Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 37

It should be borne in mind that NPOV doesn't necessarily mean 'a position between the two major American parties.' We're talking NPOV in a factual sense, considering this is an international encyclopaedia.

If simply listing the facts of Bush's administration comes across as negative, there should be no attempt to unfairly outweigh them with 'good points' in order to strike a balance between Republican and Democratic views.

Consider the Wikipedia entries on people like Yasser Arafat, who, very much loved by his people, is nonetheless widely criticised and the article reflects this. George W. Bush has very, very little support outside of the United States, and the global intellectual climate is remarkably negative. The article should reflect this, instead of simply pandering to a centrist American audience.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.87.193.90 (talk • contribs) .

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is NPOV, period. Not a position between the U.S. parites, not a median international position. Any "middle ground" view is itself a position, a biased point of view. The ONLY way we can have an acceptable article it to neutrally present the facts. A "list of facts" can be biased to the positive or negative. The solution is not to be even with numbers, but rather to speak in a tone of total disinterest in the good or bad moral implications of those facts. To do otherwise will certainly result in use of the justification of "international POV" to slant the article to the left. In reality, any slant at all is unacceptable. Period. Vonspringer 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Without regard to what Jimbo, and others may say, NPOV is a goal we can only approach asymptotically.

There is no such thing as a "fact". There is a slim play by Jacob Bronkowski, entitled the "Abacus and the Rose". Bronowski tried to emulate Galileo's famous "dialogue on two world systems" -- the book that got him sent to the inquisition's torture chamber. His play also subtitled "a dialogue on two world views". However his two world views are those of the scientist, and of an artist, or, more particularly, a pompous, pretentious, obnoxious literary critic.

They go at it, hammer and tongs. The literary critic wins a couple of the first rounds. But the scientist makes a big comeback. Typically, the pompous literary guy knows nothing about science, or epistomology. And he betrays himself by saying that the scientist has no judgement, and only knows "facts".

Bronowski's scientist gives a very spirited defense of the scientist's requirement of its practioners constant use of judgement. And he gives a very spirited attack on the naive notion that there is such a thing as a "fact".

Bronowski is very convincing.

Every thing that, on the surface, is presented as a fact, is when you examine it deeply enough, really a judgement. Did Saddma possess a vast arsenal of ready-use WMD? Two years ago many angry partisans would have mockingly denounced you for doubtng this "fact".

Of course this was not a "fact". Those who propounded this view, were making a judgement. Those who doubted it were making a judgement. This is true of every single "fact" in the wikipedia.

So, what does this mean for attempts to write from a neutral point of view? I think it means showing humility, and attempting to avoid rhetorical tricks. Honest writers have to avoid putting forward as accepted ideas that remain open to question. I'm sorry, if you really believe there are objective "facts", that articles should contain, and that you know what those facts are, you may be part of the problem, not the solution. -- Geo Swan 07:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There are facts. 2 + 2 = 4. I do not claim that all facts are equally self-evident or non-controversial, but they exist nonetheless. It may not be possible to be completely factual, but it is our job to be as close as we can. Should you wish to believe that facts do not exist, I have no objection, but I do wonder why you would bother to participate in an encyclopedia. Vonspringer 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says that early in 2001 Bush obtained legislation to change the funding etc. of faith based charities. This is not the case. The following is a quote from the New York Times, Dec 13, 2002: "President Bush acted today to make it easier for religious organizations to receive federal money for social welfare programs, invoking both executive powers and his belief in the power of faith to help society's neediest people." Legislation was held up in the Senate, so he evoked executive powers. This seems like a clear mistake that should be corrected. If such legislation exists, it should be referenced.

03:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)Al Rodbell  blog alrodbell.blogspot.com  NYtimes article available at:
http://alrodbell.blogspot.com/1994_12_01_alrodbell_archive.html

Is it possible to get an updated graph for the approval ratings section. The one shown seems to go only through Oct '05. Thanks. Arkon 06:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

For those who are concerned (or not) about this or any other article becoming permanently semi-protected, please peruse the insightful comments on Slashdot [1] and Digg some time. [2] These people are Wikipedia users (in the reading sense) and potential future editors as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• THE GOD OF WAR PATIENTLY WAITS FOR THE TIME WHEN YE POOR CHOICE OF PRESIDENT SHALL CAUSE THIS NATION TO FALL UNDER THE FORCES OF ITS OWN GOVERNMENT - DARK RIDERS OF THE NIGHT - GO FORTH TO THE FOUR WINDS - THIS LAND IS RIPE FOR THE PLUNDERING--God_of War 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for playing, but it doesn't take much brain power to see that you're a parody of a liberal, rather than the real thing--63.22.95.82 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• • What is this in reference to? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the ugly vandalism warning. Thanks to sprotect this page has been realatively quiet and this warning is not needed. I can see three days worth of edit history now.--God_of War 19:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The article refers to a "record voter turnout" for the 2004 election. Not true: actually, it was the highest turnout since 1968. The article is also misleading---it gushes with fawning praise for Bush, saying that he got "more popular votes than any previous presidential" candidate---but it fails to mention that Bush received, in terms of absolute number of popular votes, a victory margin that was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Also, Bush's win was, percentage-wise, the closest popular margin ever for a sitting president. This info ought to be included in the article for balance.

So include it then. CDThieme 00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There should also be a blurb about the way the Electoral College system makes discussion about popular vote margins moot. Endomion 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe he is because he's a fundamentalist Methodist. This link seems to support such a notion. Can anyone give definitive proof one way or the other? --Jason Gastrich 00:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if he is, but the proof is upon you, if you make the assertion. And he's not a Fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are very much separatists who are quite suspicious of any doctrinal inclusiveness. If he were a Fundamentalist, he would leave the United Methodist Church. Bush is an Evangelical. And there is a difference.

On Creationism, United Methodists run the gamut from Young Earth to Evolutionary Creationism. Pollinator 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That article is only pointing out that Bush thinks "creationism" should be allowed to be taught. Believing something should be allowed to be taught is not the same thing as agreeing with it. Also, "fundamentalist Methodist?" Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Mark K. Bilbo 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with having a discussion where citations are provided. No need to assume anything. --Jason Gastrich 00:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, fundamentalists simply affirm the fundamental doctrines of Christianity; and I understand that Bush does that. --Jason Gastrich 00:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

However, without a source, should it be in the article? Matt Yeager 01:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. However, I was hoping this discussion would bring links of all sorts that we could analyze. So far, no such luck. --Jason Gastrich 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All Christians would say that they affirm the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. However Christian Fundamentalism is a movement with some important specifics, among them being rather rigorous separatism. Furthermore, does President Bush call himself a Fundamentalist? Associated Press guidelines (and a good NPOV guideline for Wikipedia) is that the appellation is only to be used for those who self-describe themeselves as Fundamentalists. Pollinator 01:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

All Christians saying they affirm the fundamentals isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not they actually do.

I think Bush has described himself as believing in the fundamentals of Christianity, but that is completely besides the point. We need to find some links that have Bush quotes where he describes his belief in the age of the Earth. --Jason Gastrich 06:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised at this controversy. First, Bush is a politician, and that's his primary belief system. Second, saying creationism should be taught (although a typical creationist belief) is not the same as being a creationist. Third, the definition of Fundamentalist should be verified before leveling that accusation against Bush. It's not simply "he agree with certain fundamental christian beliefs". It is indeed more than that. Look at the link.

Also, and this is my personal opinion, Bush can't be a fundamentalist because he's even less Christian than I am, and I'm not Christian. Harvestdancer 21:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Pollinator is quite correct; were President Bush a fundamentalist, he would immediately leave the UMC. He is by definition not a fundamentalist, though he seems to be, as Pollinator points out, evangelical. Fundamentalism is not compatible with United Methodism; evangelicalism is compeletely compatible with United Methodism; as Pollinator has said, please note the difference. KHM03 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Methodists went back to the practice of paedobaptism with the other mainline Protestant churches. Fundamentalists universally insist on adult baptism. Endomion 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I was surprised that the article had nothing about Bush's policies on detainee treatment, enemy combatants, Abu Ghraib, the McCain amendment on torture, interrogation methods, etc. Can I add a small section on this? Is there a {mainarticle} to link to? Dave (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• And the POV just keeps on growing. Why don't we just rename the article "Why George W. Bush is the antichrist"? This article has already become a dumping ground of every Bush criticism that can be found with absolutely nothing indicating he has ever done anything good in his life. -- Jbamb 13:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess the truth hurts. He's a semi-retarded former alcoholic and crack addict who has been repeatedly estimated as being responsible for over 100,000 deaths in Iraq. He and his administration have also worked tirelessly to completely dismantle the American political system. He and his demoniac vice president have also had the unspeakable gall to criticise John Murtha and John McCain, men who had decorated military careers before entering politics, when Bush and Cheney both dodged military service themselves.

-- "He's a semi-retarded former alcholic and crack addict" -- with degrees from Yale and Harvard. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Not if you know anything about his family history, it isn't. Degrees can be bought and/or forged. It's all about having money and knowing the right people. That's how he was able to dodge military service as well. He's also been repeatedly acknowledged as the least intelligent member of the family.

Petrus4 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I find myself wondering what the oblivious minority who still defend Bush are going to think when the mask finally fully comes off, and they wake up one morning to find themselves living in what will unmistakably be a repetition of Nazi Germany, complete with concentration camps and all the other trimmings. I guess the rest of us will be shown not to have simply been paranoid, crackpot conspiracy theorists then, won't we?

"and they wake up one morning to find themselves living in what will unmistakably be a repetition of Nazi Germany" -- if you actually believe that, you're either semi-retarded yourself, or you have no understanding of what life in Nazi Germany was like. Attack the man on legitimate grounds if you want, but leave out the childish hyperbole and you might actually be taken seriously.

I know that people were woken up in the early hours of the morning at times and dragged off by the Gestapo. I know they had to use bulldozers to clear the corpses out of at least some of the concentration camps. I know about the culture of racism that existed in Germany at the time...which, although you might not realise it, is actually fairly similar to the culture of racism that has been an integral part of America since the country was founded. I also know that like the German army under Hitler, there are far too many members of the American military today who are willing to follow orders without question - orders which morally should not be followed.

I don't think anyone'll be moving large portions of the population out into concentration camps as long as (what's left of) the economy is built on over-priced real-estate and 2nd and 3rd mortgages. Of course, when that bubble bursts all bets are off -- in fact supercheap real-estate might be welcomed by millions of the newly unemployed. 58.147.24.196 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You can call me childish if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't change anything.

Petrus4 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I dunno man. After the Gestapo came for Janeane Garofalo in the middle of the night and fed her into that chipper shredder, I been starting to worry.... 64.2.235.137 18:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Strider

In fact there is a lot of parallels between the Nazi regime and the Bush regime. Like the History reapeats itself. See the following interesting link [3]. Wikipoet 12:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Petrus4 03:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

re: including information about "Bush's policies on detainee treatment, enemy combatants..." Yes, we do need to include this information. Right now, the article reads like a puff piece from Karl Rove. By contrast, the article on Clinton includes every crazy, wild-eyed allegation ever made by right-wing talk radio ("Clinton murdered Vince Foster," etc.).

Well, that must mean we are coming close to NPOV. Critics on both sides think it leans the other way. I guess that's a good sign. As to Harry491's comment, I would disagree that they are "Bush's policies". Some are DoD policies, some are things critics want to portray as policies. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they are "policies." Even if torture etc. isn't a policy, stopping other branches from stopping torture is definitely policy. Read as many of the following as you like: [4][5][6][7][[8][9]. There are people (e.g. National Review) that defend this stuff, so it wouldn't have to be POV. But executive power in the war on terrorism and the level of oversight from other branches is a major issue that this article needs to discuss, even if you support what Bush is doing. Dave (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, even if Bush were to veto the bill, that wouldn't be policy, that would simply be him vetoing a piece of legislation. And didn't Bush say that the US does not torture? Wouldn't that be his policy? Sorry, I don't have the talking points at hand right now. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To be exact he killed about 30'000 civilian Iraqi iraqbodycount, about 2’500 coalition soldiers [10] and an unknown number (estimated to 10’000) Iraqi soldiers. The original reason of the Iraq war (WMD) is a farce. The connection to terrorism is a farce. The reason of war is the oil [11] and I am surprised that this issue is not mentioned. The energy crisis will still be the problem nr.1 of this century.Wikipoet 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if you feel you can add that in while sticking to a neutral point of view then it can be added. I'd say for sure that it is encyclopedic material... just make sure you don't put opinion in and it will be a valuable contribution! Deskana (talk page) 12:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My contribution seems that foe some peaople is not POV. It is based on facts and I think that the Energy Strategy is the most important issue in the history of the 21th Century: Here my contribution. Please rethink or proove that the facts I list are wrong before immidiatelly delete it. My contribution is also an aswer on the question "why Iraq War?"

Energy Strategy Behind the Iraq War

While much time and discussions ware spent on finding reasons for the invasion of Iraq, one of the clearest strategic reason for the USA to attack Iraq in 2003 was securing future oil supplies. The proposed reasons (links with Al-Qaeda, threats to other countries, the WMD) have all been refuted or, at least, shown to be seriously flawed. The world consumes about 30 billion barrels of oil per year with a global reserve (including all possible future discoveries) of about 1000 billion barrels [12]. Neglecting increases of consumption there is oil until maximal 2038. The USA has about 25 billion barrels reserves while consuming about 7.5 billion barrels per year. Around 2010 more than 50% of the world’s oil production will come from OPEC (reserve of about 500 billion barrels) and with other major supplies also being in unstable areas - eg. Venezuela (reserve of about 40 billion barrels), Russia (reserve of about 90 billion barrels)- there is a great fear that the USA could be held to ransom in the future, especially since it uses far more oil than any other country. It is not unusual in the history for countries to strategically go to war to secure something that they absolutely need and do not have. The industrial civilisation is extremely depended on oil and alternative energy sources or nuclear fusion even in its modernst design (ITER) will not be able to replace oil in a near future (50 years). USA and Europe would have not worried to liberate Kuwait (58 billion barrels), or invade Iraq (71 billion barrels), if did not have together 129 billion barrels oil reserves. It is probable that there will be many more wars for oil in the first decades of the 21th Century. There are four countries which will decide future wars: Europe (EU), Russia, China and the USA. Europe has high energy use but its federal structure may not be strong enough to use its armed forces to secure oil supplies. Russia has the advantage of having its own large reserves of oil and gas (about 90 billion barrels), and its military will probably be concerned with stopping others getting access to it, rather than obtaining other countries' resources. China does not, as yet, require large amounts of energy and its future attitude could depend on how it could restrict the growth in energy needs. The USA is the key player: it is not only the highest energy consumer in the world, it has the strongest military forces, but, unlike the other three, it has no land access to the two largest oil and gas sources – the Middle East and the Caspian region. Transporting oil and gas by sea is a very vulnerable method of supply. It is much easier to replace a length of oil pipeline than an oil tanker. It is easier to bury a pipeline underground than to design a submersible tanker. This vulnerability will make USA likely to be centre stage in future wars.

I will reformulate some sentences to be more POV, but this issue is really important, and if somebody can proove me that if oil will end at 2038 is not of strategic importance, I am open to discuss.Wikipoet 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this POV? Why?

Energy

The world consumes about 30 billion barrels of oil per year with a global reserve (including all possible future discoveries) of about 1000 billion barrels [13]. Neglecting increases of consumption there is oil until maximal 2038. The USA has about 25 billion barrels reserves while consuming about 7.5 billion barrels per year. Around 2010 more than 50% of the world’s oil production will come from OPEC (reserve of about 500 billion barrels) and with other major supplies also being in unstable areas - eg. Venezuela (reserve of about 40 billion barrels), Russia (reserve of about 90 billion barrels)- there is a great fear that the USA could be held to ransom in the future, especially since it uses far more oil than any other country. One of the strategic reasons for the USA to attack Iraq in 2003 was securing future oil supplies. This strategy was designed by the organisation "Project for the New American Century”, among their members are Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who make clear the attitude of the USA with respect the oil and energy strategic reagions[14]. It is not unusual in the history for countries to strategically go to war to secure something that they absolutely need and do not have. The industrial civilisation is extremely depended on oil and alternative energy sources or nuclear fusion even in its modernst design (ITER) will not be able to replace oil in a near future (50 years). It is probable that there will be many more wars for oil in the first decades of the 21th Century. There are four countries which will decide future energy conflicts: Europe (EU), Russia, China and the USA. Europe has high energy use but its federal structure may not be strong enough to use its armed forces to secure oil supplies. Russia has the advantage of having its own large reserves of oil and gas (about 90 billion barrels), and its military will probably be concerned with stopping others getting access to it, rather than obtaining other countries' resources. China does not, as yet, require large amounts of energy and its future attitude could depend on how it could restrict the growth in energy needs. The USA is the key player: it is not only the highest energy consumer in the world, it has the strongest military forces, but, unlike the other three, it has no land access to the two largest oil and gas sources – the Middle East and the Caspian region. Transporting oil and gas by sea is a very vulnerable method of supply. It is much easier to replace a length of oil pipeline than an oil tanker. It is easier to bury a pipeline underground than to design a submersible tanker. This vulnerability will make USA likely to be centre stage in future security issues.Wikipoet 15:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

First, what we put into the article needs to be verifiable. At this point, we cannot prove that the US went to war for oil. Second, no original research can be added, and that is what this whole section appears to be. Sorry. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not my NOR and it is verifiable at [15] dated 7 jan 2003.Wikipoet 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first, that link still doesn't prove anything. It is a couple of opinions from Butt, and later in the piece, quoting Stimpson to Parliament. It has a good bit of "shows signs of..." and "could lead to..." and "might happen if". Until there is proof that the U.S. invaded Iraq for oil, we can't include it. I could find quotes of people saying Bush wanted to go to war to avenge his father's quarrel with Saddam, but does that make it true? No. Just because you find something on the Internet does not make it fact or verifiable. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

ok, here some video testimoniance and documents supporting this theses: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21],[22],www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_092302_oil.html], [23], [24], [25], [26]. I think that this is enough to open a discussion and have some doubt that that wasn't a reason? Wikipoet 17:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No offence, but I'm not going to indulge these conspiracy theories any longer. But you are more than welcome to your opinion. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, you are also welcome and anyone is welcome with opinions. We will see in 30 years what the History will tell us, or just the next president. Anyway having doubts on some official opinion does not mean conspiration theory, it is just the nature of humans. US did not invade the Iraq for oil? For what then? A mistake of the CIA information? This is what Bush is telling us. Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction or any links with Al Qaeda, and the Downing Street memo prove that Bush knew all this before invading Iraq. That is very, very tragic for all victims. Who will tell that to all mothers of the dead soldiers, to all relatives of the dead civilians. Killed honourable and courageous Americans and Iraqi for a ‘noble cause’? Which ‘noble cause’? Not even the oil for survive the next 40 years? No ideal, No idea, no goals, no strategy, no reason, just a mistake, a misunderstanding…. No offence, but indulging doubts you could fight the war or at least find a ‘noble cause’. I find it tragic that today, in US, there is somebody else called George who lives and works in a city which was named after George Washington – and as opposed to this first George, he is a man who can never tell the truth. This second George is forced to spend all his time trying to sort out the damage his lies have created. And he’s starting to look more and more like a circus juggler who keeps throwing balls up into the air and tries to catch them before they hit the ground – but in reality those balls are bombs which fall on kids who are playing in real streets. Have a nice evening. Yours Wikipoet 18:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I can here the violins now. By the way, George Washington had more men die under his watch at one winter in Valley Forge than Bush has had die in Iraq so far, so don't think Washington was some untouchable figure from history. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to add a link to the new work of Dario Fo (Nobel Price Laureate of Literature) dedicated to Bush, or the wikipedians are afraid by arts? Here the link to the work: [Peace Mom]. Of course, this work critics the Bush Iraq politics, because no WMD was found, and this can hurt some Bush fan, but it is still a literature work of a Nobel laureate!!! and it is part of the world culture. If a link to Michael Moore's site is inserted why not a link to a Literature Nobel laureate? Wikipoet 09:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the following link will always be deleted? is that POV or censorship?

• Dario Fo (Literature Nobel Prize laureate) write in December 2005 a theater piece dedicated to Bush [27].Wikipoet 16:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That fact belongs on the Dario Fo page. It's too minor to be mentioned in this article unless it has received some really significant mainstream press coverage. android79 16:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone see him lick his lips when looking down at Beyonce Knowles? Anyway did he get a mention for being at the KCH? --Jingofetts 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Maybe he had dry lips? Who cares anyway? Beyonce makes me lick my lips sometimes too. Justin 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

but the president?

he licked his lips. --169.244.143.115 21:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I and my family noticed this as well. He looked completely bored and uninterested in any of it until a young, attractive, scantily clad African-American performer came on stage. While it might seem unbecoming of a middle-aged president and looked down upon by his base, I agree with Justin: If he wants to be seen as someone who is attracted to Beyonce, there's no reason to stop him from conveying that image. I certainly am. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 13:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, he's a Christian, and he's a writer, but is he a Christian Writer? Harvestdancer 21:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I reworked the intro a bit, could use a bit of work but maybe it's the right direction? I guess my problem is that it uses the "supporters" vs. "opponents" mantra, but in real life I think its a bit more complicated. Also, does anyone know who coined the bushism term? Maybe it would be best to use that rather then the generic "opponents".

Bush has been the subject of both popular praise and scathing criticism. Some believe he has done well with the economy and homeland security, and shown exemplary leadership after the September 11 attacks. However, some have disagreed on those very subjects and have also criticized the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the controversial 2000 election, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Due to Bush's colorful mistakes when speaking, opponents coined a new term, "bushism", to describe the grammatical configuration unique to Bush. Bushisms have been widely popularized and archived across the Internet due to their humorous nature.

WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the vandals won't go away in a week. They are on a 3 year cycle most likely.--God_of War 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• What is the point to semi-protection if it isn't to be implemented for extended periods? Why the big push for semi-protection just for this article, if we're just going to treat it like regular protection? I'm sure the devs would be glad to know they wasted their time on this. --BRIAN0918 03:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• This article has a large number of creators without relying on anons to contribute, ergo semi-protection is a good idea here.--God_of War 03:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Most likely, semi-protection will be applied many times to this page. We still want to lift it regularly to justify that it is still a response and not a pre-emptive measure to vandalism long since past, but as long as it sustains serious vandalism, semi-protection will then be re-applied. --kizzle 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• • How about having the next lifting of semi-protection wait till, say, January? Of 2009? Because that's the earliest possible time that we're going to have a respite (at least a small one) from the flood of wannabe vandals. Thank God for term limits. Matt Yeager 05:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, when many of us supported the implementation of WP:SEMI it was understood that it would be used in only the most egregious of situations (such as this article) and only for short periods of time...if we don't abide by this as clearly stated on the policy page, then we are risking losing it due to many people who have clearly stated that they are concerned about it being put in place on a more or less permanent basis.--MONGO 12:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this as a big problem from the start. When there was discussion about regular protection being applied permanently on this article (by itself or with a separate ediable article), that should have been a sign that people would push for permanent semi-protection. Perhaps the devs did waste their time. Just my thoughts, though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Brian0918 wilfully misunderstands the use of WP:SEMI. It wasn't developed specifically for this article, which is so many peoples' favourite rallying cry for "anons must not edit". Sprotection is designed to treat a particular vandalism problem while allowing everyone else to continue as usual. To suggest it was designed as a means to apply long-term anon exclusion to articles, as is said above, completely misunderstands how a wiki works. And don't lecture me on the fact that this is an encyclopedia not a wiki: it is an encyclopedia written on the wiki model. The two concepts do not seperate, and should not be seperated.

If people really think the devs have wasted their time, they might look at WP:PP and see the perfectly good use that has been made of WP:SEMI since its introduction to deal with particular problems in a light-touch way. -Splash^talk 18:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Where begins the border between semi-protection and censorship? Wikipoet 18:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• But this article is different from all the rest. There are more reverts on this page than on any other. This should show that this page is a special case. How many anonymous edits are good? Next to none. Maybe to indefinitely semi-protect this page is against the letter of the policy. Doubtless, however, it is within the spirit, which is to allow normal editors to edit without the distraction of vandalism. We have the option now; it would be a fantasticly stupid decision to not make use of it. [[Sam Korn]] 18:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of periodically lifting semi-protection to gauge the article's continued attractiveness to vandals, but until he's been out of office for a year or so, that {{sprotected}} tag will probably have to be there most of the time. I worry about protection creep, but I don't buy the slippery slope arguments. He's the most controversial figure in the world, and there's no doubt it's a special case. We're not a bureaucracy, so we should be ready to accept ad hoc exceptions to our policies and guidelines. This is one of them. If you want to choose a battleground against protection creep, I suggest William Shakespeare or perhaps Joseph McCarthy. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Beeing controversial is the streng of wikipedia. Protecting this article means loosing credibility. The end of wikipedia. And donations. Wikipoet 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Or not. Wikipedia is neutral and neutral doesn't equal controversial. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to the reversions of your changes, semi-protection isn't even an issue. You made them after it was re-established. Your changes were removed because they violated our neutral point of view policy, which has survived quite a few donor drives. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No I did not mean that because of removing of my changes. I do not care. It is just a danger for the profound mechanism of wikipedia. Wikipedia is the largest online cultural event because it is open and self organized. Like a big brain. Deleting a contribution for NPOV reason is part of this self organisation and I accept this with no problems. Discussions are also part of this big brain. But it is my opinion that protecting a controversial article like Bush, will put a censorship light on wikipedia. Imagine that this will be put on the newspaper: “Wikipedia protect contributions on Bush article: Alert! Censorship”. What will happen? Vandalism are something that wikipedia has to live with. Better vandals than a smell of censorship. Vandal you can correct. Smells not. Be careful with protecting this article. Regards, Wikipoet 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Except we've gotten in a lot more trouble for having bad information in our articles than for protecting pages (which happens quite a bit). Tis better to be accurate than just allow anything in the articles. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Clear, finding the equilibrium between open content and accuracy is a hard job, but it is a ‘noble cause’ to serve the largest encyclopaedia ever written. Wikipoet 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The existing page reads:

In the 2004 election, Bush carried 31 of 50 states for 286 Electoral College votes. [...] This was the first time since 1988 that a President received a popular majority.

That should either read "first time since 1984", or more likely "since 1988 that a winning Presidential candidate received". Not to be pedantic, but the sentence as is is at the least confusing ,and at first sight wrong -- as Bush the elder was not yet president when he was elected.

64.2.235.137 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Strider

FWIW, this article, along with a few others, is the subject of a Free Republic "Action Alert". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oh goodie, I can't wait. Maybe attempting to edit this article will prove to them that all Wiki admins aren't godless communists. android79 03:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

My favorite quote from that page: "There is little doubt that Lefty academic types have way more time to continually screw around with the editing, than a bunch of conservatives with real jobs."

My second favorite quote is"We must fight our cyber/information warfare for our purpose. This is a war fought at a civilian level challenging those who are trying to bend history. There are children that may view these and be brainwashed by it. We have to protect our children from fabricated history."

My third favorite is someone saying "Hopefully, FreeRepublic will not be blamed for [the original poster's] obsessive fixation with Wikipedia."

Dave (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As funny as that first quote may be, there's a bit of truth to it. Who's got the most free time to waste on contribute to Wikipedia? College students. What political tendencies do college students have, as a whole? Fill in the blank. :-) (The second quote is just scary.) android79 06:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

"What political tendencies do college students have, as a whole?" "Legalize it"? --8bitJake 07:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting, but not unexpected. They're not the first to try and organize an attack, and they won't be the last. Let them fight their windmills: they too will fail. – ClockworkSoul 16:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to add that that third quote made my day. :) Matt Yeager 20:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As a college student myself, 8bitJake, I'd say I have a pretty extensive set of beliefs such as universal health care, electoral reform, and gay marriage, putting me somewhere towards left of center. It is somewhat offending to characterize the sum total of people who are in my situation as simply caring about legalizing marijuana. --kizzle 12:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As a former college student, I have to say you're overreacting a bit. ;-) android79 13:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

former college student < college student. I win, nya nya! ;) Anyways, back to defending my maturity level... --kizzle 23:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

this "article" frozen in its current form , is an afront to reality and a smash up far left propaganda job, will members of the left never cease to protect such "articles" from public scuritny? so much for the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" <img src="http://www.homecomputer.de/icons/ussr-flag.jpg">, your "encylocpedia"'s new mascot

please propose changes to the article in this talk page. Kirils 08:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Attacking new users and valuble contributers? no wonder people want to sue you guys

You guys wouldn't be Freepers, by any chance, would you? android79 08:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? thjen why can't I edit this page?

Because you're still too wet behind the ears. Because this article was getting vandalized at the rate of almost once every few minutes, the article requires more hurdles to jump before you can edit it. Register for an account, make a few edits, then come back to this article. Also please sign your comments by typing four tildes in a row ~~~~. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 08:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I am a registered account, as valid as any other "editor" like yourself, this "semi locking" thing is a scam, you keep editing privillages a secret for your "elite" friends 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Namr. 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. All you have to do is contribute to a few other articles, then you're free to edit this one. It's regrettable, but necessary to prevent the extremely persistent and damaging vandalism that was happening to this article on an almost minute-to-minute basis. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 08:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You're correct, you are as valid as everyone else. As are the anonymous IPs. It's somewhat similar to the feature for enforcing username changes. Your IP gets banned along with your username- its a side effect of enforcing a name change that administrators can't stop. Regrettably, you can't edit this article. I'm sure you will be able to soon. :-) Deskana (talk page) 08:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• This discussion should be moved to the talk page for the policy in question. -- Kirils 08:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Where have the pictures and articles gone?? Has someone vandalised this article again? --Sunfazer 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Don't you think George is looking tired?
  • This is highly irrelevant to this section and, unless you are referring to a specific image of Bush in the article, an innapropriate topic in it's own right as talk pages are specifically not for general discussion of article subject (see WP:TP#Usage). WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated attack against several Wikipedia articles (George W. Bush, Abortion, and Kwanzaa) specifically calling for far-right POV vandalism with tips on how to evade detection. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting accusation... although the forum section devolved into what you said, the original call might as well have been from the Wikipedia editors. Particularly claiming that they are "specifically calling for far-right POV vandalism" is a bit of a reach. If you had bothered to read what they said, you would realize that they believe those three articles contain serious POV, and proceeded to have an argument about it. I have to admit, I find your "get ready, here come the crazies!" attitude a bit disturbing... and will do very little except convince people that NPOV does not, in fact, exist on these pages. (while not denying that MANY of the edits on this particular page can easily be described as "crazy") --Kiruwa 10:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Aren't new topics supposed to be on the bottom of the page? --Aaron 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to proper place, although it isn't a new topic, look up just a couple sections. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the photograph of El Presidente removed, and why is his infobox incomplete? For such a high-profile page, it's embarrassing that we're missing such things. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 22:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• His infobox is incomplete because User:Netoholic was screwing around with the presidents template. I've reverted his alterations and it works now. Firebug 23:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to spend a few hours later today in an attempt to cut this article down to the recommended article size without losing any information. I'm going to create (more) subpages and the like and leave only a sentance or two about most subcategories. In accordance with WP:BOLD, don't be shocked when you see it - I'm not going to delete one word.--CastAStone 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You have my support. Dave (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would appriciate it if someone else - preferably someone apolitical - would cut down the election 2000 information to be of approximately the same length as the election 2004 info. --CastAStone 04:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly? I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think that that's possible. Just as an article on World War II is necessarily going to be longer than one on the Spanish-American War, some elections merit longer articles than others. Now, I'll be the first to say that what is in there now is excessive by many degrees. But there is no way that an election that followed the sequence of events that we had in 2000 is going to be compacted to the same length as 2004. It's just not realistic. Unschool 04:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was just within the Bush article should be cut because there is already a link to the 2000 election main article. I can give it a shot but I'm, quite frankly, afraid of a lashing.--CastAStone 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. And, incidentally, I share your trepidation. Unschool 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what you are doing is great. Wish I had the time for such major projects. Unschool 07:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've knocked 28kb off so far, without deleting anything. --CastAStone 04:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Great job! I've been a strong advocate of Summary style for some time as well. --mav 05:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

How about I shorten it, then revert myself and post the diff here so it can be discussed? Dave (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's my version. Let me know what you think. Dave (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I give it a huge thumbs up. --CastAStone 07:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'll do it later if no one objects. Just to clarify an edit summary, , when I deleted "In July of 2002, Bush cut off U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Bush claimed that the UNFPA supported forced abortions and sterilizations in the People's Republic of China" I said I'd put it in another section. I couldn't find a place to put it, but it's in the foreign policy section. Cheers, Dave (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

down from 105 to 65, i'll keep plugging away, thanks for the help Dave.--CastAStone 09:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

59kb, its getting harder, i'll take suggestions. --CastAStone 20:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect it please, the guy isn't in the news now! --Brian Daniels 12:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Protecting an article is in my opinion in a sense stiffling freedom of speech. If something is put on an artice about any person that another person disagrees with, ERASE it. Don't limit us from expanding an article! For shame!

God bless, be with and guide President and Mrs. Bush God bless our troops who are fighting regardless of difference in opinions regarding the war. GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND NO PLACE ELSE!!!

RE:Congrats, I'm sure Bush would be proud of you for sticking up for him and our right to learn about his failures.

Question: What exactly was the Vandalism that took place?

Stating when his term will expire in its own sentence in the introduction of this article appears pointless and biased. Keep it even, Centrism - Centrism people. --anon

I'm a Bush lover but I added the information because I don't like articles with ticking time bombs inside them that will render them out of date when they are overtaken by events (such as the election of the Giuliani/Rice ticket in 2008). Endomion 22:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this as a bias at all. It's not at all uncommon for encyclopedia and almanac entries about serving politicans to list the scheduled end of their terms right up front. In fact, I'm surprised this isn't part of the WP:MOS. --Aaron 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Only if you mean Jerry Rice. --kizzle 00:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• so, it's POV to imply that he's subject to a term limit? my kingdom for a rolly eyed emoticon--64.12.116.9 03:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that there were huge changes made to this article and a tremendous amount of information was almost unilaterally moved elsewhere and put in daughter articles. Shouldn't more discussion have occurred during this as I see about 3 or 4 editors took the time to chime in. Since this is a bio page, why are bio items such as his professional life prior to becoming President still in here, when we already had pages that had much of his Presidency elsewhere? Now, to be frank, the article details points that are less biographical and more peripheral to him.--MONGO 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think CastAStone did a good job of explaining himself above, and, as the article had been tagged for excessive length for some time, what he is doing is appropriate. Unschool 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The artricle is more a series of links than an article. Much of importance has been deemphasized by placing things of material value elsewhere, off the main page. I have no problem with shortening the article or putting less important issues in daughter articles, I do have a problem with removing items that should be here to other articles where it will be less likely to be linked to. Many of these daughter articles end up rarely being edited so new information supporting or refutting the info there is never edited in. I think it is reasonable to assume that an article of this person, and of this position is going to end up naturally being one of the longest articles in Wikipedia.--MONGO 21:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your concerns about daughter articles, I am trying to integrate the information lazily put into the main article into the appropriate daughter articles as a part of this project. The article, even as is at 59kb, is barely loadable or editable over a phone modem, a slow computer, or when wikipedia is slow (which is seemingly 60% of the time). This is I imagine the most viewed article on Wikipedia but the idea is that the main article for any topic MUST be a micropedia article with links to the information that would be included in the macropedia version. See Wikipedia:Summary_style. I have not finished cutting out information yet, so the article may seem lopsided right now, i'm getting to foreign policy and another user (see above discussion) is workin on the election 200 information. Every section needed to be cut down to make it of appropriate size, remember that it was not too long ago that pages cut off automatically at 32kb, I'm not delusional and i know it will never be that short, but it was almost 4 times the recommended legnth.--CastAStone 21:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Several users have said that they support the changes. If you think specific important things are missing, you can add them back, but I think we should all be able to agree that 104 Kb or whatever it was is too much. Dave (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is long, naturally. He is the current President of the U.S. and there has been a lot of controversy in his prresidency. Most featured articles are the size of this one now, and most of them cover areas that are in no way nearly as diverse as this one. I am fully aware of article size and am fully familiar with Wikipedia:Summary_style but encourage you to be patient with your changes. I have never seen either of you do much editing here in this article until the last couple of days, so just remember that the article you are editing has been the work of hundreds of other editors, many of whom may still be on vacation, so I would prefer you not make any more radical changes until some others have had a chance to chime in. Three or four editos in agreement with these changes does not a concensus make, especially in this article.--MONGO 00:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

that's fine, I'll wait a few days to see what transpires.--CastAStone 01:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. CastAStone, you may want to write up your reasoning in case other editors aren't as understanding as MONGO. MONGO, I'm impressed with your tone and ability to assume good faith. Keep it up! :-) Dave (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote Summary style and think that the article at its current size (~45KB of readable prose) is about right, if not a wee bit smaller than it should be. Then again, we have to leave room for the rest of his life. :) --mav 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have cable modem but even so this page was always one of the slowest to load, so I can understand the concerns if anyone is on dial up. In all liklihood, there probably won't be too many editors that will be worried about splitting this article up and I do see that nothing was lost. I suppose I am playing more of a devil's advocate in this case. I didn't revert any changes but just wanted to toss in my 2 cents worth, for what it's worth.--MONGO 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We're just going to have to be very careful in what we leave as a summary. --kizzle 06:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You stated in one sentence what I tried to do in four paragraphs. This article has oftentimes been one of the biggest battlegrounds in Wikipedia, so it's going to hard to make a comment and not allow the quid pro quo countercomment to also be there.--MONGO 06:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we need the long "See also" section? It's mostly just repeating links to daughter articles already pointed to in various sections in the main article. I think the shortening of this article has been very well done, but the article now has proportionally too many lists and tables for my taste at the end. Any objections against removing the "See also" section, or at least all the links already mentioned further up? Shanes 01:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Support, but don't take out too much. Dave (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You may want to wait a few days, though, per MONGO's request in the section above. Dave (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the way this article reads now. Parts of it seem dry and uninformative. I especially don't appreciate that it was shortened during a time when only registered users can contribute. That seems sneaky. Gilliamjf 02:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It was four times the acceptable legnth. see above discussion, and don't make new talk sections without reading the old discussions first. All of the information that was previously there is still linked to in subarticles. --CastAStone 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a rather cumbersome sentence about Bush's common nickname, "W" (now frequently rendered as "Dubya"), which I was surprised to see missing from this substantial article. However, I couldn't readily find a reliable source for this information. Does anyone have such a source? Also, I added the line to the short intro paragraph about his family because (A) the name started with them, I believe, so it was a semi-decent segue; (B) it should be somewhere in the intro as an alternate name per Wikipedia article title standards; and (C) it didn't seem significant enough to make a section out of it, and didn't seem to fit into the existing ones. But I'm not too crazy about its wording or position myself. Feel free to rework it to suit both verifiability and better prose. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I didn't find any mention on the White House website except in a jesting biography of Spot, the First Dog. I've got several books on reserve at the library to check this out, if someone doesn't beat me to it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a picture in the article of the Daily Mirror calling Bush "Dubya". The Mirror is a fairly respectable paper in the UK so I'd say that them using the name "Dubya" on their headline in source enough for inclusion about that nickname. I doubt they'd mention it on the White House website. Deskana (talk page) 20:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, but we need more. The Daily Mirror is reputable, but a headline doesn't really provide any origin or explanation for the nickname. (After all, they could have just made it up themselves, as the press occasionally does.) I was disappointed about the absence from the White House website, because it wasn't initially used meanly. (And Spot calls him "Dubya", eh?) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I sifted through several books on Dubya and the Bush family, but couldn't find any mention of the origin of the nickname in them. (Specifically, I studied the TOC and indices, then speed-read many promisiing passages for sources, but found nothing. I really couldn't bring myself to fully read the books, as the subject matter doesn't interest me that much.) Unless I come across better information in my general information hunts, I'm afraid I'll have to leave sourcing on this point to others. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The article about George Bush is extremely biased. For example, the part taling about AIDS only points out the positive stances of his government. Although the US contributes largely to this cause, as the world's richest nation, it has a duty to do so; in fact it gives much LESS than it should, and has been critized for its poverty stances, and overall international aid. A little more should be added about the Patriot Act and the power gained by his government after 9/11.

That is your opinion. --Golbez 20:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Something definitely ought to be added regarding the wire-tapping allegations and whatnot that have been swirling for the past couple of months. Not necessarily the issue of whether or not it constitutes a violation of civil rights or the Bill of Rights, just the specifics of what's being done in the name of curbing 'terror.' 12.37.144.130 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Castle

The following passage (from the election 2004 section) is correct but incomplete and a bit misleading, since it only refers to the sitting Presidents who have won re-election and not to the sitting Presidents who have lost. A slight modification is in order. . .

"Bush's victory margin, in terms of absolute number of popular votes, was the smallest of any sitting president since Harry S. Truman in 1948. Also, Bush's win was, percentage-wise, the closest popular margin ever for a sitting president." Joey1898 23:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Can an editor please add a paragraph somewhere in this article about claims that the 2004 election was rigged. And no it is not a "lame conspiracy theory," there is real evidence (exit poll-vote count discrepancies etc.).

No lame conspiracy theories please. --Golbez 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

that information is in the macroarticles linked to in the election 2004 section of the article. This article is biographical, and there is no evidence that Bush himself led this "rigging", as even if Karl Rove did rig the election, the man is way too smart to let Bush catch wind of it - the less the president knows, the better - plausable deniability. If Bush had no idea, Bush fires Rove, problem goes away. If Bush knows, problem never goes away. ergo, Rove or any RNC flunkie, if he did "rig" the election, would not let Bush in on it, hence it does not belong in the biography of Bush. But anyone who wants to read more about election 2004 could click that link and be presented with the theory. Anyways, it would take thousands of people to rig a presidential election to the tune of a 3% difference - do you really think all those people could really keep quiet? --CastAStone 03:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that does make sense, it wasn't as if Bush was sneaking around the voting stations in ohio cackling to himself. As for the election. There are two possibilities A) it was rigged b) with a probability of roughly 1/100 000 the exit polls predictions were 8 million votes off. That and problems that international observers encountered with state laws on election observation. I'm not saying it was rigged, I'm saying its suspicious. If only there had been a proper inquiry. But of course Kerry had to pull out early because of "sour grapes".

I feel as though Bush's stance on torture should be worked into this article. Thoughts? Sludge 07:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - The whitehouse press statement to veto a bill banning torture needs to be included.--God of War 09:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that paragraph really needed? I mean George W. Bush's family and advisors are considered important to him in his life and career. and His wife Laura and his mother Barbara Bush are also considered important to his life. just sounds silly. The following can be inserted somewhere else in the article: His most trusted advisors have included many women, such as Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, and Harriet Miers. Karl Rove has played perhaps the greatest influence on Bush's life and career. MartinHagberg 14:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

His mother, father and wife have played important roles in his life? Imagine that! You mean he's a human being like the rest of us? Do we really need this information to understand the man?12.37.144.130 16:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Castle

Exactly, though this is important: His most trusted advisors have included many women, such as Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes, and Harriet Miers. Karl Rove has played perhaps the greatest influence on Bush's life and career. MartinHagberg 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Apeitheo, I know your edits were probably correct by standard English, but the style on Wikipedia is to put punctuation after quotation marks when the punctuation isn't part of the quote. This guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotation_marks. I think you were definitely right about the quotes in the "he changed my life" sentence, though, so I kept those. --Allen 06:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Davidpatrick, why does it matter that we don't know Bush's favorite philosopher before 1985? --Allen 06:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why his favourite philosopher before 1985 is encyclopedic. That should be something under trivia or somewhere else. --Terence Ong ^Talk 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If we knew who it was, it might be encyclopedic. That we don't know who it was isn't. If we knew for sure that he didn't have one, that might be encyclopedic. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding philosophers, when did Christ become one? In fact, for a substancial part of the populous that maintains that the Bible is mythology rather than history, what evidence is there that Christ even existed outside the realms of fiction or fantasy? By this logic, I guess Santa Claus is my favorite philosopher. He taught me that it's more important to give than to receive and he loves and helps children. Regardless, why is this information relevent?12.37.144.130 16:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Castle

Jesus, no matter how you look at it, can be considered a philosopher (even if you disregard the status of God thing). Secondly, many notable critical historians agree that Jesus, no matter who he was, existed. Third, seeing that Santa Claus existed in reality as St. Nicholas, your logic would be slightly skewed. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yay! 4 semi-notable christian biblical scholars agree Jesus existed! How unexpected, now wikipedia can be justified in treating christian mythology as fact, after all, four whole Jews for Jesus agree with the 'historical' jesus thing, it must be real!--205.188.116.10 06:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)