; semiprotection is a temporary compromise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Tony gives some good stats so I think he has a point. Some IPs will make good edits and vandals are reverted very quickly. We can at least give it a shot every once and a while, even though is will probably just have to be protected again.Voice of All 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't really have to be protected, but yes, periodic removal is all we ask. --LV 19:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who have been involved in reverting vandalism on this page know from hard experience that right now periodic removal is not an option. Everytime it is removed the page becomes a vandalism free for all. Semi-protection was conceived as a way to avoid full protection while cutting out the principal source of vandalism — IPs go to WP's most prominent page and decide for a laugh to vandalise it. Frankly, my dear Lord, if you had had like the rest of us to deal with vandalism minute by minute for months you'd know precisely why semi-protection was introduced here, and how necessary it is. And a lot of us are getting a tad fed up of being left to mop up after Tony's various "experiments". Usually Tony tries out a new idea unilaterally and it falls to others to deal with the aftermath. This page seems to be his latest thing on Misplaced Pages to experiment on. FearÉIREANN\ 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. What's the point in removing if we know what's going to happen..? And not one fellow has answered my concern: Have anons made constructive contributions to the article or not..? The only answer I recieved was how annoying Titoxd thought it when he made his extremly "mindblowing" edit to the article, which doesn't prove anything. And Jtdirl is correct- why put up with this nonsense...? I could understand if anons frequently made constructive edits, but the sad fact of the matter is they don't. -Zero 22:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

(ec) Didn't Tony just say that the ratio of vandalism to good edits by unregistered users during the time period where it was most recently unprotected was less than 12 to 4? Also, I hate to be blunt, but as I have said before, I don't appreciate people insinuating that people who oppose permanent semi-protection fight vandalism less or don't understand the situation. The opposite is true. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to factor in the edits required to revert the IP's vandalism, or the time wasted by people watching this article continually for vandalism when they need not be. If Tony decides that he will randomly "test unprotect" the page whenever he desires, that means anyone who was helping watch the article will now either have to be in close contact with Tony, so that they know when he is going to unprotect it, or they'll have to continue hovering over this article at all times, as though it was unprotected. If Tony wants to continue doing these tests, he has to announce it well enough in advance to let the community reply, and let them know when he will do it. I really doubt that he was hovering over this article for 11 hours the last time it was unprotected. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-01-16 22:44

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

• Agreed. This obsession with a "policy" that was written by other members of the community is ridiculous. Not all guidelines or policies apply in all situations, so it's wrong to say that by the policy's very existence (in its current state) that it must be applied to this article. The policies were not passed down from on High, and they are nearly as open to change/questioning as anything else on Misplaced Pages. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-01-16 22:43
• This "periodic unprotection" test is based entirely on the assumption that most anonymous vandals of this article are repeat vandals, or that anonymous vandals have a communication network of some kind. Is this the case? Also, what happens when this page it temporarily unprotected, and a vandal comes along and puts jimbo's personal info in an edit summary again? Who's going to talk to the devs to get this corrected (or make the mistake of trying to fix it on their own and breaking the site)? The last time this page was "temporarily" unprotected, such a vandal had a 1 in 10 chance of coming along that day and finding the page unprotected. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-01-16 22:52

I really don't understand the point of these pointless "test un-protects" anyway. We know what's going to happen - why bother removing semi - protect..? If incredibly constructive edits like this are the only constructive edits made without semi protect on, then I don't no what to say. -Zero 23:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian (and others), it's rather arrogant to ignore the consensus reached by a fairly large number of editors while drafting the semi-protect policy. If you want to use the functionality to full-time semi-protect a page then what you should be doing is drafting a change to the policy, or a new one, and then invite others to discuss it. If you get consenses that a permanent protect on this article is a good idea then go ahead and do it, but don't abuse your position and ignore the consensus which built the current policy. Thanks/wangi 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The number of people does not really matter, since Misplaced Pages is always gaining and losing editors. The rationale are all that matters. The people who originally worked on the policy do not now own it; it remains just as changeable as any other policy (which means less easily changed than most stuff on Misplaced Pages, but still open to exceptions). The discussion about how long GWB stays protected should remain on the GWB talk page, since it specifically concerns this page, and the people who are most familiar with the page watch this more than they watch the semi-protection page. Guidelines and policies are supposed to reflect the current views of the community, not prevent those views from changing. Policies themselves were the direct result of such change, a change in the direction of a more controllable/rigid site. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-01-17 01:33

Remember the discussion surrounding whether or not we could block people if they vandalised this page once. It was decided that it wouldn't work because it was against policy. If it is to remain restricted to logged-in users, DO NOT call it "semi-protected". Call it IP Restricted, or something of the like, because it certainly is no longer "semi"-protected. --LV 01:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is. Keeps vandalism out, keeps legitimete editors in. And, no, I don't think of anons or new users as "second -class citizens" ethier. In fact, I hold them in high respect, as i can't count how many times an anon or new user has cleaned up a spelling mistake or grammer error after I've finished making a new article. But this article is indeed an exception, and we must react acordingly. I'm a good - faith editor, but I'm no sucker. These vindidctive users play us up but good. They don't care if we let down SEMI in an act of kindness and good faith, they just start anew. Even Mr. Sidaway stated that vandalism skyrocketed when he deactivated SEMI and numerous charts have shown (again by Mr. Sidaway) that SEMI is benefitting the article. And a user has already shown what "incredibly constructive" edits are made when its down (the addition of a coma! That's a Major edit for sure!). Honestly, the statistics and our tireless hours of pointless vandlaism reverting don't lie. We could go on and on, but what's the point..? Vandalism will not desist. The only reason vandalism decreses is because of SEMI. I leave you with the history, and I hope you'll think on it. But I doubt it. -Zero 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility please. Why not just permanently full-protect the article then? Or lock it to all editors? Wouldn't that too stop vandalism? Trust me, I've been watching this page for quite some time, so stop trying to be condescending (that means acting better than someone). We create policies for reasons, no? In order to be considered "semi-protected", it would have to be in accordance with the Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy, would it not? We can't say something is "A" if it clearly violates the "A policy", no? --LV 17:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it defeats the purpose. The point of SEMI is because it not full- protect. And lock all the editors...? Be serious, Dark lord. And it has nothing to do with condescending (I just made note of the fact I wasn't above) or incivilty. However, as far as policy goes, we both are in agreement- policy is almighty, and I daren't go agaist it, But something must be done. -Zero 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying... if you want this article to be semi-protected indefinitely, we need to change the SEMI policy. --LV 17:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy is not prescriptive. If it defies common sense not to do something, do it. Let policy catch up. ] 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying I want SEMI activated indifitely, only 99.9% of the time. -Zero 18:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's obviously better this way

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

Vote for continued Semi-protection(Straw Poll):

Support

1. Support It's better this way, legit users can edit, vandals cannot--Piedras grandes 18:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review