Talk:George W. Bush

This article is the Biweekly Special Article for the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject. Please add references for this article as you see fit.

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 (Abuse RfC), 27, 28 (Empty)

Kizzle's Computed Poll

Please see Archive 26 for full text of RfC

Kizzle's Computed Poll - All stated user positions are estimates based upon direct quotations. Please go ahead and change your stance if I'm wrong.

V1.5

1. --MONGO 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I think you're for v1.5 now, Mongo, let me know if i'm wrong --kizzle 17:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC))
2. --kizzle 20:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
3. Tverbeek 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) "Though obviously a link to the daughter article should be added."
4. PPGMD 17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : "With a link to the daugher article of course."
5. maltmomma 19:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) "I agree about adding a link to the daughter article."
6. --Steve block 09:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) "If so, yes to a daughter article link..."
7. Junes 09:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) "I'd support version 1 with a link to the daughter article."
8. Sandpiper 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) "Version 1 with a link to the longer article."
9. --Keairaphoenix 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) "I'm voting for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article."
10. Eisnel 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC) - "I vote for #1 with a link to the daughter article"
11. NoSeptember^{T (since no one joined me in Version 2, I will support Version 1.5)}
12. that works for me, or modified #3 as discussed under my 'none' comments Derex 20:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

V1 (probably will favor v1.5 (Tysto won't))

1. --Nobs01 17:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. --Dcarrano 29 June 2005 05:51 (UTC) "the Hatfield stuff is the only one I would miss from the expanded versions." (inferring a daughter article? --kizzle 16:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC))
3. --Tysto 2005 July 9 00:56 (UTC) "No daughter article. No dry-drunk pseudopsychoanalysis."

Supporting Version 3

1. Xaliqen 02:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. ~~~~ 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. The demiurge 20:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
4. Ampracific 30 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)
5. khaosworks July 2, 2005 00:02 (UTC)
6. RichardMathews July 6, 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Supporting Version 4

1. Neutrality^talk 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
2. JamesMLane 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).
3. Harro5 07:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
4. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. albamuth 13:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. jamesgibbon 10:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

That is why I believe we need to re-poll, because as it stands, it's 10-6-6, and given 2 out of the 3 who only voted for v1 vote for v1.5 (which is highly similar), we have one option getting as many votes as the two other combined. --kizzle 16:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• I added my name to V 1.5 NoSeptember^{T 18:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)}
• Kizzle, I support version 1.5...I prefer the original version 1, but accept this 1.5 version to try and achieve some kind of compromise.--MONGO 19:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The computation is helpful, but it should include another nuance: the comments about inclusion of Hatfield. Eisnel, in supporting Version 1.5, said, "Like Dcarrano said, I'd also like to see the short Hatfield paragraph from #3 put in ..." On the other hand, albamuth supported Version 4 but wanted to trim "10%-15% of the words".

Nuances aside, though, a re-poll could be expected to produce substantially the same result, unless there were a major change in the makeup of those responding. (Many of those who responded the first time probably wouldn't vote in a re-poll.) Assuming hypothetically that the result of the re-poll would be something fairly close to 10-6-6, we'd be facing the fact that none of the five versions polled achieved a consensus. (That would be true even if the result were 13-6-6, i.e., if one particular version had a narrow majority.) That's why I think we need to focus on creating a new alternative instead of re-polling the old ones. Hoping that one of the old ones would achieve consensus pretty much amounts to hoping for a miracle. On this article, I stopped hoping for miracles long ago. JamesMLane 20:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That's why it's Kizzle's "Computational" Poll, as I was just getting estimates of people's positions :). Here's the thing, James. As it stands, we have over 25 editors responding to this poll about drug usage, of which the leading option has the amount of the next two closest options combined. I think it can be said that this is as close to a concensus as we're going to get. We can draft a new one, but that's where we were about a month ago, which is the reason why we drafted this RfC in the first place. After going through the RfC process, we have a crystal clear front-runner which represents a large amount of editors contributing to this poll. With all due respect James, you are basically proposing to start back at the drawing board and draft a completely new alternative, which I think is unfair given the strong choice by the editors who have participated in this RfC. What happens then? Not everyone is going to agree with whatever passage we come up, and I don't think that whatever paragraph you craft (which I am sure will be well-written) will garner any more of a substantial support than v1.5 has right now. If we follow your suggestion, we'll have to repeat everything we have done before, and for no clear reason as to scrap what we have already accomplished with this RfC. --kizzle 02:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I realize you were just amalgamating the positions, and I think it was a useful post. As to what we do with your data, though, we can't treat Versions 1, 3, and 4 as three completely distinct approaches. Some of us voting for Version 4 expressly noted that Version 3 would be our second choice, and, given the nature of each version, I think it's reasonable to assume that all the Version 4 supporters would feel that way. If you think that the level of detail in Version 4 is the best, then it would be strange to prefer Version 1 to Version 3, since Version 3 preserves more of that detail than does Version 1. So, I don't agree that we have "a crystal clear front-runner". We have an approximately equal division on the question whether Version 1 is acceptable or omits too much. I agree there's no ready solution that doesn't involve more work, but that's the result of the opinions people hold. We can't avoid that problem by pretending that Version 1, opposed by half those responding, is any sort of consensus. Given that some Version 1 supporters actually wanted Version 1 plus Hatfield, and given that the comments suggest that the psychiatric stuff comes in for more criticism than Hatfield, maybe we could find something between Version 1 and Version 3 on that basis. JamesMLane 11:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

my comment

Geezus you're such a lawyer :). Makes me want to take the LSATs... Yes, there are stated second choices and nuances behind each vote as to present "semi-votes" towards other options. Yes, half of the people in the poll voted against version 1. But that's what you get when you have more than one option. We don't hold another election because more than half of the people voted against Clinton in a 3-party race. Given 4 options in a race, the fact that one now has 50% is relatively a crystal clear front runner.

My main point is this. Voting on Wikipedia is not a quantitative process, in that if the votes were 7-6-6-6, there's no way in hell we would favor option 1 over the others simply due to it having one more vote than the others. However, given the situation we have, option 1 has an equal amount of votes that the other two have combined. In a 4-party race, this is quite significant, and is not characterized fairly when you describe that "half the people voted against"... that's just lawyer-talk ;). In a 2-party system, yes this is significant. However, in a 3 or 4-party system, there will almost always be more than half of the people voting against any of the options.

Out of 4 options, the fact that option 1 has 50% of the votes is entirely significant, and in my mind is the closest we're going to get to concensus, unless you truly believe that re-drafting yet another option will get more than 50% of the vote. Of course, that would require us to take all the progress from this RfC and start from scratch, and I don't think people want to go through all of this yet again. No further questions, your honor. --kizzle 17:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think you would pass the LSAT's with flying colors as that is a good argument you present. However, since I see versions 3 and 4 to be almost the same on my undesireableness list, I almost group them together anyway. But then again, without getting James upset and starting another argument, I think there is a significant majority for version 1.5....twice that on either of the other two options....so what I would like to see now is an example from James of a lead in paragraph to link up the daughter article...that I can live with (I have to live with it, because I'm not going to edit it out)...personally, I like the redirect we have now, but I know that James wants to talk about the quacks...--MONGO 18:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Let's Not Delude Ourselves: Fair, factual, and balanced

I've heard commentators on this site say that we don't have to be fair. Not everything has to be balanced. Use only facts. There was a lengthy debate over two meaningless links. Some people claimed it is neutral to only present one side; to only present the more prominent one; to present the one that made more $$$. Then we hear about educating the reader; about the necessity for accuracy by leaving on out and including another. Unfortunately, then there is a huge debate on the veracity or validity of each movie. Ms. Freisling only saw Fahrenheit, and based off of that and sale records, she claims it had a significant influence on the presidential election. Pioneer 12 saw both and claims they are both propagandistic. Who is right? Well, just apply rules of basic editing to a controversial topic: is it balanced. NO if you only include one -- it just isn't and to call it educating really means educating about how to find the source you want them to find. Is it factual? Well, both documentaries were released, publicized, and debated. It is not here to decide if each portrays the subject correctly. Is it fair? Hmm, present one controversial link and claim it is accurate. Accuracy derives from presenting all the facts in an open, honest, and logical point. So, NO, it would not be accurate to randomly pick the one you want (and some say you can see Hype off of Heit's site; well, you can see Heit off of Hype's site -- now that is a circular argument for those of you who don't understand the meaning of circular arguments and should be acceptable to do the latter because it is the same premise as the first).

Hardly will this site suffer if people can't find Fahrenheit 9/11. It isn't like it was proven to be a deciding issue (if at all) last year, and it is out of the news this year. Let's stop making those kinds of claims (because they are indefensible) and focus on the issue that it was a mass marketed movie about Bush. Fahrenhype 9/11 is a documentary that was made and also mass marketed (albeit on a smaller scale). It is relevant to the Bush article in the context of presenting a refutation of Fahrenheit 9/11 and a balance to what the Bush presidency was during the 9/11 attacks.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking one link is better than another because of one's popularity, Let's not delude ourselves that fairness can be had by presenting one propaganda piece and not another. Let's not delude ourselves that there is only one side to a criticism. Let's not delude ourselves that we can claim neutral with only our opinions and claims. I previously had a hotly contested debate with William Connely on this site, and in the end he refuted some of my statements with cold, hard REFERENCED facts. He came to the conclusion, nonetheless, that I did balance it out more and he revised. I then revised because I thought a word selection was unfair. The point --> stop throwing opinions around (I'm guilty as charged, because it is easy for me to use your same baseless arguments to make a just as illogical baseless argument that is certainly just as valid) and give references with facts. 1. THERE ARE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT HOW EITHER DOCUMENTARY EFFECTED THE ELECTION OR THE CANDIDATES. 2. THERE IS THE FACT THAT BOTH ARE HEAVILY LADEN WITH HIGHLY POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS, AND BOTH ARE DIAMETRICALLY. 3. THERE IS THE FACT THAT FAHRENHEIT 9/11 DID QUITE WELL AT THE BOX OFFICE AND FAHRENHYPE 9/11 WAS RELEASED ON DVD BY DICK MORRIS AND ZELL MILLER. 4. THERE ARE NO FACTS TO CONTEND THAT BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM WARMLY EMBRACED EITHER FILM AS FACTUAL, HONEST, OR FAIR. 4. NEITHER FILM IS EVER MENTIONED WHEN TALKING ABOUT BUSH TODAY OR SEEMS TO PROVIDE AN INDEPTH VIEW OF BUSH THAT IS UNIQUE, HONEST, AND NEWSWORTHY. 5. BOTH MOVIES DEAL WITH BUSH AND THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE. Until an editor can prove significant facts of why both are extremely important, I'd leave them out. Furthermore, I don't see either link adding anything to my understanding of Bush because who has time to read the million and one wiki and external links on here. Not me.

I'm sorry, but I must define fair and neutral, even if you don't think you need to be fair to be neutral (I can't argue that and if the poster edited that ridiculous statement that is a paradox, I certainly won't say anything):

fair: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism[1]

neutral: not engaged on either side; specifically : not aligned with a political or ideological grouping (a neutral nation)

So, don't believe me, believe the meanings of the words everyone uses but then doesn't abide by. If an editor is to be fair and neutral, he or she must be impartial, present information free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism, and not engaged on either side. This simply can't happen by presenting just one movie or the other -- that is not impartial, and by definition, not fair. Neutral means you present both sides equally by remaining unaligned. Presenting one side appears that that is the valued, relevant criticism, and no debate is needed. But, if you must put heit/hype on here, what are we so afaid might happen if the reader sees Fahrenhype 9/11? Might they freak out? Might they decide to click on it? Might they decide to check it before they check Fahrenheit? Might they decide there are two opposing documentaries and skip over them? They might do all of that if they are reading it critically . . . how will that hurt Fahrenheit 9/11? How will that hurt this article? It won't! (Dcokeman 15:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC))

Hear hear! Banes 18:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda or no, if it played an important role in the life of the President (as Heit clearly did, and Hype clearly did not), some mention of it belongs. The difference between the noteworthiness of the two films is not a matter of degree. One was the topic of extensive argument and debate, as here - and one was not. On that basis, it is not necessary to include 'Hype' to contextualize 'Heit' in this article. Diatribes like yours, long and without actual conclusion, don't change that. Heit had demonstrable impact on the campaign and on American popular culture, in a hay that 'hype' did not. That's not censorship, nor ridiculous, nor paradoxical. 'Fair and balanced' is for Fox News. Here, it's 'factual and relevant'. We are not attempting to placate the readership - we are attempting to educate them. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I think heit should be mentioned as a link only...I don't think it deserves mentioning in the text of the article on Bush...but that is up to you. I absolutely don't think HYPE deserves anything...just to clarify my POV on all this.--MONGO 19:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have probably missed an earlier discussion, but how exactly did Fahrenheit 9/11 "clearly" have an effect on the president's life? It seems to have been a much bigger deal to Michael Moore and his supporters than it was to the president. Even if it had some effect on his presidential campaign, that seems like something more suited for an article on the 2004 election. —Charles O'Rourke 20:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Just to throw out a little example about how it affected Bush (they are manifold), here's an excerpt from a conservative blog [2].

"Mostly the comments are absolute shock at the close connections Moore makes between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia. "Bush looks really really REALLY corrupt in this film. I just don't know what to think anymore," is a common comment to hear. Some of these soldiers are darn right ashamed tonight to be American soldiers, to have been apart of this whole mission in Iraq, and are angry over all that Moore has presented in his film." {...} "I wonder how damaging and shocking a Moore project would have been in the 1940s making such a video of Franklin Roosevelt. All the corruption and decadence in that administration would have fed such a project well. Or how damaging and shocking would such a Moore project have been to Lincoln, who wavered and shifted often in finding the right mediums and balances in pursuing the great causes of the Civil War. ...Need I even suggest the impact such would have had on Kennedy or Johnson and all their hypocrisies?"

This is just a single perspective of the impact of the film, in this case centering around it's impact on soldiers acting under the Commander in Chief's leadership. Here's another, an excerpt from an article [3] titled 'The Politics of Film', detailing its impact on the political arena during the election:

"{...} history shows that only rarely do such cultural touchstones become political. It has been 30 years since a documentary had a significant impact on the political front, said Bebitch Jeffe, who cited the 1974 film "Hearts and Minds," which detailed opposition to the Vietnam War, as "a turning point in public opinion. It changed opinions on the war. In 2004, the political tornado now forming around Moore's film, she said, is due as much to an unusual conflux of timing and marketing as to content. The controversy began when Disney head Michael Eisner refused to distribute the film.

"We've never had the head of a major entertainment conglomerate create this kind of debate. ... It all played into a dynamic I don't think we've seen, " Bebitch Jeffe said.

{...} "GOP operatives and organizations, including a California-based group, Move America Forward, have begun lobbying efforts against Moore's work. A key organizer, former GOP Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, calls the film "propaganda" and campaign material disguised as a documentary -- and has posted e-mail addresses of theater owners to urge supporters to demand they not air the film."

-- RyanFreisling @ 20:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how either of those excerpts show an actual effect on the Bush presidency. Regarding the first one, no one has shown that Bush's authority as commander-in-chief has been compromised. Conservative hand-wringing over the movie doesn't demonstrate that it had an effect. Regarding the second one, the president won his re-election bid and public opinion about the war didn't go south until after the election; so what effect did the movie have on the presidency? —Charles O'Rourke 20:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

If you ignore everything else - "It has been 30 years since a documentary had a significant impact on the political front". That is an accurate assessment of it's importance, in specific here to Bush's campaign for his 2nd term. There are countless others, and both examples are clearly answers to your question. Do you discount the film had a substantial impact on the campaign, and as the first example's quotations of actual soldiers asserts, their perception of the President's role as Commander-in-Chief? If so, you're entitled... but that doesn't negate the opinion of the original poster, and doesn't invalidate the examples. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm simply saying that what some soldiers thought about the movie (I haven't seen anything indicating it was many, or most) doesn't make it a defining part of the Bush presidency, and how did you determine that "It was been 30 years since a documentary had a significant impact on the political front" was an accurate assessment? Michael Moore's stated goal was to derail the Bush re-election campaign, it didn't work, and at election time, no one (in my knowledge) was suggesting that the race was so close because of the documentary. So where was its notable impact that warrants a mention in a Bush biographical article? I would definitely agree that it should be placed in an article about the 2004 presidential election — but I still wouldn't place too much importance on it. —Charles O'Rourke 21:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with the closeness of the race,or the election itself, but the role of the film in popular culture's experience of the Bush presidency (and his experience as President) - and the fact that this film, the highest-grossing documentary of all time, was a direct critique of Bush, during his campaign. Never before has a documentary had such visibility or impact during a political season, centered around a sitting president, in time of war, and so impugned his motives and character to such a global audience. It's unique, it's noteworthy, and it belongs. Perhaps more mention belongs than a simple link, to clarify the relationship and it's impact, as you seem unconvinced by these two simple examples. Perhaps a determined editorial process in the article itself to that effect is called for. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Certainly it should have a mention in the Documentaries article, since it truly is notable among documentaries. But I still am unconvinced that because it 1) directly criticized Bush during time of war and 2) was a box office hit, that makes it notable from the perspective of Bush's presidency. What did Bush do differently as a result of the movie? —Charles O'Rourke 21:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

A fair amount, to be sure - from his party's (GOP) funding of 'Hype' to the attempts listed above to censor it [4], [5]. A change in Bush's personal actions is not required to substantiate it's import to Bush's presidency and public perception. For another example -

"In a direct reference to Michael Moore’s Bush hit piece "Fahrenheit 9/11" Kerry makes the claim that he would be more decisive and quick to react. Kerry told the reporters, "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to...and I would have attended to it." [6]. Does this substantiate it's importance as a 'talking point' about Bush, used during the campaign to attack him for incompetence? Yes. Does it mean Bush's feelings or personal actions changed? No. But it still belongs, for all the same reasons as the other examples. Revisionism cannot minimize the impact of the documentary on Bush, his public perception, and the 2004 campaign (NOT the '04 Election). -- RyanFreisling @ 22:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)'

I think we are talking past each other. I am saying that over-reaction by conservatives in general doesn't prove or disprove any sort of effect on the president or his presidency. That's why I think a discussion of Fahrenheit 9/11 is more appropriate in an article on the 2004 presidential campaign, not Bush's presidency; because as far as I can see, and none of the articles you've cited have said otherwise, neither George W. Bush nor his presidency did anything differently or were notably affected by the documentary. It certainly riled up conservatives, and gave Kerry a few extra talking points, but did either end up mattering, from a historical, encyclopedic perspective? It surely explains some of the twists and turns of the 2004 campaign, but I still can't see how it says anything noteworthy about his presidency. I'm not trying to be revisionist, just balanced. (For what it's worth, I don't think Fahrenhype has any place here regardless of what else is mentioned.) —Charles O'Rourke 04:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've made the elements of my case elsewhere (as have numerous others, helping to establish consensus) - for the first time, a global best-selling award-winning documentary ruthlessly critiques a sitting president in time of war, it's prominence inspiring not only political outrage on the left and the right in political and 'public' arenas, as epitomized (not necessarily substantiated) by the interviewees in my prior examples', causing 'twists and turns' in the campaign, etc., as you mention yourself. If we disagree by the 'extent' to which this film affected the President, at least in the ways I mentioned, that's one thing. But it's most certainly a noteworthy occurrence of his Presidency, with unique effects. Again, the 'balance' issue - I have to ask, are the factors you seek to balance Left wing POV vs. Right wing POV, or obscurity vs. noteworthiness? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to balance relevance vs., not quite irrelevance, but very limited relevance. Obviously George W. Bush should be linked from the Fahrenheit 9/11 article, because George W. Bush is the main theme of the movie. But I think we agree that the presidency and the man have not changed one way or the other as a result of the movie, so I don't think that the movie is a noteworthy part of the presidency, just noteworthy among documentaries. Also, on a different note, at the moment Fahrenheit 9/11 is under the "further reading" section. Since its factual accuracy and fairness is highly disputed, does it belong in a "further reading" category of an article which is supposed to be a reference? I would hope most of our articles only reference materials that, while perhaps not being neutral, at least are factually accurate. —Charles O'Rourke 01:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

We don't agree that 'the presidency and the man have not changed one way or the other as a result of the movie'. - I just made the opposite point. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Mr. O'Rourke makes some valid criticisms. First, don't pass off blogs as facts: they do not belong in something considered reputable and they most certainly are an opinion, just like your opinion. They are fine, but add them into the Fahrenheit piece for they mean nothing here. Secondly, you say a fair amount and then quote blogs and information from politically biased sources. Your sources have to be neutral and balanced if you expect them to be taken seriously. You call it Revisionism, but the American history books I've seen don't place this importance on Fahrenheit like you do (and can't back up with facts).

I'm charged with throwing out lame definitions, but hey, when words are misunderstood, someone has to correct them. It is not neutral to use a biased site to back up a biased piece and then claim you have support. Why not just produce reports from the Bush White House about their performance after 9/11 to view Moore's piece? Naturally, because it a.) isn't factual and b.) is obviously biased. Even your last quote about Kerry is not truthful -- you make a charge by picking a small piece out of an article because someone speculates that he might be comparing himself to Michael Moore, though Kerry NEVER mentioned Moore, only a political commentator before Hype came out. Here is the rest of the article: "Where were you [on 9/11]? John Kerry: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation. Here’s the 9/11 timeline pre CNN… 8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire. 9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning. (Kerry sees this horrible event live on TV) 9:17 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration shuts down all New York City area airports. 9:21 a.m.: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey orders all bridges and tunnels in the New York area closed. 9:30 a.m.: President Bush, speaking in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack." 9:40 a.m.: The FAA halts all flight operations at U.S. airports, the first time in U.S. history that air traffic nationwide has been halted. 9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately. 9:45 a.m.: The White House evacuates. (Kerry and his colleagues leave shortly thereafter.) Hindsight is 20/20 but so are transcripts and timelines. John Kerry wants to complain about 7 minutes? He sat stunned after the attacks-- in his own words ‘unable to think’ for at least 42 minutes until he was ‘told to evacuate."[7]

Believe it or not, this article does not mention how Moore influenced Kerry or Bush. There is some speculation, but recognize that for what it is. This article is about Kerry, and by matter of the subject, the support of the Bush White House. Add it to the Kerry article, because as several editors have made clear, this site is Bush's biography and not Kerry's. And, next time, use sources to oppose Mr. O'Rourke's contentions that are factual and balanced to bolster your argument.(Dcokeman 23:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC))

One might expect John Kerry should retract his petty criticism of the president from Thursday’s meeting.

Once again, your long-winded diatribe is misdirected. A political review of the timeline is not relevant, nor is a refutation of Kerry's POV. I included those examples to demonstrate the role of 9/11 in the Bush presidency and campaign, and much as you might wish to blanket deny, it's simply not true that "No one can give info into importance of Heit to Bush or the American people." -- RyanFreisling @ 23:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Dcokeman, while you preach to us from up high on what neutrality means, you need to take a lesson in civility.

• Stop throwing out lame definitions from webster's dictionary to prove your point, maybe assume we know a little bit about the english language.
• Stop preaching to us what neutrality means like a father talks to a child, just make your point about why something is neutral or not without defining neutrality for us everytime. Assume we're maybe quite possibly smarter than monkeys.
• Don't shout, there's no reason why you need to shove your opinion down our throats.--kizzle 16:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not preaching from high up, but only asking for balance. You say stop throwing out lame definitions, but you ignore that many of my posts are discounted because others claim I don't know what consensus is, that I'm illegibile, or that it is part of the public record. I sometimes misuse words, such as when I added that Bush's grades are disputed . . . simply not accurate. But, consensus was a focus of the topic presented and I was told I didn't know what it means. I've taught for a long time and I simply go to the dictionary to point out the problem (and the topic dropped). I'm insulted as illegible; that is about as funny as Jesse Jackson calling Bush unliterate. Still, my question is dismissed out of hand because of "the public record." Once again, the editor didn't know what a public record is -- and I doubt they'd believe me, so of course, I just use a citation that is absolutely the end of the story.

As far as neutrality, when some editors think fairness concerning political matters does not matter to receive balance (not my talk here, but others and apparently no one vehemently disagreed), then either we don't know what neutral means or we are just make it up as we go. This is more than semantics: it means not taking sides, which means you have to be fair. Other people apparently do not share this definition. I make no assumptions about anyone, but I will listen AND give in if they are factual and fair. I simply don't think we have it here.(Dcokeman 22:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC))

Neutrality is like enlightenment, it is something we all strive for but never fully achieve. All I ask is that you recognize that none of us, including you, are completely neutral. Like I said before, you're about the 50 billionth person to come onto Wikipedia believing their point of view is neutral while everyone else's is biased. --kizzle 05:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

-->Let me say how much I agree with kizzle here. Well said. We do not need to be neutral, but we have an obligation to attempt to make the article neutral and accurate. --Noitall 05:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dcokeman: to me, the primary question is whether 'hype is primarily about g.w. bush? i have looked around, including the fahrenhype website. everything i can find says this is primarily about michael moore, his movie, & his motives. btw, the movie is available "exclusively at overstock.com"; doesn't sound like a hugely successful or important film to me. so no, i don't think it's obvious it deserves a link. and no, i don't think i am being biased by holding that position. i have drawn the analogy with a book review not being linked, and i stand by that. or i could be "deluding" myself; i do have an awful hard time thinking for myself. Derex 16:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you're deluded :)... it's, as you say, a criticism of a critism. --kizzle 16:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fahrenheit/FahrenHYPE: NPOV in text, wikilinks, ext links

Much of the foregoing discussion of the two films misses the context in which the question actually arises. We’re not talking about the text of the article; we’re talking about a "See also" link to another Wikipedia article. The issue is not whether the films are accurate, or fair, or widely distributed. No one is talking about linking to either film’s official website. The issue is whether the Wikipedia articles would add to a reader’s understanding of the subject of this article (George W. Bush).

The best way to answer that question is to look at the articles in question. The Wikipedia article on Fahrenheit 9/11 contains information about Bush that isn’t in the main article. Therefore, it merits a "See also" link. The Wikipedia article on FahrenHYPE 9/11 contains no such information. In fact, the word "Bush" doesn’t even appear in that article. Linking it to doesn’t help the reader find out anything new about Bush.

NPOV means that, on a controversial subject, the article must present differing opinions fairly. If there’s material in the film FahrenHYPE 9/11 that isn’t in this article, it could be considered for inclusion. There’s quite obviously no shortage of editors devoting great energy to presenting the pro-Bush POV. The mere link to an article that’s not about Bush doesn’t improve the balance of our presentation about Bush.

Dcokeman says, "Ok, Heit is relevant. Hype is too, even if on a smaller scale." I think the relevance of the films to this subject is different – Fahrenheit 9/11 is to a great extent about Bush, while FahrenHYPE 9/11 is about Fahrenheit 9/11. If we were to try to list subjects that are relevant "even if on a smaller scale" to the President of the United States, we’d have quite a list, starting with more than 100 country articles, the 535 members of the U.S. Congress, and any U.S. state not already linked in the text. Then there’s Al Franken, whose article does give some information about Bush, namely that he was the inspiration for the creation of Air America Radio. We have to make some judgments. Judging the films, I’d say that Moore’s film qualifies but the attack on Moore’s film doesn’t. Judging the wikilinks, I'd say that the article on FahrenHYPE 9/11 has no information about Bush. The article on Al Franken has a little information about Bush, but not enough to justify a link. The article on Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good amount of information about Bush, so that link is appropriate.

Finally, let’s remember that there’s no mathematical formula for NPOV. In discussing these film links, some editors seem to think that we have to keep a scorecard, and the number of favorable links must precisely equal the number of unfavorable links. There is no such requirement. If you think there is, I invite your attention to the "External links" section. The favorable links greatly outnumber the unfavorable links – an easy calculation to make, given that there are zero unfavorable links. Somehow, the people insisting that a link to Moore’s film must be balanced by a link to its criticism don’t seem upset about the much greater imbalance in external links. Should every link to a Bush speech be balanced by a link to a Counterpunch or Common Dreams article criticizing that speech? I don’t think so. (At one time the "External links" section did include some anti-Bush links, but they were all purged. I don’t think we need a numerical balance, but I think we should include a few notable sites where the reader could get a different viewpoint. In particular, an anti-Bush site that’s regularly updated, as the pro-Bush White House site is, could be valuable for providing information that’s not in the Wikipedia article. The test for including such links should be usefulness to the reader, not a numerical balance.) JamesMLane 17:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Please add negative links! That is great if they are factual and balanced (it appears else where things could use some links to Bush detractors: please go find them and add them if they are legitimate like Fahrenheit). I think it would be wonderful if some major speeches had links for his detractors: that indeed would receive balance. This can be a call to wake them up. Still, an uneasiness seeps into me with Fahrenheit: it is an obvious criticism and provides many assertions (they might be facts, but I haven't checked them) that are largely disputed by Fahrenhype. I believe standing alone Hype is meritorious to giving insight to the major challenge of the Bush administration: the response to the terrorists attacks and the ensuing war. With putting Fahrenhype back in, I also ask James or anyone else to find the purged links and lets reinstate them. If you want to read a homage and nothing but greatness, rely on Bush's White House press releases. If you want to read a balanced truth, it should be on Wiki. James rightly so calls this for what it is: a mistake. Let's not call that a mistake to justify this here. While things don't have to be numerically even (though there should at minimum be striving for balance), if two points are diametrically opposed and as closely related as Hype/Heit, then please list it. Has anyone listed the book by the former director of counter-terrorism? While I don't agree with it at all, it still received widespread media attention and comes from an influential source. Maybe that can be a start in the right direction.(Dcokeman 22:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC))

I'm afraid you're missing my point when you suggest adding negative links "if they are factual and balanced". There's no requirement of "balance" in an external site we link to. For example, the manifestly unbalanced FahrenHYPE website is included in the "External links" section of Michael Moore and of Fahrenheit 9/11. The point is serving the interests of the reader. The FahrenHYPE website has information that's relevant to the subjects of those two articles, so linking to it is defensible (though it doesn't have much information, being primarily devoted to selling the product). You could argue that there's a relationship (of some sort) between Bush and the HYPE film, website, and Wikipedia article, but if you applied that standard consistently, you could find so many relationships with Bush that the "See also" section would be so long as to be useless. Also, it seems you agree with me that we shouldn't add external links just to satisfy some numerical balance. The same should apply to internal links. I just noticed there's a "See also" link to Compassionate conservatism but none to Liberalism -- is that balanced? No, it's not balanced, but by the standard of helping the reader, the article on "Liberalism" isn't worth linking to here because it doesn't say much about George W. Bush. The same is true of the article on FahrenHYPE 9/11. JamesMLane 00:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

That's the best cross examination I have seen yet and as far as I'm concerned, you settled it concisely and NPOV...let's hope that ends the discussion on the links--MONGO 06:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think James has it exactly right on what the standard should be: does the wikilinked article add value to the reader. Having just skimmed Fahrenheit 9/11, I'm not sure that the article itself does add a lot of value to someone interested in GWB. However, the film itself clearly does. Once again, I think this ought to be included down in a 'Further Reading & Media' section. If it were a book, I think it would clearly go there. Why should a movie be different? And no, 'hype still doesn't belong even there (but I would object somewhat less to it there). Derex 04:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Deficit will be halved early and unemployment is down 5 percent

Deficit will be cut in half earlier then 2009 and unemployment is down 5 percent. Bush states that this is because of his Tax cuts and 'Pro Growth policies.'

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15925549%255E1702,00.html

Maybe we can all get rid of the deficit entirly and that with clean fuels like Hydrogen and Cold Fusion power the next decade is looking really ausome.

I will believe it when I see it, especially considering the effect of rising gas prices on the economy. Who knows what gas will be at that point. Alternative energy sources is going to take a little while longer than a decade to integrate into American society. --kizzle 17:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

'Ausome' (sic) would have been not spending the surplus away in an unprecedented strip-mining effort to privatize our public treasury and social security in the first place. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Cold fusion is psuedoscience. The fusion technique announced in April is not related to Stanley Pom's experiments in the 1980s, and none of the researchers claim that the technique found at the University of LA produces any important amount of energy. The anonymous user's excitement about Bush claiming to be able to halve the amount by which the federal government exceeds its income is irrational, since it's like getting excited about a store offering a 50% discount after the price has been quadrupled. Bush took a budget surplus upon entering office and multiplied it by negative one. --Mr. Billion 17:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

stop deleting my additions

i have repeatedly added factual info to this article and vandals keep removing it. please help me keep it in the article. it is true, and appropriate to the article/section -steve

• Provide sources for your "factual info" and present it in an neutral fashion and I'll gladly let it be. This is not vandalism. This is editing. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

"Moreover, the nicknaming transaction is unilateral, thereby maintaining hierarchical order. Despite the ubiquity of his own countrified nickname in the media, Dubya has never been commonly used in Bush's presence." [8] -- BMIComp (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

wow you people over reacted. first you removed his contribution with no comment as to why, and then biatch when he puts it back and doesnt use the talk page. He was adding a pretty valid statement, since in the last 6 years "dubya" has become a derogatory term for him. I really don't see how this addition was POV in 90% of the tries i looked at, and it is much less so than the original article. just because it is not pro-bush doenst make it POV. you folks should be ashamed. Quite the edit war over what appears to be valid info. steve, i would like to see some sources, though. just because something is true isnt good enough for wikipedia, it needs to be provable, and proven. IreverentReverend 21:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

it's not at all clear that W is derogatory. there was a story in the Wash. Post last week about hats from the local baseall team. hats with a W were selling like crazy to Republicans, who often wore them to political events. back in the election, i noticed a bunch of "W is for women" signs on the convention floor (weird sign). it's hardly surprising folks don't call the governor/president by a nickname to his face. but clearly, it's often not derogatory but affectionate.Derex 22:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I see lots of oval "W" stickers on cars, too, in support of Bush. But I tend to think that "dubya," when written that way, is usually derogatory. In other words, "W"=supports Bush, "dubya"=opposes Bush. (I'm only talking about written, not spoken, cases.) -- Coneslayer 22:13, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

"W" and "dubya" are very different. I have yet to hear "man I love dubya", it is always more like "that damn dubya is at it again."then again, i never hear probush statments, either... only online... any who, it is hard to argue that something as rednecky as "dubya" is ever a positive... I agree with coneslayer, but posit that it does continue to spoken word as well. "w"=bush lover "dubya"=bush mockerIreverentReverend 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

i guess the problem for me is that i actually pronounce 'W' as 'dubya'. i'm from way south, and i assume that's still the way it's commonly said (been gone quite a while). i never realized that pronounciation was supposed to make him sound stupid. kind of offends me actually, now that i get it. i'd have to really go out of my way to say 'doubleu' if i liked the man, guess it's a lucky thing i don't. Derex 22:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a Bush-supporter friend who is not a southerner that routinely refers to Bush as "Dubya." It's probably more common in the South, but that doesn't mean people can't turn it around and use it in a non-hostile way. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I was asked on my user page to come defend my reverting of your edits. I will start by saying that I have come to see you are almost certainly not a vandal. I was wrong in calling your changes vandalism. That still does not make them right for Wiki. And it certain does not make those who reverted you, seven to eight different people, including a couple of different moderators, vandals. Continuing to call us vandals, and tossing insults into your summaries is not going to get this impass solved. Neither side was vandalizing.

On the page itself you have been fighting a losing battle. You are *not* going to get you edits accepted that way. And since it's a community project, if they're not accepted, they're not going to remain. It's as simple as that.

As for why I reverted you (and called it vandalism), it was because I saw you having been reverted 4-6 times already, by multiple people, including a couple of moderators, and continuing to try to force your edits into the board. And I could see the potential inflamitory nature of your edits, linking GWB to the term "Redneck". So I joined in to assist in fighing an (apparent) vandal, in an effert to keep Wikipedia clean, so to speak. I'll provide my reasons I think this edit should stay off below.

Here's my opinion of where you need to go from here. These are all just IMHO, of course.

You need to convince people that your edits need to stay. And you need to do that here, on the talk page, before you make even one more try to make the change. Otherwise, after your block expires, it'll just be a repeat of what happened today. You'll edit, multiple people will revert you, and you'll end up blocked again.

I have hope that there's potential in you to contribute here. Getting yourself repeat blocked is not a good way to contribute, nor is it an especially fun way to enjoy Wiki.

So, you need to convince people that what you want to say is worth of remaining in Wikipedia. To do that, you're going to need to present your case, and be ready to rebutt the arguments that will almost certainly be raised against it.

1) You need to show that your item is indeed true. Provide credible links that show that the W was dropped because of possible negative connotations. 2) Demonstrate that this is actually signifigant. There are huge numbers of facts/triva that can be stated about any subject. But most of them are indeed trivial, and don't really belong on Wiki. 3) POV. You need to convince people that this is not a POV statement. That it is not being included in the article for POV purposes.

Personally, I have problems with it for both items 2 & 3 above. I don't see it as an offensive statement by itself, but it is rather trivial, and I worry that the main reason for it's inclusion is to work the Redneck word into the article somehow. Even if it's in a statement about how GWB decided to not use because of the redneck implications, it still puts the Redneck word into an article where it has no nPOV purpose.

Enough for now. This is getting long. I do hope that you can take this whole experience and learn from it, and come out a valued member of the Wiki society we have here. Time will tell. TexasAndroid 23:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way we can get this talk page protected for like a week? It's exhausting keeping up with all the discussion here, and I think it would benefit everyone to just chill out and try again in a week. --kizzle 00:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Locking the talk page won't stop the conflicts that cause the discussions, it'll just bottle them up with noplace else to go. TexasAndroid 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I just meant for a few days or so, to calm things down...and i was only half-serious anyways. --kizzle 02:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think locking the talk page is not cool. It's the type of thing that fuels the fires of the "sysopkabal bashers" who voted for Lir in the Arbcom election and will do it again. And it makes disputes more personal and potentially more vitriolic when they're diverted to e-mail and other personal channels. The Talk page is truly the place we should proudly say we're a true wiki. There will always be trolls and vandals, but we must firmly stay to the Wiki Way on talk pages. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 06:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

this is the former vandaliser "the wise vandal" and my cousin "the bush troll " just called me and said what you e-mailed him. i just want you to know that we have stopped vandalising for good! i am a deemocrat even though you probably know that already! if we use to make useful contributions we will add serious TRUE things! i am sorry if we caused you any problems, there is not alot to do in our town so we just used vandalism as a source of entertainment. I understand that the administrators need to create new pages! i am sorry if we caused alot you alot of problems! WE QUIT! Have a good day!

This is the comment I was referring to as impersonating Steve. TexasAndroid 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

lets face it, "dubya" is pronouced in a redneck way, as opposed to "w". That attaches connotations to the word, ie the speaker is less intellegent, and somone nicknamed that is less intellegent. you would not want a brain surgeon to say" howdy y'all, mah name is Bubbah, I's gonna poke aroun' in dat der head 'o yers and see if'n ah cen dun figure out whats da preblem." I am not saying all people with the mode of speach are stupid, just they sound that way. Same with ebonics. Queen's english, onb the other hand, makes even the biggest moron sound intellegent, and if the queen spoke cockney, well, she would sound stupid as well. you CANNOT argue that redneck accents don't connot anything. -steve

i wasn't aware we had a queen in the states. i assure you that your accent/dialect probably sounds as ridiculous to me as mine does to you. and no, we southerners do not speak as in your caricature. lucky you think we're stupid though, it sure makes it more satisfying to outsmart you. bush surely laughs his ass off at the people who think he's so dumb, and so 'misunderestimate' him. i'm no bush fan, but bigotry/ignorance like this ticks me off. Derex 19:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You are quite the bright one."Queen's English" is the term for the prim and proper form of english, such as what the queen of england uses, you know, the intellegent formal english of british voice overs. Cockney is the "gutter" speak, such as bollocks, yarbols, mates, and any low brow british sitcoms. Regardless of what YOU say, many people feel the redneck dialect of the south sounds uneducated, no one EVER said that the speakers WERE uneducated, it is just a matter of appearances, that is not QUITE a stereotype, since the only implication is the speacher is from the south... sorry, but if you talk like a hick, people will assume you are a rube. -steve

sorry, that there's just me being dumb again i reckon. them words is just too big for me. i really need to get me some of that there eddication. i always figgered if'n i learned all them ten-dollar words i'd sound like a pompous ass, kind of like you. or perhaps it's just what you say & not how you say it. Derex 18:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, there you go, if learning pronuciation and grammar is too hard an effort to sound intellegent, well, we see how good the education is in the sounth, and that the redneck connotations for hillbilly-ese is not far off. Don't worry, someday someone will take you seriously, and hopefully you will find someone other than your sister or cousin to rais a family with. - steve

Whether the pronunciation of 'dubya' connotes a lack of intelligence or not, it's his nickname in many circles. There is also evidence that a typical C-student, 'man of the people' President would benefit from a name with a 'down-home' feel to it. Bush (Dubya) has benefitted and suffered from such a connotation, and so to me focusing on 'redneck' interpretations of his nickname seems superfluous for this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

oops, forgot "dubya" somehow manages to turn failing/disabilities/stupidity to his advantage. I feel it is quite relevent to point out that many people are embarrassed that they are led by someone who embraces his own stupidity. -steve

You're entitled to your soapbox here on 'talk'... but not in the article! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

i'm also entitled to an unbiased, factual article about dubya.-steve

Steve, I'm a bit embarassed by Bush myself. However this has no bearing on Wikipedia. We're writing an encylopedia, not an editorial. What's in this article must be neutral and verifiable. If a legit news source runs a story reporting that a poll showed that 52% of Americans describe themselves as embarasseed by the President, that's verifiable. You saying how you personally think "many" people feel is not verifiable. Friday 19:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As BMIcomp mentioned above, "Dubya" was never used as an official anything. It is a popular and unofficial nickname, and nothing more. It doesn't belong in the campaign section.. probably doesn't belong in this article at all. List of U.S. Presidential nicknames is the proper place. Rhobite 19:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

and the fact he was governer of texas fits "list of governers of texas" too, will remove that bit of info, and any others like it if you use that logic. -steve

Please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. Rhobite 19:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia policy is to include descriptions of how people view a man. his nickname is an integral part of his public persona. 'bubba', 'slick willie', and 'the big dog' are all listed in the clinton article for the same reason. and rightly so. Derex 19:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a place for a short, neutral mention here in this article. Certainly not in the first paragraph of the campaign section, though. It's pretty warped to put an unofficial nickname above the election results. Let's keep our perspective here. Rhobite 19:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

gee, you think someone could move it rather than delete it... gee, i wonder how you do something like that... oh yeah, you take your pro-bush bias outta yer ass first! -steve

Move it where? Your edits will always remain in the page history. And please consider Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks, Sango123 19:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, hard to remain civil after this much bias and vandalism of legitimate additions. I meant since he thought it would fit in a new location in the article, rather than delete it off had, move it to a new location.

"Legitimate additions" That's exactly the problem. Multiple people did not beleive they were legitimate. Just because you beleive they are legitimate does not mean that they are. You legitimately beleive you have a valid point to make. But please realize that the rest of our opinions are just as legitimate. As for the idea of moving, that's exactly why several people were trying to tell you to take it to Talk. It's here in Talk where these types of alternate ideas can be developed. They don't just pop out of nowhere on the main page. When people see (in their opinion) improper edits, the normal Wiki response is to revert, and then discuss before maybe letting a variant of the action go through. This is called consensous building, and it's how Wiki works. Wiki walks a fine line of avoiding pure chaos, and building consensous on tricky issues is what keeps us from devolving into pure chaos. TexasAndroid 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Trying to get things back on track here. I too see the possibility of including "Dubya" itself in the article somewhere. Especially if the Clinton ones are mentioned in his article. I still don't think it's approprite to talk about his deciding to drop it because of it's connections to the word Redneck. Including Redneck anywhere in the GWB article is asking for trouble. The question remains, where is it most appropriate to go? I'll have to go peek at the Clinton article to see how they used his nicknames in the main article there. If "Slick Willie" can be used in a nPOV way in Clinton's article, surely Dubya can be used here. On a slightly different subject, directly to Steve, I highly suggest you get a registered ID. You've already been impersonalted once in this discussion, and as long as all we have to identify you is your dynamic and changing IP, there's no way to be 100% certain that any specific comment does or does not come from you. I suspect you *really* do not want people putting words in your mouth. TexasAndroid 20:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll be frank. This is one of the most highly-visible articles on Wikipedia. It's just not worth it to coddle people who repeatedly insert biased, incorrectly-spelled statements. Until we come up with a neutral way of working "dubya" into the article in the proper place, the best solution is to keep it out of the article. There is no urgent need to mention this nickname at this minute. But there is always a need for neutral, readable articles. Rhobite 20:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

i'll be earnest. if vandals hadn't kept removing it, it would not have been repeatedly added, and the correct response to mispellings is to correct them, not remove the addition entirely. Just because you are happy in the current pro-bush bias of the article doen't mean correcting it and impoving it are not important. grow up. -steve

You are *really* going to have a hard time getting anything changed here on Wiki as long as you continue to refer to people who disagree with you as vandals. And I mean that we disagreed with the fact that your comment belonged on Wiki, reguardless of it's truth. TexasAndroid 20:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Steve, I don't appreciate your constant speculation about my bias. Please keep it on topic. Rhobite 20:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

make you a deal, you stop vandalising in a pro-bush amnner, and I will stop pointing out you are a bush fellating, moronic, biased editor! -steve

Steve - You won't do any good whatsoever by calling editors 'vandals' for their reverts while you exhibit similar behavior. Please reflect as to why 'The neutrality of this article is disputed' is the first sentence of the article page. Attempts are being made to compromise. Sango123 20:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

um, deleting is not compromising. -steve

Deleting is a way to keep things status quo while a compromise is reached on the Talk page. Exactly what is happening now. TexasAndroid 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

doesn't count when peole just revert and then don't say jack ont he talk page. they were being biased, and that's a fact. if they had responded on the talk page, it would be different. - steve

Ok. I am a bit guilty on that one. You had alreay posted your first comment on the talk page when I joined in the revert party. OTOH, when I did respond it was after I had had a chance to think quite a bit about the whole situation, so I hope I was a good bit more elloquent and effective than I would have been had I responded immediately. I certainly went on for a good bit then. But the general sentiment of my comment just above here stands. Even if discussion does not start immediately, the Wiki way of doing things on controversial points is to leave the point off the article until a consensous/compromise can be built. And for goodness sakes, we're only 24 hours or so later, and we've got a possible compromise wording building in another section. That's pretty fast, IMHO. TexasAndroid 20:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite please read wikipedia:npov. thanks. steve

who impersonated me? -steve

Look above. I've added a new comment right after it. TexasAndroid 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks --steve

Dubya suggestion

Not exactly sure where this would go... just a suggestion:

One of Bush's nicknames is "W." Some people from Texas pronounce it as "Dubya." This was used by some Bush supporters during the campaign who thought it would show a "down-home" charm. However, it was quickly picked up by his detractors who claimed it was a sign of his, and his supporters, supposed lack of intelligence.

Any good? I think a mention of "Dubya" should go in the article, but not in a POV way. I could use help with my own POV if the above bit is seen as biased... please help me out. --Lord Voldemort 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I like it. It gets across the whole idea of what the nickname was about. It gets across the ways both sides saw it. And it doesn't use any potentially incindiary words like "Redneck". TexasAndroid 20:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

much better than simply removing it. glad to see people an compromise, and add text that isn't extremly pro-bush. -steve

The manner in which you are trying to write it is anti-Bush, so what's your point. You don't have a monopoly on neutrality do you? see:WP:NPOV--MONGO 20:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

much less biased than removing it, or the rest of the article --steve

Wrong...you don't take information and create a negative to support your point of view....if you think he is an idiot that is fine, but to insist on wordplay to define that perception without evidence to support it is POV pushing.--MONGO 20:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, I forgot "neutral" in this article means being pro-bush. I reported it as i saw it, can't help it if it looked negative, and even if it was, it would hardly make a dent in this sugarcoated pro-bush propoganda you all call neutral. - steve

I REPEAT. I'm new to this discussion, but I find it interesting you feel the need to question others on their bias and proper editing, when you do things like add GWB links to redneck, moron, and American Idiot... makes it hard for others to take you too seriously. --Gunmetal 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

and exactly which one of those was not appropriate to link to "dubya"? -steve

Any and all. "America is on it's second term of it's redneck president "Dubya"."?? You can't make changes like that and then cry NPOV when it suits your fancy. --Gunmetal 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

still don't see how that is wrong. it was a redneck article, ina rednecks in contemporary society section, adding the fact that bush, who is a redneck(fact) is the US presiednet (fact) on his second term(fact) facts is facts is facts buddy. -steve

"steve" is it??? You are out of line. You may not like Bush or his views or policies, but you cannot just call him a redneck and moron. He had a pretty good upbringing and was educated at Yale. And don't start with the whole "his daddy got him in" thing. He did the work, not the best work, granted, but he graduated. He has shown himself to be a very good businessman, and you shouldn't throw bias around. Don't start name calling just because you don't like him. There are better ways to destroy your enemy than with name calling. Oh well. Just my opinion. --Lord Voldemort 20:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if I accepted your "Bush is a redneck" as fact, by your logic I assume we should go to the Fag page and add all the prominent gay politicians? --Gunmetal 21:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

homosexuality would be more apropriate, and only the prominate gays, who are open, as bush is open about being a redneck. "fag" would be the appropriate page if, and only if no less offensive page exists. redneck, hick, and hill billy are all about the same level... -steve

• Didn't "Dubya" more or less start with Conan O'Brien? At the very least he was responsible for its proliferation. Perhaps he should be worked into the "Dubya" bit if it get accepted, thus refocusing it as initially a product of the entertainment industry? --Gunmetal 20:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Just an FYI to all involved in this discussion. Steve has apparently been blocked again, for 48 hours this time. This time for personal attacks, mostly on his own IP's talk page. Mega-sigh. TexasAndroid 21:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine seeing that blurb in an encyclopedia. Why not have an area where we simply list the common nicknames (W, Dubya) and let the reader make their own judgments? —Charles O'Rourke 00:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Steve. When you get back from being blocked, you're gonna need to answer this point. It's a good argument for not including it of which I hadn't thought. It'll need to be countered if you want to have any hope of getting a concensous around adding Dubya to the article. TexasAndroid 13:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

LV's text is acceptable. It should be included because it is such a prominante topic/concern/reality. Otherwise go to all the other presidents and remove all less than flattering nicknames. If slick willy is appropriate, dubya is too then. natch.-steve.

I never said it had to be that exact bit... I was just trying to appease everyone. I think the names definitely should be in there (see some of the other presidents; they have theirs listed), but whether in passing or with some explanation is up to you folks. --Lord Voldemort 14:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I do like your text. The signal to noise ration of this section is very low. Mostly it's been Steve being defensive (and offinsive), and people responding to him, not discussing the idea at hand.

As I see it, there's your text, the comment about should Conan be included, and the comments about it not being encyclopedic. Most of the rest is noise.

That said, and with Steve blocked for another 30 hours or so, can we get some feedback on the text itself? Do people like the text as given by LV at the top of the section? Dislike it? Have alternatives? Think it should be left out altogether? And the question of where it would go in the article is still totally untouched. TexasAndroid 14:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

2005 Inauguration; in campaign header?

The following two paragraphs are under the "Presidential Campaigns" header:

Bush was inaugurated for his second term on January 20, 2005. The oath was administered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Bush's inaugural speech centered mainly on a theme of spreading freedom and democracy around the world. Bush stated in his second inauguration on January 20, 2005:

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

Do these actually belong under this header? We don't mention anything about the 2001 Inaugural address under that header. Should there be a separate section with the highlights of the Bush inaugural addresses? —Charles O'Rourke 08:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

im not sure, but at times, im not sure i like the idea of bush's "freedom" hes got a bad track recpord for acce[toing the dofferent peoples. Gabrielsimon 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

How to Write NPOV

This one's for you, "steve."

• Your version, presented as a diff
• A NPOV version, presented as a diff

Perhaps that will explain things better for you.—chris.lawson (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

better, i agree yours is more NPOVed but i say it still goes way too lightly over the fact that 18-40, the majority of the years described, do NOT qualify as youth. Thanks for being constructive though, unlike some vandals around here just deleting anything they don't like. you are a good man(or woman). - steve

You need to come up with a different word to describe your opponents (And I don't mean profanity). "Vandal" means something very specific on Wikipedia, and defending from (percived) inappropriate and NPOV edits does not qualify.

You're also walking a very fine line even posting today. Changing IPs in order to get around blocks is very, very frowned upon around here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not deliberately avoid a block, but I would suggest you tred very, very lightly. The moderators are not likely to cut you very much slack at all at this point. TexasAndroid 19:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, removing text you don't agree with is NOT vandalism? brb, going to go blank "creationism" "peta", "GWB" "religion"... What do you meann, changing IPs? what is an IP (intellectual property?) how did I change that? What block? I was blocked yesterday, but (obviously) no longer blocked today.-steve

No, removing text because you do not believe it should be in an article is part of the normal editing process. On Wikipedia the term "vandalism" is reserved for edits made in indisputable bad-faith. There is a difference between removing a couple recent POV edits and blanking an article. Rhobite 20:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sending my response to Steve's new personal talk page. This is no longer about GWB or the GWB article. TexasAndroid 20:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so i can only blank the last edits, as long as I call them POV... gotcha. I will go find some edits I don't agree with and call them POV and THEN delete them, and DEMAND the author talk on the talk page, and then ignore them. Thats how it works?- steve

Steve, perhaps you should just take a deep breath, stop frothing at the mouth, and come back when you are in a better mood. Be careful you are not blocked again. I hope that with time you can become a valued member of the Wiki society. Thank you. Banes O9:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Bush's height

This mirrors a similar comment I made on the Dick Cheney talk page when someone removed the vice president's height from the opening paragraph. It does seem to be a pretty random, irrelevant fact to have in the intro to his biography. The rest of that opening section is a very high-level look at who he is: the president, a politician, a Republican.. oh yeah, and he's 5'10? We don't have his weight, shoe size, other irrelevant physical details, so why his height? Maybe it could go somewhere in the article (not sure where it would be appropriate, though), but the opening paragraph doesn't seem right.

I'll leave it there for now so I'm not re-reverting anything, but I'll take it out if no one posts a disagreement.. —Charles O'Rourke 23:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you -- there's no reason to summarily delete it, but the opening paragraph isn't the best place for it. Where it goes, well, I don't much care, but perhaps it's something that could be added to the infobox? —chris.lawson (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking around again, I can't find any place in the article where it makes sense. (The infobox also doesn't seem to be appropriate IMO; it's all presidential-related data). We don't have height information in most Wikipedia biographies, and I can't see any reason why Bush's height is notable. Shouldn't we just remove it as unnecessary detail? —Charles O'Rourke 04:24, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kerry's height is in his bio, at John Kerry#Home life and interests, in a section collecting such personal details. Obviously, for either of them, or any similar figure, height isn't an important datum, and it certainly shouldn't be in the lead section, but I think the article can accommodate a few such "human interest" facts about the subject. JamesMLane 04:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Kerry's bio, his height is somewhat notable because he has a nickname relating to his height and it would have made him a comparatively tall president, as the article mentions. I'm not sure that Bush's height is at all notable. Do you see an area in the article where you think it would be a relevant addition? —Charles O'Rourke 04:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that height is slightly more significant for Kerry than for Bush, but if you follow the Kerry link, you'll see a fair number of other such items (tastes in music, movies, etc.). It probably doesn't fit well in any other section in the Bush article, so perhaps it could go (at or near the bottom) under "Personal information" or "Miscellaneous" or some such. JamesMLane 05:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh man. I've never vandalized wikipedia, but such silliness inspires me to the point that it is so tempting. "President Bush also likes Jack Daniels, blowing things up, and romantic walks on the beach. If you think Bush is the kind of person you'd like as an intimate partner, call the number at the bottom." Anyway, yeah, I agree with JamesMLane. It's unimportant, but complaining about it being there or not being there is trite and trivial. 69.138.24.96 01:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Segmentation of Bio from Presidency

I suggest creating a Bush administration article as a place for developments related to the Bush presidency. Perhaps even presidency and administration articles will be developed as independent foci. This has already been done with domestic policy etc, but Im thinking it would be better to refer to the administration as an entity led by, but not entirely within the context of GWB. This should be a bio article, and hence strictly related to his person.

The idea is that article development into new articles (segmentation) generally is driven by quantity of material, and conversely article development can be hampered when appropriate segmentations is resisted. This has proven to be true over the years, AIUI. -SV|t 07:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that at least a summary of his presidency would have to be left in this main article, for readers who want to know the most important aspects of this part of his life without going to another article. Is that how you see it? JamesMLane 08:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. The proper style is to represent the major subarticles in some reasonable proportion in a separate section. The new article would simply add much more room to grow. -SV

I don't think that too much detail should be removed from the actual bio article. Like most presidents, I think George W. Bush is primarily interesting because he was president; most people aren't going to look him up because they're interested in who ran the Texas Rangers during the 80s. People will be going to his article expecting to read stuff about his presidency, and I don't know that it makes much sense to force them into another article. Looking at a couple of other presidential articles, they are all about the presidencies; sure, they have a few paragraphs on what they did before they were president and what they did after, but people are looking them up to see what they did during. IMHO. —Charles O'Rourke 12:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there wont be much removed, but rather whats there will be duplicated, with more room for detail. Theres a very important but subtle difference between the Bush predidency and others —can you guess what it is? Heres a hint: Clinton's presidency ended the same month Wikipedia was born, (back when S:RC was useful, if you can imagine that). It was likewise harder to work on Bush I's Wikipedia articles during the time when he was president. Sinreg -SV|t 05:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In a way, I think that means we should take a step back and look to the older articles for guidance. Encyclopedias are supposed to be filled with relevant, verifiable facts; the kind that still matter long after what's happened has happened. Bush's article is probably too long because every time something comes on the news, someone runs over and adds it to Wikipedia. Most of this stuff won't matter in 10 years, and with the benefit of hindsight, it will be easier to cut down what is and isn't notable. However, even without that hindsight, that standard is what we should be aiming for. I think that breaking it into sections will encourage too much detail (we have too much as it is). —Charles O'Rourke 12:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Resume Rfc

Please see Archive 26 for complete RfC text

Since there apears to be a short respite from the trolls and sockpuppets venturing here...let us now resume the Rfc on drug and alcohol abuse. I appears that the majority wish to see some sort of a version one with a link to the daughter article. Why don't we recheck the tally in the Rfc at top, have Kizzle redo his summary to ensure it's correct and see if we can't achieve some sort of fully agreed conclusion on this matter.--MONGO 18:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC) Tally as I see it:

• Version #1 no link: 2
• Version #1 yes to link: 12
• Version #1 plus hatfield maybe: 1
• Version #1 plus hatfield definitely: 2
• Version #3: 7
• Version #3 or #4: 2
• Version #4: 4

--MONGO 18:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think Version #1 with a link would be fine too (Doesn't seem helpful to put my name up top anymore), with one slight change. What is the purpose of mentioning the fact that he didn't join Alcoholics Anonymous? Wouldn't just saying that he stopped drinking be enough? Should we make it a habit of putting things people didn't do into their articles? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that version one mentions that he didn't or did join AA, but the daughter article might...not sure.--MONGO 18:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right...it does say that...your point is valid as it suggests that Bush definitely DID have a big problem with alcoholism, and even though there is some circumstantial evidence to support that, it isn't clear whether he did or didn't have a substantial alcohol problem.--MONGO 19:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...James never answered my above response to his argument that the majority of voters voted against proposal 1. Lets see what he has to say in response. I think you've summarized my summary pretty well, except I think its 12 instead of 14 people for V1.5. James, buddy, I say this with all the respect in the world for you, but I think the concensus is against your proposal. Even still, I wouldn't mind if you have slight changes or nuances to V1.5 you wish to add. --kizzle 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Where are these different versions, and where can I cast my vote? If I'm too late to the party, that's OK. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's at the top of this page...but after reviewing the options, how about just add your thoughts down here...thanks.--MONGO 19:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Or you can find the updated version here. --kizzle 19:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'd vote for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article but without the AA reference, per Lord Voldemort's comments above. —Charles O'Rourke 20:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

In response to kizzle's comment, I did indeed answer his suggestion. My answer is already a few hundred edits ago, though! There's no consensus for Version 1 because nearly half the people oppose it. I gave my analysis of the responses in this edit. More generally, I agree that we need to do something to wrap this up. It's going to have to be a compromise, with more information than the Version 1 supporters want but less than the rest of us want.

Here's one suggestion: It seems that quoting and/or naming van Wormer and Frank caught the most flak. By contrast, a couple of Version 1 voters mentioned including Hatfield. On that basis, we could: (1) not include the quotations about Bush's addictive thinking pattern and megalomaniac tendencies; (2) not even include the names of these two critics in the text; (3) not include the reference to Alcoholics Anonymous, which I think was added originally because it supported van Wormer's contention that Bush hadn't really treated his alcoholism; (4) substitute one sentence that encompasses both sides of the dispute without giving any detail, something like "Psychiatrists have argued about whether he currently shows alcohol-related traits."; (5) not include the second link to the daughter article; and (6) include Bush's denial of Hatfield's charge, but with no other reference to Hatfield's charge. Here's a draft proposal:

Substance abuse controversy

Main article: George W. Bush substance abuse controversy

Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth" and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years. He says that he gave up drinking for good shortly after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham. [9], [10], [11] Psychiatrists have argued about whether he currently shows alcohol-related traits.

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [12] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [13]

In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [14], [15]

[end proposal]

This suggestion is even less informative than what we had at the end of the previous round of discussion (late May). I don't like it. I'm sure MONGO won't like it. I'm sure most of the people who responded to the RfC won't like it, for opposite reasons. But I also don't like having this drag on and having the article saddled with the NPOV tag. Can we take this, call it Version 1.5 if you like, and be done with it? JamesMLane 08:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

If you select one single version, this version 1.5 has the others beat 2 to 1...you're assuming that folks that want version 3 would want version 4 but I don't see that as the case....I do see that folks that would prefer version 4 would reluctantly agree to version 3 though....if you want my final word, I say it should not be under it's own heading...insert it into the body of the text under the personal stuff, right after the discussion of his DUI arrest in Maine....then that will be the final word on that section, at least from me...but it certainly doesn't qualify the article in terms of being able to eliminate the neutrality tag, as some of the article is riddled with POV.--MONGO 17:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I archived most of the RfC stuff. Hopefully i wasn't wrong in doing so. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

James, are you sure you answered my comment? --kizzle 22:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dubya revert war

There appears to be a revert war going on regarding this text:

One of Bush's campaign nicknames is "W." Some people from the American South mispronounce it as "Dubya." This was used by some Bush supporters during the campaign who thought it would show a "down-home" charm. However, it was quickly picked up by his detractors who claimed it was a sign of his, and his supporters, lack of intelligence.

I can't find any majority support to include it in the discussions above. The anon trying to include it claims there is. Can anyone clear this up or is it just vandalism? - Tεxτurε 21:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

See the various discussions with "Steve" a few sections above. Some contributors felt that it is OK to include a mention of the "Dubya" nickname, but virtually all users agreed that Steve's contributions were poorly-written and opinionated. Looks like he left for a few days and came back. I'm still in favor of including a small mention, but we should not speculate about proper pronunciation, the perceived intelligence of "rednecks", etc, as Steve has repeatedly done. Rhobite 21:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

My vote is still that we have only a mention of the nicknames (in other words: | Nicknames: | Dubya, "W" |), in an appropriate place (undecided as of yet — maybe at the bottom of the Infobox?), and leave the commentary out, because none of it is cited and it's all opinion. The place within the article that Steve keeps putting it (in between two paragraphs that belong together) is not the appropriate place, even if the content was good. —Charles O'Rourke 21:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I had no real stance on the issue. I think it would be good to at least note the nicknames, but perhaps going into detail isn't really needed here. I've changed the article. We'll see how long it takes to be deleted. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Congrats for it lasting for at least a while. And for being bold. Noone's reversed it yet, so it may stand. For all that I liked your original text, this simple mention may be the best way to settle this whole thing. TexasAndroid 01:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I see 4 for including something about dubya int he above convo, no general negatives, and only one person against that text in particular. As I see it, that text wins.... but any way, flame on as always hi-lar-ieous to watch this talk page and your linked page.... while steve wasnt the most... suave... he has a great point about it being included, along with it's popular use/connotations, or atleast WHO uses it, ala slick willy.... any way, continue. IreverentReverend 23:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Neither name is an official or formal name and thus can not go in the first words. But he is referred to it, so it should go later. I think this is a good compromise:

Bush is also known informally as "W" or pejoratively as "Dubya" to distinguish him from his father. --Noitall 03:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, almost. Dubya isn't always pejorative; many supporters also use it and Bush himself has said it. What about, Bush is also known informally as "W" or "Dubya." The problem is, where does it fit within the article? —Charles O'Rourke 03:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your proposal is fine. The name used depends on context anyhow. --Noitall 03:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the "pejoratively" part is inaccurate, but we could explain the origin of the nickname in neutral fashion. This might be especially helpful to non-native English speakers who don't immediately pick up on the pronunciation of the letter. How about: Bush's most common nickname is "Dubya", from the colloquial pronunciation of his middle initial. JamesMLane 09:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

colloquial does NOT mean redneck/improper, nor does it imply that. Infact, it implies that it is CORRECT, ergo that one just wont do. Not acceptable. steve

Wikipedia does not make prescriptive judgments on the use of language. So, the word "mispronunciation" is POV in virtually all cases. Please do not replace it. Rhobite 20:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I speak english and a little spanish... what language is it where the letter "w" is pronounced "dubya" in english it is pronounced "double-you". It is not a judgment to say that other pronuciations are wrong, it is a fact. steve

oh and if we can say anything is the correct pronuciation, i nominate "ass-whole-oh-rific more-on" as the pronuciation of "w".

You're right that "colloquial" doesn't mean "redneck", nor should it; I've heard people in NYC give URL's as "dubya dubya dubya dot whatever". Merriam-Webster online gives this definition of "colloquial", which I think is appropriate here: "used in or characteristic of familiar and informal conversation; also : unacceptably informal". In practice, the term has been used by supporters and opponents of Bush, so it's not unambiguously pejorative. It's also not worth more than a passing mention in this article. JamesMLane 22:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Dont you think that "dubya" and "W" should be placed in a trivia section, like there is for Kerry? I notice that his nickname is located in the sectiom "home life and interests". Isnt dubya/W merely a nickname, and not very encylopedic? Anyway, maybe we should just have a vote before steve, bless his heart, starts creating again. I hope this can all be resolved soon. (Banes 13:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

I'm not sure Presidential nicknames are unencyclopedic. They appear in many president's articles. My original text was just a way to try to make everyone happy. I think maybe a little explanation might be good per JamesMLane's suggestion above. As to where it would go... who knows? I'll have to check the other articles again to see what the general model is. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be an answer or not and if this would be appropriate for this article but since there is continued ongoing discussions and revert wars what if this box was placed at the end of the article? It has information about presidential nicknames and presidential heights. This way, if people want to know more presidential trivia, they can click on the links in the box. maltmomma 14:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

A section labeled "Trivia" rubs me the wrong way; "Miscellany" or some such would be better. Both the "Dubya" nickname and Bush's height are minor items that don't need to be near the beginning of the article. JamesMLane 14:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree that these are minor issues and really don't belong at the beginning or top of the article. The box says "U.S. Presidential Lists" and could be placed at the very end of the article. It really doesn't even have to come under a heading. Just thought it might be a compromise. maltmomma 15:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I repositioned it to the bottom of the personal heading section, right after the comment on his height.--MONGO 18:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I feel that we should fit in with the "standard" that other presidential articles set forth. Since they include the nicknames directly int he article, we should as well, unless people go out and remove them from other articles. Why should it be ok for "slick willy" to be included in clintons and not "dubya" in bush's?

I agree with you guys entirely. Maybe another solution is that we should just make a new section containing Bush's height, weight maybe, pets, pastimes, musical tastes as there is for Kerry, and yes, nicknames both derogatory and complimentary, and so on. P.S. This has been said often, but can someone please archive this page? Thanks. (Banes 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

Like I said, majority were for including it. -steve

Archive

I tried to archive some of this page... not quite sure how to do it, but no one else was stepping up to the plate. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I thought I had archived a bunch, but this talk page is still way too long. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay... now only 268 kilobytes long. Still needs more work. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

sorry about the multiple posts....

keep getting a server not found error, appolgies

Please revert

Please revert these two POV additions by an anon:

"even though there is nothing in the Bill of Right or the Constitution which protect Church and State sepration. This commonly sited by Democrats is a quote from a very old speech not an Amendment at all."

"To date Bush has invited any and all Democrats to the table to share their ideas to fix Social Security. To date the only action Democrats have taken is to critize Bush's idea and no Democrats have submited any ideas of their own."

The establishment clause has long been interpreted as prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. Not just by liberal activist judges, either. Current SCOTUS is 7/2 Republican appointees. And the social security bit is just a meaningless accusation. The article is about Bush.

Thanks. Rhobite 20:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Got the first two I think...missed the third one.--MONGO 20:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the third one was just my rationale for not including these edits. Thanks for removing them. Rhobite 21:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

colloqial

1.Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal. 2.Relating to conversation; conversational. thats the dictionary.com definition. How does that fit with "w" mispronounced as "dubya"? that is neither a characteristic, nor appropriate from spoken language, AND not conversational. steve

You are continually trying to make this change in an effort only to detract from the subject. No one has agreed with your change. Please stop changing the text to "mispronounced". - Tεxτurε 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

please stop misusing pronounced. You obviously don't know what it means.

Agreed...and why not create a user page, Steve?--MONGO 20:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

don't feel like allowing you freaks to find out any more about me than I have to. feel free to "talk" to me on my talk page.

Personal attacks can get you blocked. Please refrain. - Tεxτurε 21:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

sorry, I take that back, was not aware that "personal" included refuring to large groups of people, as a group, as a whole. my bad.

Pronounced means spoken in a certain way; mispronounced means badly spoken. Received Pronunciation is not "correct" English. smoddy 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

cheer up charlie. don't be such a bitter bee. --kizzle 21:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am not from vietnam, nor do i appreciate being called a bitter bee. Please stop the personal attacks.

ROTFLMAO - Tεxτurε 21:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

wasn't referring to vietnam. just sayin, take it easy bro. seems like you're a bit worked up. --kizzle 21:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

hey if refuring to you as a group as freaks is a personall attack then that was as well. no double standards here folks.

Does anyone else find it humorous that someone so up-in-arms about pronunciation spells about every third word incorrectly? Lay off, Steve. This is quickly turning into a very lame edit war. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you BMI for finding a quasi acceptable permutaion, and even more thanks for getting a MUCH better version in before the page got locked. BTW if I get banned, I expect all other users violation 3rr to be banned as long. and their were quite a few of you.

I am not sure this is a very good compromise. It gives no insight to the variation. At least "coloquial" gives foreign readers some insight into why it is said "Dubya" and not "Double-you". Just my opinion, but what do I know? I'm just a Dark Lord. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

If anyone else supports the removal of "colloquial" please give your opinion here. If not, I suggest that we return the text when the article is unprotected. - Tεxτurε 21:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Note the dictionary definition of "colloquial" quoted at the head of this section: "Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language". It's characteristic of the spoken language that this letter is sometimes slurred as "dubya". I don't like the assertion that Bush was nicknamed this by the media and the public. Is there any support for that? I had the impression that he picked up the nickname before he was in the eye of the media or the public (and it would be hard for the amorphous "public" to nickname him anyway). JamesMLane 00:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again... android79 19:09, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

leave it on what we agreed on, or I will have to put my own neutral phrase in. deal.

"dubya" sentence debate

I see one sentence that says "dubya" and it simply says that some members of the media have that *variation* of "W", which stands for Walker. I don't see what is wrong with that. Why are you guys getting irritated? Voice of All(MTG) 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way I noticed, according to the history page, A number of reverts recently. Also someone changed "V.P. John Edwards" back to "V.P. Dick Cheney". Why the heck did it say John Edwards in the first place? Was that vandalism? Voice of All(MTG) 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, vandalism. This article is one of the most heavily vandalized in Wikipedia. JamesMLane 00:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV sign still necessary?

I have made a few minor (style) edits to "Early Life" and replaced the POV "unnamed environmentalist" with just some environmentalists. I have read the whole article several times and see nothing wrong with it, if anyone disagrees with killing the NVOP sign then please list the reasons. Voice of All(MTG) 17:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You're new here as far as I can tell....the huge length of discussions here are all the reasons needed for the continuance of the tag. I am opposed to it's display as well, but the fact is that there are many that have chimed in in one way or the other and the argument is usually about neutrality. Now if there was an accuracy tag, I would agree to it's removal, even though there have also been those that question the accuracy of the article. "Unnamed environmentalists" isn't POV, it's just unreferenced.--MONGO 18:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am new. Anyway, MONGO, there are a lot of disputes(pages and pages), but many of them have been resolved or fixed. The remaining issues are based on "variation" vs. "mispronounced" of the word "dubya". Variation is the best, but either one is fine, I mean who cares? Well, obviously some people do :). But such things just are not worth a NPOV tag, many articles still have discussions and revisions without NPOV tags. Voice of All(MTG) 18:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove the tag, thank you. Please read beyond the dubya controversy discussion.--MONGO 18:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I know that there are other running issues, but I was trying to say that they are all of the same relevancy, not much. Also, "unnamed", although not at all HIGHLY POV, does seem to suggest that the critics are just some unknown people without established(well, well known at least) reputaions, like ameteur greens. "Some" is less implicitive, albiet bland and lame, so I think it is better. Voice of All(MTG) 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You accidentally deleted the comment about the poll which I put back in below. The poll question is just one of many ongoing disputing either the neutrality or even the accuracy of this article.--MONGO 18:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry! I got the error that someone else(You I guess) had made changes to the talk pages after I had started to edit it in the edit box when I submitted, I wasn't sure what I was doing exactly so I pressed back twice (talk page) and rewrote my post, apparently I still accidently deleted something. :/ Voice of All(MTG) 19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV still needed? heck yeah! read the article once. It practically drips pro-bush lovin's. Until the article has some resembalence of neutrality, NPOV should stay.

Pro-Bush, where does it "love" Bush, and please sign your post.I don't even like Bush, but I still think that the article is pretty NVOP(ignoring random vandals). It is definitely NOT pro-Bush. Voice of All(MTG) 20:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the tag should be removed as well, but it's probably futile. Rhobite 20:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

it is not NPOV because any thing negative is "alleged" and anything postive, is. it is POV'ed because nothing negative is allowed to be posted without sugarcoating it. Glosses over the fact that he lied to the american people, started needless wars, killed many americans, glosses over his drug scandal, glosses over his violations of the first amendment, glosses over the fact that he lets his religion dictate what laws he signs, glosses over the fact that he makes up words, cannot speak publicly, glosses over the fact that many americans distrust him.

Yikes... sounds like someone could use a nap. Just kidding. I don't think anyone thinks Bush will go down in history as the best president ever, but you seem to harbor something deep within you that dictates that if it isn't negative it must be POV. Many left-wing editors (many who HATE Bush) have said this is a pretty NPOV article. It still needs tweaked here and there, but on the whole, it's not that bad. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your POV posts anon! I don't like Bush either but this article should not say "Bush lied, bush is killer, bush is a radical crusadar, everyone hates Bush" that is NOT a professional or NPOV article. And there are PLENTY of criticism for each act and policy he signed, read the article. It is in the style of "Clear Skys reduces this...but critics say) (S. Security provatization will do this...but critics...ect...). This article is NPOV. Voice of All(MTG) 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that i must have misread the article. Now that I look back, the absense of ANY mention of WMD, and bush telling the public iraq had them is suddenly NPOV, where it was POV before. Silly me. Same with all the link between iraq and the 9/11 terrorists.... oh wait, i WAS right, they are not included because they are negative things about bush, forgot we cant have that here.

Here we go again. Anyone want to take up a pool on how long it takes Steve to get himself banned this time? TexasAndroid 20:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Steve, It's all covered in the proper articles: George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States (a sub-article of this one), 2003 invasion of Iraq, etc. There is a limit to the level of detail which can be covered in one single article. Likewise, your recent "bushism" addition is covered in Bushism. Please do not re-add it here. Rhobite 20:35, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, i get it, if something is in one article, it CANNOT be in another article? even to provide context for the link? oh, ok. Give me a bit and I will start deleting EVERYTHING in the bush article that is in another article, and then NOT include links to it. Is that what you are saying? naw, you just dont like bushism because it is a truly neutral article that lets bush make himself look bad.

Anonymous user, please register and sign your name. Anyway, I do agree that the Iraq War should at least be mentioned (as part of a Foriegn policy section(see my post below)). But if you wrote this article it would look like a Michael Moore commentary, much worse than it is now. That is all :) Voice of All(MTG) 20:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Poll Statistics

A recent Zogby poll showed Bush's approval rating a 46% for the month of March, 2005 - the lowest Bush had ever received, and the lowest second-term rating of any President since World War II. With the exception of John F. Kennedy, however, it is still the highest career long low-point rating of any President since polls began.

I can't be the only one to find that these two sentences contradict each other. Having a "lowest second-term rating of any President since World War II" and "highest career long low-point rating" don't seem compatible. I'd like to see some clarification on this. (unsigned comment by Randvek)

The "second term-rating is too vague" so it should be the contradiction that goes. Also I motion for removing the NPOV sigh and putting up an ACCURACY sign instead until the statistic issues (Ok, so there are still important disputes) are resolved. Voice of All(MTG) 19:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the two statistics can be reconciled. Some Presidents hit their career lows in their first terms. Some of them, such as Carter and Bush 41, weren't elected to second terms. Presidents who get re-elected tend to be those who are better at influencing public opinion, so second-term ratings tend to be higher, because the Presidents who couldn't sway the public as well have been weeded out by the election. So, to invent some numbers for illustration purposes, suppose Carter during the hostage crisis or Bush 41 as the economy tanked got approval ratings of 39%, while the worst ever received in the first or second terms of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton was 52%. Then Bush's 46% would meet both stated conditions. JamesMLane 19:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a sentence I don't understand

From the article:

Among these appointees, Negroponte, Abrams, and Poindexter, along with Otto Reich (Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere for the Secretary of State) were criticized for their roles in the Iran-Contra Affair and for allegedly covering up human rights abuses in Central and South America.

This is right under the section about Bush's cabinet. My question is this, Why is this in the article? This has nothing to do with Bush, could be seen as POV, and are (at this point) unsourced. Should we remove this, or was it added to "add balance"? (By the way, I hate the rationale that adding POV stuff to stuff that is the opposite POV makes an article NPOV. I guess it is the old "Two wrongs don't make a right" thing. Dang, I hope i don't lose my reputation for being an Evil Lord) --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well after re-reading my post, it looks like I won't lose my reputation for being a poor typist or grammarian. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Exactly the point...the article is not neutral. I see no reason for this unless it is there to make Bush look like he supports their actions due to his appointing them...they were criticized but were they actually found guilty?--MONGO 19:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's appropriate in an article about Bush to include some information about his appointees and the reaction to them. Abrams did indeed plead guilty to criminal charges. You want an idea for balancing it? With a little research you could probably find support for the point that Bush's appointment of Christie Whitman was generally welcomed by environmentalists, who considered her more pro-environment (or at least less rabidly anti-environment) than some of the people Bush could've put at the EPA. If my recollection on that point is true, then it's also a notable aspect of Bush's appointments that could be mentioned in the article. JamesMLane 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, remember James Watt...the "thing" Reagan put in to head the Dept. Of the Interior...talk about someone that was on a witch hunt to make the National Parks into a big strip mine...or a parking lot...I would agree that Whitman is a much better choice for that post than Watt would have been for any post. Thanks for the clarification...info man!--MONGO 19:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Watt had a tendency to make everyone else look good by comparison. I don't think it would add much to the article to say that some of Bush's appointees were less controversial than Watt! JamesMLane 20:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree...it's not much of a complement to say that Bush never appointed someone as bad as Watt...but between Reno and Ashcroft...that would be a toss up of lousiness too.--MONGO 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

So it would be valid to go into every U.S. President's article and write commentary on their appointees? I just don't see a valid reason for keeping something like this, unless there was a huge well-known controversy (Clarence Thomas, for example). Perhaps I am being long-sighted, but will this sentence be important in thirty years? Oh well, I'm not going to fight to take it out, I just thought it seemed like it was oddly stuck in there. -- Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NO it wouldn't...it's probably here because Bush is the sitting President and we are actively engaged in evaluating him, whereby the other Presdients are now all has beens.--MONGO 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to give a discourse on every appointee of every President, but how often does it happen that a President appoints, to a high position, someone who was convicted of criminal conduct for his actions in a previous appointed position? JamesMLane 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, not to be too lawyerish, but you said yourself he pled guilty, he wasn't convicted. But i think that's beside the point. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

New lead photo

Which picture is better for the lead of the article? Both are "presidential portraits" while he was in the White House but the top photo is at a much larger resolution than the bottom.

I personally feel the top one would be best, but thought I would post here first for some thoughts. --tomf688^(talk) 20:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, go with the new one(on top), it has higher quality and it is larger. You have my vote. Voice of All(MTG) 20:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Isn't the bottom one the current term portrait? The top one is from his first term. I think the more up-to-date photo is better. Isn't the top one a little lower in the article? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it really maters, Bush hasn't changed much physicaly(not that I know of). So the new one is fine in my opinion. Voice of All(MTG) 20:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The bottom portrait is only a year or two more recent than the top. And no, it isn't in the article at the moment (Bush's gubernatorial portrait is, though). --tomf688^(talk) 20:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct sir. I didn't look closely enough and mistook that picture for the gubernatorial one. Seems most people prefer the top one. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Toss in my vote for the top one. Not particularly concerned with first vs second term on it. TexasAndroid 20:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like the bottom one, but it's your guys' call. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think the bottom one looks slightly better. (Banes 18:25, 25 July 2005 (UTC))

VOTE: Foriegn Policy section....

OK, some anon rant mentioned WMD and Iraq. Well, the WMD turns out to be more of a CIA issue (although Bush was planning for Saddam's demise as soon as he became president). However I do believe that FOREIGN Policy should be a new category, includng the Iraq War, the question is who will write it. The Iraq War is too important not to include, thats my only problem with this article. It just need a little more info. All in favor of this new category, lets vote. Voice of All(MTG) 20:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The article definitely needs a foreign policy section. The main article is at Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it should be summarized and given its own section in this article. I haven't read that article closely; it may have POV problems of its own. Rhobite 21:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

To bad that article has no citations. This will be a mess to create. Voice of All(MTG) 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

More Archiving

I archived most of the science debate and some of the Heit/Hype debate as well. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a compressed version of the Bush Foreign Policy article

We need to add a Foriegn Policy section in this article. Right now my first proposal looks like this(much of it is the same text as the main article). Please make any comments. Voice of All(MTG) 22:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

(My proposal is no longer needed, Foriegn Policy section was restored)

Voice of All(MTG) 02:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

The missing foreign policy section

This is a consequence of all the vandalism plus disputes that are substantive but on comparatively minor points. We miss more important things because it's so hard to stay on top of this article. I didn't understand the above comments, knowing that of course we had a lengthy foreign policy section. Uh, whoops, we don't! It was deleted by an anon in this edit.

I've restored the text that was deleted, but I don't have time to go over it carefully right now. Because the article's been evolving without it, there could well be some duplication, or other passages that need to be changed. But at least we don't have to start from scratch. I also haven't checked it against the proposed draft above. The version I've pasted back in was worked over by many people over many months, and is wikilinked, so it will be easier to use that as the base and add in anything useful from the draft above.

What I copied in was taken from this version of the article (July 6).

Also, I'm reformatting the above sections so that each separate section (what would be a heading if the material were in the article) doesn't have its own top-level heading in this talk page's TOC, because that makes it hard to follow. JamesMLane 23:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes this a WHOLE LOT easier, now we don't have to start all over. These anons are REALLY starting to get annoying. If you want to change something, REGISTER, and EXPLAIN if it is that major! People should at least be required to register before being allowed to make edits. Voice of All(MTG) 00:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The principle that anyone can edit, even without registering, is highly valued by many Wikipedians. I would guess that, right now, there's no practical chance that that principle will be abandoned. What is being discussed is the proposal to designate some highly vandalized pages as being "semi-protected" in that only registered users could edit them. You can read about it here. (I can't believe that I got this response in, and that MONGO got the link into the next section, before kizzle could jump in with a plug!) JamesMLane 01:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You are quick! Like ninja! --kizzle 01:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, only five minutes more and you would've had me. I came back here to add that the Village Pump discussion of the proposal is the place for people to express support or opposition. JamesMLane 01:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No that's the thing, its not. The proposal already has an enormous amount of support, but nobody can do anything about it. People interested in this absolutely *NEED* to visit this site, make a comment, vote for the enhancement, and tell your friends. --kizzle 01:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

To quote from that page:

So Admins, what happens now considering overwhelming support? --kizzle 00:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Find someone to write the code for you. Simply having admin status does not mean one can. Filing an enhancement bug on Bugzilla wouldn't hurt. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. No offense, but what good is a proposals section if an option with overwhelming support simply gets archived with no action on it? --kizzle 16:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is a volunteer project. Did you think that by getting support for something, that would force someone to write the code for you? -- Cyrius|✎ 01:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

--kizzle 01:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ban user "70.178.69.157"

This idiot completely removed the article(deleted it and put up some idiodic dribble) until it was reverted. Oh, and he also vandalized the Harry Potter Half-blood Prince page. People like this need their IP# banned. Voice of All(MTG) 00:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It happens all the time...thats why heavily vandalized pages should have a block to ensure only registered users can edit.--MONGO 01:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

That would be unfair to the , albeit rare, serious editor whose anon.

Gabrielsimon 01:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I have never understood this dogmatic belief that "anonymous" IPs are more anonymous than usernames. I can tell more about someone who hasn't logged in then if they create some account with a random name. Just tracert the ip and you can get a general sense as to what city they live, whereas make an account titled "hoojaboob" and no one will ever know anything about you unless you let them. What am I missing? --kizzle 01:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

also, why aren't we discussing that its unfair to ask editors to revert vandalism on a page that gets vandalized 30+ times a day? --kizzle 01:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

If I choose to edit through an open or anonymous proxy, there is going to be absolutely no way you can trace anything other than the IP itself, which will lead you nowhere if I want it to. Not that most anons really give a crap, but it's certainly possible to remain completely anonymous based purely on IP. Certainly more so than a made-up username would be, though I think you raise a good point in that the MediaWiki software hides logged-in users' IP addresses.—chris.lawson (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, but assuming you're not using a proxy, logged-in accounts are ironically more anonymous than "anonymous" IPs. Using a proxy on either raises the anonymity. --kizzle 01:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Question about vandals

Isn't there a limit to the number of previous versions an article can have stored. What If someone with a lot of free time vandalizes an article 40 times in a row as fast as possible? Could it ever be reverted? Voice of All(MTG) 02:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of us who would revert that, before it could be done too many times.

besides, arent here like 500 earlier versions of tlk pages? it seems liklythat it would hold true for article pages, im gnna go look. Gabrielsimon 02:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

yep, 500. !!!!

WOW!!! Wikipedia must contain like 10,000,000 terabytes of data if so many articles have 500 backups. If each has 20 backups(average), thats like (20) x (400,000) x (the average article size)! Voice of All(MTG) 03:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yup. And the Wikimedia Foundation needs to have the hardware to store all that and make it readily available to thousands of users at once. That's where you come in. JamesMLane 03:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice plug! Yes, it's true (AFAIK), all of the tens of thousands of past revisions of this article are stored on the Wikimedia servers. One of the keys is compression - old revisions rarely need to be used, so they are compressed to save space. Rhobite 03:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

For those interested, here is a brief comment on the subject from User:Ed Poor, who is a Developer here. NoSeptember 14:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Disputed My Pet Goat Picture

Is there any reason to have the "My Pet Goat" picture up? It doesn't connect to anything in the article and seems to be nothing more than a slight on the president. Also, it leaves this enormous white space in the article, ruining the flow. (I deleted the picture once, it got reverted, I just deleted it again, and would like to hear the opinion of anyone who wants to put it back on why it should be there.) --Matt Yeager 23:21, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I see no whitespace in the previous edition, and as for the value in there I think that's slightly debatable as it may be interesting to see his reaction to the 9/11 attacks. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This particular photo is best known for its use in Fahrenheit 9/11 and in mockery by Dean-type liberals, giving it a natural anti-Bush POV. J. Parker Stone 03:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

its still the truth of how he reacted, regradles of pov, so it should be there. Gabrielsimon 03:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I also see no white space. There is no basis for saying that a picture of unquestioned accuracy, one not taken by Michael Moore or Howard Dean, is POV. More important is that this issue was discussed at great length several months ago, the result of which was to keep the picture but to add a caption summarizing how his supporters and detractors saw the incident. Then the issue was discussed at great length again more recently, the result of which was to keep the picture but delete that part of the caption. Nothing in Wikipedia is cast in stone, but since this has been hashed over quite a bit already, I think it shouldn't be changed before people have a chance to address the latest incarnation of the issue. I'm restoring the picture. JamesMLane 04:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The whole "The Pet Goat" title in and of itself is just an implied Moore slam against the President's intelligence. So he was reading a story in a children's book series to an elementary school class, so what. I don't mind a description of what he was doing when he was informed of the attack but the picture needs to go. J. Parker Stone 04:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Michael Moore did not force Bush to sit and read a children's book while New York was burning. At least Bush wasn't stuffing his face with a Wendy's cheeseburger at the time. --Watto 04:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The picture is 200% misleading and only people blindly POV see otherwise. "Picture of unquestioned accuracy" -- what does that mean? Pictures can be more misleading than anthing else. The fact was, the infamous events of September 11 were unknown to all at that time (if the military had known it, they would have stopped the other 2 planes). In retrospect, now that we know what was to come, this picture is simply POV. The last commenter absolutely proves that the picture is POV. There are more pictures of Hillary Clinton floating around that would be entirely misleading also -- all "pictures of unquestioned accuracy", but I suspect a few here would object to including them on her page. --Noitall 04:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? That was what Bush did. It's what anyone would have done, in my opinion when the situation was thusly unknown. How is it misleading? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

he was told that the WTC was on fire, and he didnt move from his seat. thats not POV, thats fact. btw, 200% is impossible by defninition. Gabrielsimon 04:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't there a different caption to this pic when it was down near the references section? The quote gave some info on the context of the pic, and currently that info is found in the My Pet Goat article. I'd suggest either placing a See My Pet Goat note in the caption or restore the old caption. I would strongly object to the pic being removed, as despite all the popular criticism of Bush everywhere (no one can deny he hasn't been one of the most popular Presidents in the general arena) this is the only pic to show Bush in any sort of negative light. Count 'em, 15 pics in the article, and 14 have Bush smiling with diplomats or family or speaking to a huge audience. The Pet Goat tries to balance some of that. Harro5 04:45, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Balance" doesn't require an awkward shot utilized by Moore. I haven't checked all the pictures, but from what you've said the other pictures seem to be showing events, not making any kind of judgment. J. Parker Stone 04:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this crazy idea that just because Moore used the pic it is irretrevably tainted. It's an accurate picture of a historical moment, and certainly more relevant and valuable than fourteen similing photo ops. Gamaliel 04:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd probably rebutt that by saying that where the U.S. President was and how he reacted when his country was attacked (at that stage it could have been the next Pearl Harbor, remember. We didn't know what had happened) is one of the biggest events in Bush's term. Harro5 04:53, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

so he kept calm, paused for a sec cuz he was shocked, then finished the story before leaving. certainly the delay can be criticized, but this particular shot isn't the way to do it. i personally was not aware of the specific picture until Fahrenheit 9/11, and i got a feeling plenty of other Americans weren't either. J. Parker Stone 05:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the My Pet Goat article and this doesn't even [i]belong[/i] there. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Many of your reactions to this picture are a perfect Wiki NPOV Rorschach test, a test which many failed. It certainly does not belong. --Noitall 04:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

his reaction was to do nothing, this is shown by the picture, so i say ir does belong ,and is notPOV, it simply shows exactlyu what he did. Gabrielsimon 05:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Noitall states that "the infamous events of September 11 were unknown to all at that time". To the contrary, it is undisputed that Bush stayed in the classroom for several minutes after receiving news of the second attack. In fact, he's been praised for it. I personally preferred the next-to-last version we had, the one I think Harro5 is referring to. The caption had an additional sentence along the lines of "Some people have criticized Bush for his apparent nonchalance, while others have praised him for not alarming the schoolchildren." Would that reduce the objection? The fact is that, for example, the teacher in the classroom said later that she was glad Bush had acted the way he did. The picture itself isn't POV. Your POV determines how you interpret the picture. I think the sentence summarizing the views would be an improvement. Finally, in both previous go-rounds, we heard this ludicrous argument that because Michael Moore made use of the photo, and Moore is biased, then for us to make use of the photo is biased. Well, the Bush campaign made use of the photo of Bush perched in phony heroism atop the rubble at Ground Zero, so by that logic we'd have to remove that picture -- along with any other that's been used by a partisan on either side. JamesMLane 05:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I support retaining the photo if it has a caption like the one you describe here. The one currently with the photo does not give enough context. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 05:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The difference in your comparison is that the Bush campaign utilized the Ground Zero photo (like any Democrat would've had they been in charge that day) to appeal to patriotism, whereas Moore publicized this photo in order to slime Bush as a general tactic of "make the president look as stupid as possible" in 9/11. Your caption suggestion is alright, but I reiterate that the article could do without the picture. J. Parker Stone 05:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't used to bolster patriotism, but to further the general Republican tactic of trying to impute that only they are patriotic. Put another way, the Republicans used the Ground Zero photo as part of a general tactic of "make the President look as heroic as possible", while Moore used the Florida footage as part of a general tactic of "make the President look as stupid as possible". The partisan uses of these visuals are perfectly parallel. JamesMLane 10:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

he could have left the room like " im sorry, children, but theres something i have to take care of" or something like that. there are ways of doing your cuty without cuasing alwarm. Gabrielsimon 05:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this picture adds nothing to the content because the caption and the text near the picture say nothing important about it. Please put in a sentence IN the article(other than the uninformative caption) by the picture or take it out. I don't mind either option. Voice of All(MTG) 05:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Previously there was a short statement that stated something like: Bush reads book My Pet Goat with school children after being informed that a second plane had struck the second tower at the WTC. Bush has been critized by some for his apparant nonchalance and praised by others for his calm demeanor. It went something like that, but not sure what happened to that commentary which accompanied the picture.--MONGO 06:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I went through the history(briefly) and couldn't find it. Someone should add it back in, I'll try if no one else does. Voice of All(MTG) 06:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on the value of having this pic if given a proper context. Hopefully someone can regenerate that caption, as when I saw it I found it a very NPOV description. Harro5 06:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I tried to update the "Pet Goat" caption, What do you think?Voice of All(MTG) 09:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

...I keep getting server errors...Voice of All(MTG) 09:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I ruthlessly dumped your caption and restored the one we had in about two months ago. There's not all that much substantive difference between them, but the older one had been worked over by a few editors, so it's less likely to cause someone to protest against a bias that the rest of us don't see. JamesMLane 10:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You found it...nice work.--MONGO 10:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

[This edit] mentions the televised picture. Perhaps if some insist, it may be changed to videotaped...but that gets for a long winded summary of the picture. I am not a fan of this picture because of it's context in which it is utilized in Farenheit 911, just as I am not a fan of the link to Fareheit 911...but there has been a consensus for inclusion of these items, so continuing to argue over the caption which is fairly NPOV needs to cease.--MONGO 19:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Unresolved Issues

Now are there any other issues that have been re-hashed into the ground that people want to go over again? Speaking of which, I think the whole drug usage passage is blatant POV, I think we need to delete the entire passage or at least file an RfC.... --kizzle 17:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

If we do that, we absolutely need to make sure Fartbag gets the final word in!--MONGO 18:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind.Voice of All(MTG) 18:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite sure he was kidding as am I. No the main problem with the article is vandalism.--MONGO 18:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I almost asked "are you kidding" but that can be taken the wrong way, easily.Voice of All(MTG) 18:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Once this page is agreed upon it should be locked until other serious issues are raised in the talk page. That way Vandals will only have a small window to vandalize.Voice of All(MTG) 18:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm opposed to locking the page unless the vandalism gets completely out of control. In most cases, the vandalism is performed by one or two individuals and is only a real problem when one individual creates a sockpuppet account to try and take over editing and consensus.--MONGO 18:51, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

It already IS a serious problem, Sometimes when I load that page it just says "all you need to know about Bush" or Bush appears as a monkey or it says "Bush is an IDIOT" 500 times; everyday this crap happens! Whoever is doing this must be a VERY intellectual, TOLERANT person open to debate and discussion, unlike those THEY accuse of starting wars without dialogue...!;-) Voice of All(MTG) 18:58, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but locking the page will only end it for the period of time it is locked...it would resume immediately after the page is reopened. The best thing is to do a semi-protect on the page whereby only registered users could edit this heavily vandalized page.--MONGO 19:27, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

(cough)...semi-protection...(cough) --kizzle 19:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I was looking for that...thanks!--MONGO 19:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I voted for the semi-protection bug! Voice of All(MTG) 22:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)