Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:19, 16 June 2006

Template:Talkheaderlong

Please read this This is a controversial topic which can lead to heated debate. If you are about ready to explode, please stop for a minute, take a deep breath, and relax your eyebrows. Repeat as necessary.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

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

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

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

Template:TrollWarning

Archives
2002 - 2003 1, 2, 3 2004 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 2005 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 2006 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46

Worst Ever

Would it hurt to note that some historians consider him the worst president ever?

He made the cover of Rolling Stones as the worst president ever, that must certainly be relevant.

Sure...and the historians that lived during Lincoln's Presidency (and the Civil War, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, the killing of thousands of Americans by other Americans) also considered Lincoln the worst ever...amazing how history gives us true insight doesn't it? If in 20-50 years, there are true Middle East style democracies...then we will see what Bush's legacy is.

Again, "Would it hurt to note that some historians consider him the worst president ever? With citations? Nothing we should notice, ignore it and maybe it will go away so we should wait 50 years before mentioning it? Meanwhile, we do note regarding Lincoln that "Copperheads criticized him for violating the Constitution, overstepping the bounds of executive power, refusing to compromise on slavery, declaring martial law, suspending habeas corpus, ordering the arrest of 18,000 opponents including public officials and newspaper publishers, and killing hundreds of thousands of young men who were soldiers in the war. Radical Republicans criticized him for going too slow in the abolition of slavery, and not being ruthless enough toward the conquered South." and include a picture of this nasty poster. Anyway, it's hopeless, I added a section to that effect months back with an image of a "Worst Ever" poster, and first the section got deleted, then the image got deleted (without notification). The Bush whitewash squad.Gzuckier 18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure. Good luck with that.

I'm puzzled... what is a "Middle East style democracy"? A country is either democratic or it is not. "Middle East style" is just a sneaky way of forgiving Middle Eastern countries for their near-universal failure to institute democracy. There is no "Middle East style". There are just successful democracies, and failed democracies. Most attempts in the Middle East have failed.

Furthermore, my best guess is they will continue to fail until the people of the Middle East get tired of it. The determining factor is not the gumption of the president of some country an ocean away, but how much appetite for freedom the people in the region have. If they really wanted to be free, they could have earned it the way we did: revolution. "Giving" people freedom is pointless. If they were ready for freedom, they would already have seized it.

As for Lincoln, he "kept the Union together", but after much study of American history I'm inclined to agree with his critics. Waging the Civil War did America more harm than good. It fundamentally damaged the attitude and character of American citizenship, in my opinion. The South could not have supported itself alone for long. It should have been allowed to secede much earlier, back when there was not so much political face to save. The ends cannot justify the means; what good is saving a Union if, to do so, you have to force people into it? I don't believe popular history has given "true insight"; if anything, popular history has whitewashed Lincoln. So if you wish to compare Bush to Lincoln, perhaps in twenty to fifty years opinions will only have changed due to another whitewash. Of course, serious students of history will still be able to learn about the less-pleasant details of President Bush, and their conclusions will be less rosy than the bubbly, superficial pap taught in high schools. Kasreyn 04:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Southern states began to secede under Buchanan, Lincoln's predecessor, so your complaint that Southern states didn't secede soon enough is not relevant to an assessment of Lincoln.. George Kaplan 21:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. A lot of the fault for the war does rest with Buchanan. I should have remembered that. Kasreyn 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow...it sounded as if you just argued that some people don't want Freedom....amazing...simply amazing. People are so blinded by hatred of George Bush that they will actually argue that the Iraqi people don't want/deserve Freedom and that life was better in Iraq under Saddam.

Maybe you should reserve that assessment for 25-50 years from now, when the death rate in Iraq may perhaps have dropped to something not much higher than it was before the invasion. Gzuckier 18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you objectively analyse the Bush Presidency while we ARE STILL in the middle of the Bush Presidency? You have no benefit of historical record and no benefit of context. Thus my comparison to Lincoln is relevant. At the time, he was considered one of the worst Presidents and now is considered one of the best. If in 50 years, Iraq is a flourishing Middle East democracy, it will be traced back to the Iraq War 2003...simple. You must have some perspective...remember, when the U.S. declared it's independence and started it's own democracy, Slavery still existed and even women could not vote for decades. Germany remained split for 40 years and Japan was in ruins after WWII. And now, 60 years later, they are both flourishing democracies...and they would not be had it not been for U.S. intervention in WWII. FACT. Trying to condemn Iraq as a failure after only 3 years gives no credit to the U.S. military and no credit to the Iraqi people, the majority of whom lived under oppression during Saddam's regime. Have some perspective.

Your argument is, basically, that people shouldn't judge Bush yet; and therefore Misplaced Pages shouldn't notice that people are judging Bush now. Does that make sense to anybody else?Gzuckier 18:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, you believe waging the Civil War did more harm that good??? really? wow...tell that to any African-Americans you know and get their take on it. Jeravicious 13:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It was probably a mistake on my part to open this can of worms. If you're really interested in debating it, one of our talk pages would probably be a better place. I wouldn't want to monopolize this one any further. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You brought up a modification to the article. This is the place for that. It's not the place for rants about Lincoln and future historians. Gzuckier 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Giving" people freedom is pointless. If they were ready for freedom, they would already have seized it. Now that's arrogant. No wonder they call us Ugly Americans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dubc0724 (talk • contribs) .

That's amazingly ironic. What I find arrogant is the high-handed presumption that the American way of life is the best, and that all the poor peoples of the world spend each and every day all a-quiver in their hovels praying for some good ol' all-American cowboy like Dubya to come "free" them. Arrogance? Americans hold the patent on it, and those who supported this war proved it amply. Kasreyn 04:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 Quote- "How does any president's reputation sink so low? The reasons are best understood as the reverse of those that produce presidential greatness. In almost every survey of historians dating back to the 1940s, three presidents have emerged as supreme successes: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These were the men who guided the nation through what historians consider its greatest crises: the founding era after the ratification of the Constitution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression and Second World War. Presented with arduous, at times seemingly impossible circumstances, they rallied the nation, governed brilliantly and left the republic more secure than when they entered office.
 Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties --  Buchanan, Andrew Johnson,  Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance." title --Summer 19:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please take this immature shit someplace else? You both sound like idiots and none of this conversation has anything to do with the article. Thanks.Michael Dorosh 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Gzuckier's last point. If you want to complain about Bush, go here --Kchase02 (T) 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who calls Bush the worst president ever is ignorant of history and appealing only to their dislike of the man, not his policies. I don't like Bush either, but I would prefer if people kept their complaints about him to the facts. If you're a Republican, there are many others that can be considered worse. If you're a Democrat? Nixon, possibly Reagan, Andrew Johnson perhaps, Herbert Hoover. And proper Libertarians would place Bush no higher than 4th on the all-time worst list. That said, let's get back to discussing the article. --Golbez 20:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The question being whether we should note that there is a substantial "Worst President Ever" contingent, and whether we should

• note it;
• not note it because they are wrong;
• not note it because it's not notable.

Gzuckier 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We can only note it if someone says there is. We cannot put 3 sources then say, "look! there's a substantial contingent!" And then of course we'll have to also put a counter from people who love him like lollipops. In other words, it's not worth the effort. --Golbez 20:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

God, this comment log is impossible to follow. How about stating that opinions of his presidency thus far are quite polarized, with some considering W to be a candidate as "worst ever", and then cite sources (although I doubt there are many complimentary pieces to the "worst ever" sources). Sidar 23:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vacation Days 2000

This sentence is incorrect: "As of August 2, 2000, Bush had visited the ranch 49 times during his time as president, accruing 319 days away from the White House and nearly reaching Reagan’s eight-year record of 335 days in 5.5 years.". George Bush was inaugurated in January 2001 so the year on this date has to be incorrect. 35.11.38.58 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Sayrah

The reference referred to the year 2005, according to . I have since corrected the error (a.m.a.i.w.t.f.v.t.a.). Autopilots 08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Florida 2000 TV network call

Added an external reference to the panhandle problem where the Central time zone section of voting cost Bush approximately 12k votes because of the early TV call of the state.

science section and polling data

A user reverted my edits in the science section and the public perception section claiming they were not NPOV or were unnecessary.

My feeling is that in the science section, this is a highly relevant report, and its relevance is due in large part to the respectability of the signatories on that report (especially as we had an earlier criticism of the report suggesting that the signatories might not be respectable).

The polling section--what, do we not want up-to-date polling information here? I thought that's what the section was for: current information on public perception. I will agree that perhaps the disapproval rating might be unnecessary, so I did not replace it. I also tried not to push a POV with the obvious remark that the latest numbers are 32%, a low point for his entire presidency, and instead took an average of all the listed polls from the month of April. If you think it's not necessary to have so many timepoints for approval ratings, then I would suggest the logical ones to include are the high point (post 9-11, at 85%+), the low point (32%) and the current (32%).

Can we have a discussion rather than an edit war if there are issues here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Le sacre (talk • contribs) . (tej 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

(sorry for forgetting to sign the above). My understanding of wikipedia ettiquette is that when someone requests that their edits be discussed before being reverted (again), that request should be honored. I want to split the two apparently controversial edits apart (science section and polling section) and treat them separately.

In the science section dealing with the Union of Concerned Scientists report, we had a previous (justified) criticism of the trustworthiness of the report based on not knowing the credentials of the signatories. It is the fact that these are many highly respected experts in science that makes the report worth mentioning, in my opinion the most relevant part of this section on Bush's policies in regard to science. Can we please discuss this before reverting again? Thanks! tej 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• THe practices of such an "elite" organization of scientists such as the UCS has its own charges leveled against them. I personally don't mind that the line LeSacre wants to add lending credibility to the organization be included. However if this whole Union of Concerned (extremist group) Scientists should be included in this encyclopedia entry, the truth about THEM should be told as well. I have a lot of criticisms of Bush myself... but this is not a valid one. The UCS group has a proven history of distorting science to their own agenda. It's my opinion that either the UCS debunking stays, or the whole UCS section gets deleted. If you want to delete my quote, I don't mind, as long as you delete every other reference to this extremist group that doesn't really belong here.--FairNBalanced 00:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• • The encyclopedic value of the number of signatories is questionable considering that anyone can sign if the pay the entrance fee. The UCS itself is a questionable source on science as it has an obvious political objective. Your comment adds objectivity to the "8,000" signatories and should be kept as long as UCS is used as a source. --Tbeatty 02:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I was the one who did the original revert on this, and I apologize for doing so without properly discussing it. Nevertheless, I stand by my belief that the petition information had POV problems. By listing the qualifications of those who signed the petition, it makes it appear that the weight of scientif professional opinion was brought to bear against President Bush, and no balance was given. I can see this has become the subject of a bit of an edit war...personally I think the entire thing should be cut down to a phrase mentioning that there was opposition to president Bush's policies in this area from some sections of the scientific community, and that this criticism itself has been held up to scrutiny. The deatils of the UCS, its policies and political nature just lead to too much non-Bush-related matierial. Schrodingers Mongoose 23:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing the "prominent" adjective in the sentence that describes the 62 signatories of the original UCS report. This is not POV (as has been claimed by FairNBalanced when removing it) . There should be no dispute about the fact that the signatories are prominent. And this fact is relevant as it adds legitimacy to the report. You may not like the UCS, you may not like what the report says, but the prominence of these scientists stands alone as a fact. There is no more reason to call the inclusion of this adjective POV than there is for other adjectives used elsewhere (e.g. in describing the UCS as "activist"). - Hayne 09:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• The only group calling these scientists "prominent" is the UCS itself. Many of the colleges and Universities associated with the signatories could be referred to as "prestigious" but this isn't to say that the scientists involved are more interested in politics than science. I'll leave the word "prominent" (a word that could also be used to describe the hairy protuding wart at the end of a witch's nose), but I added some other clarification to the UCS organization for the sake of not misleading the viewers.--FairNBalanced 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up one of the references you added (the Capital Research link) but deleted the other reference and the sentence accompanying it. IMHO, it's simply a very poor source. It cites few sources itself and is clearly very biased. More importantly, it contains only a vague mention of the particular document you referenced. I'd be perfectly okay with adding the sentence back if you can find a better source. It would be ideal, of course, if you could reference the document itself and not an article about the document (the more layers of reporting we have the more likely facts will be misinterpreted, intentionally or accidentally).

It would also be most helpful if you followed the same basic pattern for the existing references in this article if you add any additional ones. If you don't know how to do that, please ask and we'll be happy to help! --ElKevbo 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mr.Kevbo for your assistance. I started attempting the proper reference method, messed up a couple times, but I think I've got it now :) I put the 'activist cash' reference back in, but merely as a point that UCS has not gone unchallenged as they would like to present themselves. I agree- the activistcash site is biased; but so is the UCS. To say activistcash is not a source because of bias, that would also mean we'd have to delete the UCS info as well. Despite that, exclusion of the UCS bit could be rationalized solely based on their lack of relevance (despite support from so many "prominent" scientists). However I am not an exclusionist, so I'm honestly for keeping it in, if the other people want it included. However, the idea that UCS is an organization that is neutral and advocating for the consumer is a flat lie. The UCS happens also to be against GMO's... GMO's that have fed millions of people and saved lives. The UCS is against GMO's and the science clearly does not back them. And we don't even need to go into the Global warming debate here :) I think you're a fair person, ElKevbo, I look forward to dealing with you in the future.--FairNBalanced 07:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the references! A full reply/objection to your recent edits to the science section are below in the "UCS Report" section. I'd appreciate a response as my objections have not been asnwered. You may have missed my objections when I originally posted them - this is such a busy Talk page! --ElKevbo 19:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

public perception section--why object to current polling data?

The version that keeps getting reverted to is inaccurate. It suggests (by use of the phrase "continue to show...40%" that the approval rating is considerably higher than it is (latest numbers 32%). I don't understand how having the latest polling information can be considered non NPOV. Can we please discuss this here instead of maintaining an inaccurate representation of the reality? What reason could there be for not wanting current information in the section on public perception? Thanks! tej 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• you should try and cool down before posting again, hostile edits are not likely to be approved by the community--Capitalister 21:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Capitalister? Kevin Baas 21:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC) It is common modus operandi for the republicans to simply generate lie numbers. You have to forgive the footsoldiers, they are good enough at doublethink that they perpetuate obvious lies without allowing themselves to consciously know that they are doing it.

As an aside, my theory on this article is that as much as i think that george is the most evil and vile president ever to get into the office, and while i think that the only reason he is there is that the elections were rigged, my belief in the fairness of presentation concept leads me to think that this article should remain essentially unmarred by the assorted political arguments, and be a factual article about this person outside of the context of political situations. Articles such as the "Movement to impeach" and "Rationales to impeach" are the appropriate places in my mind to explore the political "analysis" side of George Bushes actions.

It seems like this article is being drawn into the political fray, and that seems unfair in my opinion. To put it another way, until and unless George Bush logs on to Misplaced Pages, his NAME as an article ought to have some of the same priveledges as his hypothetical user page. It should be about him, as he might be likely to present himself, were he limited to facts. Prometheuspan 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read up heavily on Misplaced Pages:Policies_and_guidelines. "Common modus operandi for republicans to simply generate lie numbers"? First of all, why would they generate poll numbers like the one Bush is in right now? Second of all, do you have a source for that claim that doesn't link to democraticunderground.com? --kizzle 22:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC) In the last election cycle, it was blatantly obvious to both myself and others that certain polls were being fallaciously manipulated, because other polls with better safegaurds had wildly different results. I didn't post this on the article page, i posted it on teh discussion page, and looking for references on this issue isn't on my list of things to do. Anybody willing to bother to run a google search engine could probably find hundreds of references to manipulated polling, and so if you are curious, i suggest that you start there. Prometheuspan 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's "blatantly obvious" you shouldn't have any trouble finding reputable sources claiming bush's poll numbers are "lie numbers." --kizzle 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object to using the RealClearPolitics average if a current approval rating needs to be cited? It is simply an average of the latest major polls, and pooling the polls together creates a larger sample size and reduces MoE. The current RCP average is 35.2%--RWR8189 22:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it. --kizzle 23:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC) I have no objections to start with, but i might go look at the resource to see if it is biased if i have the time. Prometheuspan 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you right now that the people who run the site probably have a conservative bent, but you won't find a major poll they leave out of the average.--RWR8189 23:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The following sentence is unclear:" Polls conducted in early 2006 showed an average of around 40% for Bush, up slightly from the following September, but still low from a president coming off of his State of the Union Address, which generally provides a boost." How can an early 2006 poll be "up from the following September?" How about http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/ as a statistical combination of all the various polls? The current "Bush Index" for the second half of April is an approval rating of 34.5, the average of 7 national polls.Edison 04:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"'source' provided does show this statement"

http://www.activistcash.com/ you're kidding, right?--205.188.116.138 03:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes "watchdog groups" themselves require "watchdog groups"--FairNBalanced 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• absolutely not a source, no matter how many times you blank and/or reinsert, it's still not a source of anything other than unintentional humour--205.188.116.138 07:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• and sometimes a source should be at least as credible as The onion, otherwise it's just a joke, the difference being when the The onion calls Jane Goodall a grave threat to the american way of life, they're being funny on purpose, activistcash.com seems to do so in a serious tone, which is much less amusing--205.188.116.138 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

my turn to issue ultimatums

were i to respond tounge and cheek to this nonsense, i could add this source to the Second term section to explain that geroge bush is actually far too liberal to be the president of the united states, and insist that either the entire section gets deleted, or my link stays, but I'm not going to do that, and do you know why? oh yes, becasue unlike one of us, I'm not an overtly passive aggressive sockpuppet designed to make other people seem more reasonable compared to me--205.188.116.138 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Dear anonymous I.P. that keeps getting ban warnings (i.e. maybe you should get your own login?),

    Thanks for the tirade,  I needed a good chuckle :)  --FairNBalanced 06:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the personal attacks, your last few socks were so boring, this one has flare--205.188.116.138 07:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've got a sockpuppet coming after me from nowhere calling me a sockpuppet. Hmmmmm... very interesting. Why not sign in with an I.D. Mr/Ms "Anonymous IP" Sock-Puppet? Or are you afraid of something? Like.... the truth?--FairNBalanced 08:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please, stop feeding the trolls! Kasreyn 17:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My last sockpuppet is currently getting crusty in my drawer. Thunder Cat 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia of FACTS, not conservative, "Nazi-Ass-Oil-Paid-For" OPINIONS, so best to keep it FACT-BASED. If it doesn't go that way, please continue DELETING opinion-based drivel. Thank you!!! --CALIFORNIAN

New Question

-Hi, I saw on Ronald Reagan's page a link referencing songs about him. George Bush Jr. has also been the subject of many songs, so I thought it would be interesting to include a page with references about George Bush Jr. in songs and maybe in popular culture in general. After all, he has been depicted in numerous tv shows, animation series, comics, books, films, sketch shows, songs and been imitated by numerous comedians and so on. I would be happy to write this page if here is consideration that it would be an interesting new part to information about him. And to calm down George Bush Jr. 's supporters: positive depictions may be included too, naturally...

- I think this would be a very interesting idea due to the very large selection of songs. Perhaps start a list to be added here?

I dunno... maybe something along the lines of List of popular culture references to George W. Bush? Just a thought. --Mark Neelstin 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this list might be large enough to put in another article, since it is about references to the President in the media, not the President himself, which this article is about. ---Idiot with a gun 01:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Iraq fourth most failed state

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4964444.stm

I think that it should be included in the article that George Bush's policies have objectively created the world's fourth most destabilized, ineffective state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.189.4 (talk • contribs)

Interesting...the Insurgency, by different estimates anywhere from 20K to 200K, consists of less than 1% of the total Iraqi population (25 million). The majority of Iraqis, 80% Shia and Kurds who were oppressed under Saddam's regime, are now in the process of establishing a new government, and finally, 2400+ Americans have been killed in 3+ years since the Iraq War began...a total which is 13,600+ less than the 16,000 which are killed (murdered) by other Americans here in America every 1 year and about the same number of Americans who were killed in 1 day during WWII.... Jeravicious 19:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As if Germany wasn't regarded as a "failed state" after WWII, or South Africa was in a fine state in the years after the dismantling of Apartheid. Iraq, as a state, had objectively failed long before the Coalition's troops walked on Iraqi soil, and it'll take a number of years to correct that. Granted, the US has made mistakes in Iraq, but to suggest that everything must be perfectly alright only three years after the deposal of Saddam Hussein is ludicrous and extremely naive. It took Germany four years after the end of WWII just to agree to an interim chancellor, yet everybody proclaims endless doom when the Iraqis take three months to form their first democratic government. — Impi 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Only facts are included in articles. BlueGoose 01:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

First 3 failed states

• Louisiana
• California
• New York

--mitrebox 02:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can someone produce a scholarly opinion either for or against this statement? If not, they are Original research --CTSWyneken 00:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the information is important, but not to a George W. Bush page; this information will be changed (for good or for ill). Its place is on a page about the conflict, not about the leader behind it. --Randvek 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this information is merely a political debate. This appears to me to be just "Bush Bashing". It is my opinion that this information not be included. Athenon 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Section titled "ism"

I don't know what the title of this section was supposed to be, but I'm fairly certain it isn't "ism."--DCAnderson 21:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I fixed it.--DCAnderson 21:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

UCS report

FairNBalanced: I object to your removal of the sentence "Since that time, more than 8,000 signatures have been added to the UCS report, which includes 49 Nobel laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and 171 members of the National Academy of Sciences" on the rationale that it "...reads like an advertisement for UCS." The deleted phrase has little to do with the UCS as it specifically describes non-UCS signatories to the report. What you have left in the article makes it appear that the report is entirely and solely supported by UCS members and lacking widespread non-UCS agreement. That is dishonest and misleading and that is why I object to your removal of the phrase. --ElKevbo 18:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo, it would help if you would not characterize FairNBalanced as dishonest and misleading.

Second, can anyone find a citation that says these additional scientists signed the statement? If not, I'd support its deletion. If so, it should stay while we ask if it belongs in the article. I'd like to know how the whole paragraph is relevant to a biography of George Bush, to be honest. --CTSWyneken 19:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there friend! I certainly didn't characterize FairNBalanced as dishonest and misleading. I characterized that particular edit in that manner. Namecalling isn't going to get us anywhere and I certainly hope I don't appear to be engaging in it! My apologies if it appeared otherwise! --ElKevbo 21:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The citation was originally in the article, but it got removed. I reinstated it. Kevin Baas 20:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The whole fuss about the nature of the UCS is largely missing the point. The important point is that so many well-known scientists have chosen to put their names on this report. The fact that the report was organized by and published by the UCS is not terribly important. If the Heritage Foundation (just to pick an arbitrary example) were to publish a report that attracted the support of so many prominent scientists, it would be just as irrelevant to concentrate on the nature of the publisher. This is also why it is not a good idea to have so many words in this section about the nature of the UCS. This is not an article about the UCS. Readers should be expected to go to the UCS article to find out more if they wish. - Hayne 19:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt the report is important. But why is it important to an encyclopedia article on George Bush? --CTSWyneken 19:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If the article on GWB includes discussion of controversies over WMD and Iraq, then it doesn't seem out of place to also have mention of the fact that so many scientists are appalled at the non-respect for science shown by this administration. It is an important criticism of GWB.- Hayne 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this section to be invaluable to the bio. This statement collapses a variety of significant incidents into a tidy summary. While the report itself includes various references as to what the organization and its signatories deem relevant, this is also a nice, general paragraph that captures the tension between some in the scientific community and the Bush administration--without delving into alleged incidents of overtly political, underqualified appointees to the FDA's Reproductive Health Advisory Committee, or allegations of political tampering at NASA.DBaba 20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a perfectly valid point and worthy of discussion. But *if* it's going to be included then it needs to be "properly" included and its relevance and impact fairly documented. I have no opinion one way or the other about the inclusion of the article itself. --ElKevbo 21:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If you all want to keep it, that's fine by me. Let's fully cite the thing and carefully. If it's going in, then perhaps we need to ask: what was the White House's reaction to it? Do we have a citeable source for that, too? Are there scientists of note that take exception to it? --CTSWyneken 21:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are looking for. The reaction by Bush's science advisor is already noted in the article (and cited). - Hayne 22:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

~

• Kevinator, your apology is accepted. There is nothing dishonest about trimming the UCS section, other than portraying the organization. Regardless of non-UCS signatories, the UCS wrote the report. There is enough anti-Bush sentiment in academia these days that politics trump science. The report was looked at by the administration, and dealt with appropriately. The report is highly biased, politicized. Pres Bush certainly has made questionable appointments in his time, but even after Bush is out of office in two years, the UCS will still be around wreaking their own havoc.

Several users essentially stated the CRC link should be deleted because it is run by "right wingers". How about deleting the UCS report since UCS is run by left wingers? No? Hypocrisy.

Deleting activist cash because of poor referencing? How about use of the word "prominent" regarding the 62 scientists? The only people calling these scientists "prominent" are UCS, and this is clearly POV. Do any other references say "prominent"? No, just those referencing the UCS. Have you ever heard of any of the 62 scientists? No. Will you delete it? No? Hypocrisy.

Deletion of activistcash and CRC on the grounds they are lobbyist organizations. THE UCS IS A LOBBYIST ORGANIZATION!

How about trimming this section down due to lack of relevance? How did the report achieve its goal of influencing the current administration? When the UCS came out in favor of the Kyoto protocol, something that would affect EVERYONE, OISM.org started a counterpetition gaining more than 10x the UCS petition signatures. So why is there no counterpetition to their current anti-Bush petition? Because nobody wants to waste their time on it. The UCS document achieved nothing. There's no need for widespread debate on this report because it already failed in its task by itself. The libs here seem to love it because it is anti-Bush, but the quality of the report is itself questionable. I can understand why you are anti-Bush, but the hypocrisy stands that UCS distorts science for their own agenda EXACTLY as they claim about Bush.

In fact, the way the UCS section reads according to the POV pushers here is like a wiki-Bono-edit. What's that you ask?

From the Bono page:

News reports state that in March 2006 a group associated with Bono has started a campaign of altering articles about politicians whose attention they want to attract at Misplaced Pages. , ,.

These stories are referring to these edits: , .

Honestly, the UCS section should be a little snippet at MOST, because as Commodore pointed out, there is a UCS article here in Misplaced Pages that people can go to for more information. Bottom line, there are a LOT more than 8,000 scientists in this country and around the world. The fact that they only have that many shows it's just an example of the most extreme politically biased. Bottom line: the UCS report is political horsepoop.

Does anybody remember the "prominent" scientist who was on the public record that HIV doesn't cause AIDS ? --FairNBalanced 23:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

^^^

The UCS article here is a good place for people to find out about criticism of UCS, including the false claim that it is run by "leftists." (I frankly don't see how Bono is involved, but if you can establish his connection to the UCS through published sources, that might be a good place for such material as well). The article here should have the information relevant to Bush only, including the material you deleted, that points out that the UCS report was signed by many prominent scientists besides members of the UCS. The criticism of the UCS belongs here only if it is directly relevant to this report; it does not seem to be, which is why it was appropriately removed.--csloat 23:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I almost agree with you on the word "prominent", but the authors included Nobel Laureates... If the laureates aren't prominent, then what scientist is? Would you prefer to eliminate the word "prominent", and instead indicate that Nobel Laureates contributed to the authorship of the doc? Has Activist Cash garnered similar support from among the most decorated scientists in the world? This isn't about UCS--this information would not be included if not for the overwhelming support the scientific community has accorded the petition... A petition that is not "anti-Bush", but rather anti-politicization of science. DBaba 00:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bono -- Sorry, I hoped it would be easy enough to figure out, but perhaps it requires some explanation. I'm not saying Bono is anywhere involved with UCS or GWB. I'm talking about a news story that Bono's staff made Misplaced Pages edits with the sole purpose of influencing politicians. It's this style of Misplaced Pages edit that's suspiciously similar to the UCS snippet in the Science section.

The report went nowhere, accomplished nothing. This Wiki article, however gets a lot of pagehits. Lots of people see it. UCS doesn't deserve a soapbox here. If they really want to know about it, they can go to the Union of Concerned Scientists page. BTW, the claim that UCS is run by leftists is not "false". They do, however, try to portray themselves as neutral. That's part of why I have no respect for them. At least the activist cash site is honest and says they are committed to "providing detailed and up-to-date information about the funding source radical anti-consumer organizations and activists." At least you can say they are honest about their agenda. The UCS is dishonest and misleading when they characterize themselves as an "independent nonprofit alliance" and "citizen advocacy" group, as if they represent all citizens. There is no way that you could honestly look at the history and leadership of the UCS and think they were "not leftist" (specifically leftist environmentalists).

DBaba, the version per my last edit was honestly the most NPOV version. I don't think it needs any more or less words than how I left it. I have a problem with UCS and their falsely presenting consensus of the scientific community. The phrase you used above "overwhelming support of the scientific community" indicates they have accomplished their goal of making people think their viewpoint is the one accepted by all scientists.

48 Million people in the last election didn't vote for George Bush. (That doesn't include people who didn't vote who are against Bush.) With all those people, they could find only 8,000 scientists to sign a biased report.... There is no counterpetition for one good reason- a counterpetition is not necessary. But if there was one, I would bet my life you'd be able to find more than 8,000 scientists, including Nobel Laureates, who'd agree the UCS report is a meaningless pile of horse manure. --FairNBalanced 01:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, you'll have no problem starting such a petition; once you get over 8,000 signatures, including Nobel Laureates, I'm sure you'll have no trouble getting that original research published in a reputable source. At that point in time it would be appropriate to add this claim to Misplaced Pages. As for Bono, I can assure you that Bono did not ask me to make any edits to Misplaced Pages, unless it was through some kind of subliminal suggestion hidden in a U2 song. I wouldn't put it past him, which is one of the many reasons I don't listen to U2. In any case, until your petition is finished and your original research is published, the article should refer to the UCS report and to the signatories of prominent scientists besides those in UCS.--csloat 01:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• C_Sloat - to be honest, I prefer dealing with ElKevbo. He's not a smart-ass, AND he understands the points that I try to make (even though he may not agree). Let me lay this out simpler, since my prior explanations were obviously insufficient. Bono has nothing directly to do with you, or me or this particular article. He was used as an E-X-A-M-P-L-E. There was a recent event that gained some notoriety for Bono. A member of his staff (allegedly) made edits to a congressperson's WIKIPEDIA entry in a deliberate lobby attempt. They wanted more money from the U.S. Budget spent on Africa, and made an edit to Jim Nussle's page because he is Chairman of the House Budget Committee.
• On the same token, I'm not saying the person who edited in the info on the U.C.S. report to GWB's page here is affiliated with U.C.S. in any way. What IS clear is that certain people who edit Misplaced Pages agree with the report, AND their inclusion of all the "prominent" scientist garbage, meanwhile whitewashing UCS controversy is very soapbox-ish. The report was looked at, and appropriately discarded by the administration. The UCS report only means anything to the anti-Bush-Bots, and unfortunately focus on this type of crap distracts away from REAL criticisms of the president (such as out-of-control spending).
• So no, Commodore, I have no interest in starting a counter petition. Neither does anyone else. That's the point. The U.C.S. people have gotten way more time devoted to them than they deserve.--FairNBalanced 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on the Bono thing; what is it an example of? Never mind, I'm happy to drop it if you are. As for the UCS thing, if you're not interested in a counterpetition, you should stop pretending that the report should be rejected out of hand. The only issue of concern here is what belongs on this page. A criticism of this particular UCS report might be useful here. A blanket criticism of UCS on another issue from a right-wing lobby group really isn't.--csloat 04:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I missed the White House reaction to the report already being in the article. That should do. Do we have anything on the reaction of other scientists? (That is, citeable material)

Another thing to be clear about. We're not here to catagorize, comment upon, etc. what sources say or who they are. That is the place of articles about the sources. What we are to do is use respected sources. So, for example, if we don't like what C. Everett Koop says, we can find something about him from Jocelyn Elders or in reverse. --CTSWyneken 01:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly right CTS. The UCS is a biased left-wing-lobbying organization. So I found a biased right-wing-lobbying organization that attacked the credibility of the UCS. But most editors here are left sympathizing and just deleted the right wing site. Believe it or not, I emailed the right wing site asking for better references for their material, we'll see if they respond. --FairNBalanced 04:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The UCS is a respected organization of scientists that has been around for decades. This isn't about left wing/right wing; it's about keeping this page about George W. Bush. Take your UCS-bashing to the UCS page.--csloat 04:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

FairNB, you've got to understand, I don't agree or disagree with the report. But how can you accuse these pre-eminent scientists who've attached their names to the document of being politically motivated in doing so? There's absolutely nothing to substantiate that assertion. It's not about UCS. These are Nobel Laureates. You've tried to hide their sponsorship, and you're now trying to change the subject. I'm all for agreeing with you and working to consensus here, but you're not even addressing the actual issue. It's not about UCS or your AIDS-HIV doctor or about Bono or about the budget or about "libs", it's about Nobel Laureates, with very specific criticisms of administration policies, alleging political tampering with government-funded science. Again, the same criticism that has surfaced elsewhere, and has come from several high-ranking NASA officials whose names don't even appear on the petition. DBaba 05:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's stay calm here. First, everyone has an agenda, even including the most respected scientists. Second, it does not help to characterize one side as liberal and one as right wing.

To be honest, I do not see the relevance of the report to a short bio of George Bush at all. It would be appropriate in a larger one. The problem is this: we need to be sure that all viewpoints are represented. The question here is do we have some scientists that disagree with the report and, if so, do we have enough of them to be worth the mention. --CTSWyneken 07:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed the question of relevance already above when you first asked this question. The science policy of the GWB administration has attracted much criticism. This article is (obviously) not just about GWB the man, but is also about his policies. - Hayne 09:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing the "by 62 prominent scientists" from the article. This fact about the authors of the report is more relevant than the fact that it was UCS who published it. FairNBalanced in particular has been going on and on about the supposed bias of UCS and how too much attention is given to UCS in this GWB article. Given that point of view, it would seem more reasonable to remove the words "Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report" and just say "a report by 62 prominent scientists alleged ...". I.e. the most important thing is that many generally respected scientists are complaining about GWB's treatment of science. I think it is appropriate to keep mention of the UCS but it isn't appropriate (in this article) to include extended criticism of the UCS itself, anymore than it would be appropriate to have criticism of the New York Times in an article that mentioned something published in that newspaper. - Hayne 10:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC) And just to point out that the complaints expressed in the UCS report are widely supported, here's a few articles from mainstream physics publications as well as another mainstream publication not usually considered left-wing:

• Physics Today
• American Institute of Physics
• The Economist

- Hayne 10:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read your first link, and if anything it supports my position more than yours. The report was written and arranged by the UCS. There is NOT scientific consensus on global warming. These are facts.

If you hate Bush with all your heart, that's great. I've been disappointed with him myself, but regardless, the UCS report is a pile of horse turds. Listen to yourself, my Canadian American hating friend... You DON'T want opposing viewpoints. That should send up a red flag.

If you'd like to advertise for this UCS report, you should pay for advertising with some advertisers. Otherwise your attempt to puff up this report as if it is meaningful (it has already gone nowhere) is shameful, at best. My issue here is not that it is an attack on GWB. My issue is that it is free advertising, obvious POV for a radical left organization.

Re-read the article you claim to have read; the only voice in there supporting your position is Marburger. This is not advertising. The statement of prominent scientists accompanied the UCS report. But it was not the same as the report, and you have to attribute the statement to its signatories, not to the organization who may have brought it to their attention. Of course, your claim that "there is not scientific consensus on global warming" is nonsense, but this isn't the place for that conversation. This also has nothing to do with hating Bush or Canada or advertising UCS or whatever else you are on about. --csloat 20:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, please assume Good faith. Rhetoric like that you use above just makes people defensive. May I suggest you join me in backing a moratorium, such as below? --CTSWyneken 21:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is harder to assume good faith when editors start using "rhetoric" like "my Canadian American hating friend". I have no idea where that came from. Yes, I am Canadian, but I don't hate America. And my edits are always done in good faith and with best regard for the truth. It seems amazing to me that FairNBalanced thinks I'm "advertising" when to me the truth of the matter regarding the scientific community's opinions seems clear and thus I think it should be strongly presented in this article. - Hayne 22:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Moratorium

May I suggest a moratorium on editing the UCS sentences in this article? It is very difficult to discuss our way through to a text everyone can live with in near edit war state.

So, everyone, please calm down! If we cna't do this, I'n going to request the semi-protect go to a full blown block.

I'd like to ask that we also cease debate and try an exercise. (You can suggest I go jump in the lake. It'd be good on a day like this! ) Would folks be willing to comment on the subjects below without directly commenting on each other's words? Let's do this for two days or so and then make proposals here.

I think the GCS report belongs/doesn't belong

• Doesn't Belong at all because it is a minor chapter in the presidency of George Bush. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Could Belong but mostly irrelevant. The report failed in its task. The UCS is clearly a biased organization, as is its report --FairNBalanced 22:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Belongs; represents culmination of widespread antagonism between administration and scientific community, antagonism drawing from factors ranging from ID controversies to allegations of political tampering with staff and data at NASA and FDA (also, in effect, makes noting said allegations within this bio unnecessary, IMO). May have precipitated Bush plan for advancing math and science among HS students, as per 06 State of Union speech.DBaba 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Belongs, but should be shortened. It is important, but not vital enough to warrant that much space. I think it should be reduced to a sentence or two. Certainly no more than a paragraph. --Randvek 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If it stays, I'd like the article to:

• State in one sentence what the report is, in another what the White House response was and in a third how other scientists responded to it. All of this should be done in a neutral way and each sentence cited from responsible sources. --CTSWyneken 20:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• if it stays, I agree with with CTSWyneken above. The UCS snippet should not read like an advertisement for U.C.S. (and its biased agenda). Referring to scientists as "scientists" is NPOV. The U.C.S. petition does NOT represent "scientific consensus". 8,000 scientists is a small fraction of the total number of scientists eligible to sign the petition. The lack of a "counter-petition" doesn't mean scientitsts wouldn't sign one. Rather, the lack of a counter petition only signifies its insignificance and irrelevance. The U.C.S. petition, despite its affiliation with "prominent" scientists, rightfully failed in its task.

I used to be an "environmentalist" and even protested alongside the EarthFirst group. Eventually reality kicked in. The truth is that most of the environmentalist movement has more to do with a political agenda than implementing policies that actually help people and the planet. Do you know who Patrick Moore is? --FairNBalanced 23:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I had to take the tiny url link away, since the spam filter blocked it.

This article is not about Earth First, who have nothing to do with the UCS or GWB. It is fine for you to have a POV about the UCS but it is not OK to insist on portraying the situation falsely, as if the only people who have a problem with Bush's science agenda are a bunch of SUV-vandalizing commie tree-huggers. The fact is that many prominent scientists have been outspoken about how uncomfortable they are with Bush's science agenda. The suppression of facts and scientific opinions to promote the Bush agenda was the topic of a Congressional investigation that "found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings." That noted organ of communist subversion Physics Today describes the petition attached to the UCS report as the "independent" statement of 62 "prominent" scientists. The journal describes in detail why this belongs on this page:

Perhaps carrying more weight than the report itself was the accompanying statement signed by 20 Nobel laureates, several former federal science officials, and many other scientists. The statement charges the administration with manipulating and misrepresenting science for political gains. Like the report, it describes specific incidents. On the issue of global warming, for example, the statement says, "In support of the president's decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large." In comments made when the statement was released, one signatory, Neal Lane, President Bill Clinton's science adviser and a former NSF director, said, "We are not simply raising warning flags about an academic subject of interest only to scientists and doctors. In case after case, scientific input to policymaking is being censored and distorted. This will have serious consequences for public health." (emph. added)

-csloat 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Really FairNBalanced, you were an environmentalist? That's so great!! Maybe we could talk about your background, Bono, HIV, and Patrick Moore in some more appropriate forum... In the interim, I rescind all objection to FairNB's partisan legerdemain on the basis of his once having been an environmentalist, a historical fact that clearly and with authoritative finality undermines the credibility of all Nobel Laureates living and dead, not to mention all environmentally-interested organizations.

DBaba 00:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• LOL :) _ You're the one making logical fallacies, not I, my Baba friend. I never said association with U.C.S. undermines credibility of ALL Nobel laureates (as you just implied that I did). I'm saying that a person winning a Nobel Prize does NOT mean they are above bias or politically motivated attacks. Surely you can find such a statement reasonable? I know you're an intelligent guy (or girl)... Nobel laureates have obviously mastered something in the field they are awarded their prize. Well, not OBVIOUSLY, (i.e. Yasser Arafat & Kofi Annan). But anyway, being a Nobel laureate doesn't make them god-like, and it doesn't make their political opinion any more valid than someone else's. Template:User Chuck Norris --FairNBalanced 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP! This exchange of ad hominems does not resolve a thing. --CTSWyneken 11:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I really, really don't want to get involved with this dispute, but I'd just like to interject here that while a scientist's having won a Nobel Prize certainly doesn't make them infallible it does certainly make them "prominent". (I do seem to recall a recent edit war over whether they were "prominent" or not.) I can't think of any other distinction that's as certain to win immediate respect from a listener from either side of the political fence as "nobel prize-winning scientist". Cheers, Kasreyn 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• In deference to FairNB, omit 'prominent' at beginning as long as end context remains citing Laureates. In fact, all 62 authors probably cannot each be 'prominent', as they are not all Laureates, making this adjective errant. Current edit includes Physics Today quote citing Laureates and final sentence doing the same, and this redundancy constitutes a slant, IMO.DBaba 21:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the "edit wars" here have been caused by a difference in understanding of just what is meant by the term "prominent" in regard to scientists. Someone had said something like "Have you heard of these scientists" as if that was a pre-condition for them being called prominent. But I think the term prominent is merely indicating that these people are prominent within their profession. They aren't movie stars or baseball players. But just calling them "scientists" (without adjective) is misleading by omission. These are not a random selection of scientists. They are indeed (at least on average) prominent. See for example the Scientific Integrity in Policymaking article where I have listed each of those 62 signatories. Look at how many of them already have their own Misplaced Pages page. That would indicate prominence to me. - Hayne 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... could we not actually discuss the issue? I'd like to have us all list what, in a perfect world (if we got everything we wanted... ;-) ) we would like to say about this issue. We can then review what folks would like and the case they've made. We may discover we're not as far apart as we think... --CTSWyneken 22:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

CTS, I think you nailed it in your first comment in this sub-section --FairNBalanced 23:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

citations needed

I ran a search through the article for "citation", and found everything marked "":

• He trained in the guard for two years, where he was among the last to learn to fly the F-102, a plane not used in Vietnam and due to be retired.

Done. I changed the sentence slightly to accurately reflect what the source actually says. I also removed the sentence immediately following the citation regarding Bush's promotion to 1st Lieutenant as it doesn't add anything to this very long article.

• Bush was later honorably discharged in 1974, having fully completed his required time in service obligations. However, critics have argued that he used a considerable amount of drugs during this time, including cocaine and alcohol.

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine - I think this article has some good points regarding the cocaine debate. If you were to integrate the information located in the aforementioned article with less emotionally charged language, you could add credibility to the claim, while maintaining that it is not fact. In addition, you could review the sources used by realchange.org and cite them. Also, I think this is too controversial to be presented as fact, rather, it should be represented as a controversial statement, stating both positions in the manner. What do you guys think? I would not remove the uncited statement all together because among those who wish to believe the worst is true about George W., this could bring some speculation backed with logical reasoning to radical anti-bush fanatics. My English is poor, so I hope you understand.

• In the televised Republican presidential debate held in Des Moines, Iowa on 1999-12-13, all of the participating candidates were asked: "What political philosopher or thinker do you most identify with and why?" Unlike the other candidates, who cited former presidents and other political figures, Bush responded "Christ, because he changed my heart." His decision to name a religious figure generated some criticism, even among some neoconservatives such as Alan Keyes and Bill Kristol.
• During his Presidency, Bush has also hosted celebrations at the White House for non-Christian holidays such as Ramadan . He also took a stand to retain the White House's main "Christmas Tree."

I tried looking for evidence of this about a week ago and didn't find anything. I don't think it really adds anything and since it can't be supported I'd like to remove it. Objections or discussion? --ElKevbo 17:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not since the 1888 election had a winner failed to receive a plurality of the popular vote. It was the first since the 1876 election in which the Supreme Court affected the decision.
• Less than three months later, however, the administration released budget projections that showed the projected budget surplus decreasing to nothing over the years to come.
• Currently a debate on the legality of President Bush's domestic surveillance program has led to public debate on the limits of executive privilege and some fractions within his own party. (boston globe, on impeachment)
• Bush's imposition of a tariff on imported steel and on Canadian softwood lumber was controversial in light of his advocacy of free market policies in other areas, and attracted criticism both from his fellow conservatives and from nations affected. The steel tariff was later rescinded under pressure from the World Trade Organization, although the lumber dispute is ongoing.
• As a percentage of GDP, however, the deficits are lower than those experienced during the Reagan Administration.
• In January of 2002, Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, with Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy as chief sponsor, which aims to close the achievement gap, measures student performance, provides options to parents with students in low-performing schools, and targets more federal funding to low-income schools. Critics say schools were not given the resources to help meet new standards, although their argument is based on premise that authorization levels are spending promises instead of spending caps.
• In December 2003, Bush signed legislation implementing key provisions of his Healthy Forests Initiative; environmental groups have charged that the plan is simply a giveaway to timber companies. Another subject of controversy is Bush's Clear Skies Initiative, which seeks to reduce air pollution through expansion of emissions trading.

Done. Not the best source, but good enough for now. Please add a better one if you find it. --ElKevbo 02:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• On 2004-01-14, Bush announced a major re-direction for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Known as the Vision for Space Exploration, ...

Done. See below. --ElKevbo 06:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• The Bush administration has threatened presidential veto of legislation on several occasions, usually resulting in a compromise report from conference committee. However, Bush has never yet vetoed a bill. If this continues, he will become the eighth president to serve without ever vetoing, and the first since James Garfield in 1881.
• The magazine TIME named Bush as its Person of the Year for 2000 and for 2004.

Done. --ElKevbo 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Along with the criticism on issues of foreign policy, President Bush has also taken criticism for his domestic policies, such as his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, which many considered slow, or his involvement in the Terri Schiavo controversy, for which he was harshly criticized by both the left and right for the perceived intrusiveness by the federal government in state matters, and for allegedly exploiting an emotional drama.
• As of late 2005 and early 2006, considerable criticism has focused on points such as the CIA Secret Prison controversy and the NSA domestic monitoring of communications.

Kevin Baas 19:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

==Requested citation found: New Vision for Space Exploration Program==

The Whitehouse website contains a press release covering Bush's remarks on the New Vision for Space Exploration Program, see . It would be nice if someone updated the citation.

Rmckeeth 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks so much for finding this! --ElKevbo 01:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That addresses the issue nicely. Got any more? 8-) --CTSWyneken 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Way to go, ElKevbo!

Thanks for doing the slog through references. As one who does this for a living, I can appreciate the work. Good work! --CTSWyneken 22:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed?

"During his presidency, there have been three federal executions (however, it is notable that all three were convicted and recommended for death sentences by jury before Bush came into office).

Does this really need a citation? There is a List of individuals executed by the United States linked in the sentence which gives the dates of the three executions. Evil Monkey - Hello 08:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

While a reasonable person could infer that anyone executed in the US around 2001-2003 was probably sentenced at least 6-8 years prior, thus preceding the current administration, it is not unreasonable to ask for citations in an encyclopedic article. Rexmorgan 08:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Added citations; removed Citation Needed category above. Rexmorgan 09:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In a hotly contested article, it is always wise to cite a source outside of the wiki for neatness sake. Thanks for doing that! It improves our work here. --CTSWyneken 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Waxman Report

In some manner it needs to be noted that the findings of the Democratic staff are not endorsed in any way by the Government Reform Committee or the House of Representatives.

The report is unofficial and independent from the committee.--RWR8189 05:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries to Science section & UCS report

Commander Sloat, this article is about GWB, it's not a soapbox for the UCS. You want the report info included, but you don't even care about the rebuttal? How can you even pretend to be NPOV?

Or is the fact that the rebuttal dismissing the report is totally correct too much to handle?

And not ALL of the scientists were "prominent", to say all 62 are prominent is a flat out lie. --FairNBalanced 06:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

and about the misleading edit summaries- you made 2 edits regarding "purported" and "unofficial"... neither of which related to my edit of Marburger's rebuttal. --FairNBalanced 06:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dbaba, please... gang reverts without cause should be discussed on the talk page. --FairNBalanced 06:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't appear to have proofread your reverts. You seem to have corrected your errors on the Boston Globe side, but should still be more even-handed with the rebuttal(superfluous facts like Marburger's PhD and alma mater, laying down two paragraphs to offset the half-sentence of UCS comment). Good rule of thumb: proofread a version at least once before reverting to it three times. You seem to agree with me that the Boston Globe para needed work or deletion, despite the fact that you re-appended it three times within an hour's time. I didn't realize you'd stick it on a second and third time without ever once reading your own reversion.DBaba 16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

FnB - my apologies for the Marburger deletion; that was unintentional. I am still not sure how it happened. The two edits were all I intended to make (and I re-made them). Again my apologies; I don't agree with you that the White house response is "correct," but I have no intention of censoring it.--csloat 07:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (also, for the record, I made a third edit too, getting rid of the silly "some of whom are prominent." The 62 scientists are recognized by Physics Today as "prominent"; I think that is reasonable enough.--csloat 07:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks, could we use more diplomatic language about each other?

I think we need to work to have a final product that mentions there is a report out there, any dissenting scientific voices, the White House reaction and whether it made an impact beyond all of that. Four sentences. Full cited. Reputable sources.

Do folks think we have that now? If not, please say so here without leveling charges of propagandizing against other editors. It would also be helpful to characterize our sources "spin" or "POV," and nothing more pejorative. On the wiki, they are allowed to have a POV, as long as opposing POVs of note are also logged.--CTSWyneken 11:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "prominent scientists" discussing science and "people who thing intelligent design is science" discussing science? (j/k) Kevin Baas 13:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... that would be a POV. Like saying, Scientists who think the Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to biology... We shouldn't editorialize like that former or my latter. --CTSWyneken 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for UCS Report

Primarly to reduce its length (it's too long for one issue in an already-long article about President Bush), I propose changing the section about the UCS report to the following:

On February 18, 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report alleging that "the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy". Physics Today noted that "a strongly worded statement signed by more than 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, charging the administration with manipulating and misrepresenting science for political gain" accompanied the UCS report. More than 8,000 signatures have been added to the UCS report, including 49 Nobel laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and 171 members of the National Academy of Sciences. President Bush's science adviser, Dr. John Marburger, responded to the UCS petition with a 20 page rebuttal asserting that the "UCS accusations are wrong and misleading the document has methodological flaws that undermine its own conclusions."

I made the following changes:

• (minor) Slightly changed the Physics today quote and sentence to make the sentence more active
• Removed "by 62 prominent scientists" as that is covered in the following sentence.
• (minor) Removed "Since that time" from the beginning of the "8,000 signatures added" sentence as an unecessary phrase
• (minor) Grammatical correction (from "which includes" to "including" - the signatures are still there)
• Greatly shortened the quote from Dr. Marburger. It was overly long for an article about President Bush. I believe I have retained the important information that there is serious disagreement with the UCS report from at least one prominent scientist.
• Removed the reference to Dr. Marburger's alma mater. Stanford is a fine school but this added nothing to this already-long article.
• Removed the reference to Dr. Marburger's Ph.D.. Not only is already noted with the title "Dr.," I'm sure interested persons can go to his article to find out more about his education. I think the titles "Dr." and "President Bush's science advisor" convey more than enough experience and prominence. Again, this is just an effort to reduce this section to its minimum acceptable length.

Have I added to the discussion or added to the mess? :) --ElKevbo 16:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like you to remove the comment of "fun in the sun" as it relates to the iraqi conflict. Ironic it may be, factual it is not...

This looks good to me, except, we should ask if any scientists disputed this report. If so, we should mention that, too. --CTSWyneken 23:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Drug and Alcohol use

It seems heavily biased to have George W. Bush as one of the only presidents who has a section about Drug and Alcohol use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadow7789 (talk • contribs) .

Agreed. Lincoln was a notorious drinker, as was Ulysses S. Grant. The latter was also a daily user of cocaine (cocaine-based wine products were popular at the time). This material should go in their respective biography pages if it isn't already.--csloat 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, go add information to those other articles. Don't treat it as an excuse to remove notable, sourced material here. Kasreyn 01:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bush's alcohol use led to conviction for a crime, in this case DUI; crimes are a matter of public record, and the public record is not "heavily biased." The known DUI was in Maine, however it is commonly known that Bush had his Texas Driving Record purged while he was governor of the state, which hints toward more impropriety, ans several "rumored" offenses have surfaced, but they should not be noted without solid verification. More importantly, Bush is on the public record stating that he is a recovering alcoholic; the first President ever to make such an admission. Noting facts which Bush himself freely offers hardly seems biased as long as they are offered in careful context.66.209.31.30 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, let's also not forget Richard Nixon's well known penchant for popping prescription pills-csloat 05:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That is a problem in the other articles, not this one. If you have verifiable sources, then please add information to the other Presidents' articles. --ElKevbo 13:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's no forget JFK's abuse of pain killer injections to treat his Addisons disease. Merecat 05:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

painkillers? Was that it? I thought he was also taking steroids for the Addison's as well as Ritalin, Demerol, and amphetamines. There were rumors of LSD use as well as I recall. Who wants to do the presidential drug research? Sounds like a fun research project ;) --csloat 06:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Shadow7789, have these replies answered your NPOV objections to the Alcohol Use and Allegations of Drug Use section? I'm prepared to take down the NPOV tag now, but please, reply here if you still feel the section is not neutral. Cheers, Kasreyn 04:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Kennedy was addicted to speed. --EP47

Where are the links to facts? Viihde 13:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a bit vague - can you please clarify your question? Are asking for more links on the GWB article or more information about the Kennedy/speed accusation? --ElKevbo 14:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics

How tall is he? I think that should be in the article. -- Dude

NYT Quote

Folks, whether we like it or not, the NYT is still a respected source, even though its rep has taken a hit these last few years. If an editor doesn't like the view expressed there, perhaps a National Review response can be had. --CTSWyneken 12:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

MONGO please stop deleting this notable editorial. It is in fact quite notable when the New York Times makes such a significant statement. Your assertion that the NYT is not reputable defies reality. And the NYT editorial itself refers on point to an article from the day before. Please articulate your reasons for wanting this deleted here rather than starting an edit war; thanks.--csloat 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a quote directly linked from an article in the newspaper or a reputable journal, I think we can do better though than use an editorial as that is usually also posted with a disclaimer to the effect that the newspaper does not agree or disagree with the comments...etc. If you find something that is similar from a source as I mentioned, then by all means, add it.--MONGO 09:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No; you seem to be thinking of an op-ed. An editorial is very much the newspaper's opinion. The source is beyond doubt reputable. The issue is not just one of stating the facts (as referenced by the editorial), but also of reporting the fact that the NYT put its weight behind a particular interpretation of those facts.--csloat 10:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am. I would prefer the comment or a similar one be less an opinion and more about comments made by third party and then reported...that gives it more weight I think. I don't consider the NYT to be far left, but they are not traditionally supporters of the Bush administration, so a comment from them may be biased to a degree. If something along similar lines can be found that fits into the realm of an article with cited comments from others, or in a reputable journal (Newsweek, Time, etc.) than I think it would be better.--MONGO 10:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't get that. You'd be happier about the NYT article if it wasn't saying its own words, but was quoting someone else? What good does extra indirection do? All it really does is add another link to the chain - another link in which quote-cropping can be used to insert bias. I'd say primary sources are better - if there were such an NYT story including quotes, I'd prefer to cite directly from whatever NYT was quoting from, and cut out the middleman. That said, I think the NYT, being one of the largest and most respected papers in America, is definitely a worthy enough source to make their opinion notable - millions of people, read the NYT's editorial page daily. As for the NYT's not being supporters of Bush, an equal case could be made against a paper which was a supporter of Bush, therefore the only paper you'd find an acceptable source would be a paper that never declared itself during the race. I think that's taking NPOV too far - NPOV is about making sure our article is neutral, not making sure we only use neutral sources. Kasreyn 13:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here goes: I have no problem with the NYT being either notable or reputable, that being said—the quote doesn't belong. What I do have a problem with is using an opinion, no matter whose, and using it as if it were factual and not a mere opinion. My POV, your POV, the editor of the NYT's POV, doesn't belong in this article. My opinion is certainly not notable, an argument could be made though that the NYT's opinion is notable, but only insofar as it is the NYT that has a particular opinion. As such, a discussion of an opinion held by the NYT editorial staff belongs in the article on the NYT as a supporting source for a section that deals with the political leanings of that paper. It doesn't belong in the article on George W. Bush—even though, and more to the point because, the opinion expressed is about Bush. Hopefully this has been clear enough. Fire away. --Easter Monkey 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But it is not being used as if it were factual; it is being used to state that the New York Times published a particular opinion! The NYT's view of Bush is important because the newspaper speaks with authority to millions of people. It is by definition notable. If you want to include the NYT's reporting on the issue also that is fine, but it is both relevant and notable that Bush has been accused by the newspaper of record with politicizing science. I'm not sure why there is any opposition to this at all -- clearly, we have other people's opinions mentioned in the article, some who are not nearly as notable as the NYT.--csloat 18:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, I think you mean well, but your delusion on the matter is utterly astounding. (1) You don't think the quote (the way you inserted it) is being presented an undisputable fact when IN FACT it's an opinion from the OPINION page (2) you don't think NYT, particularly the editorial page has a liberal bias..... seriously what world are you living in? I beg of you to try reading at least the first 6 or 7 paragraphs in this- NYT on the NYT and please make note of the source.

Also, your "notable" argument is weak. For example, Iranian president Ahmadinejad is most certainly a "notable" personality. Perhaps I should go to Misplaced Pages's entry on The Holocaust and quote Mr. Ahmadinejad (presenting it as fact from a "notable" source) that "the Holocaust was a myth" simply because Mr. Ahmadinejad is a "notable" source. --FairNBalanced 19:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's the opinion of a notable source, Mr. Fair and balanced. That is the issue. It has never been presented as fact (although it mentions facts, such as the fact that the FDA made the announcement). Your argument that the NYT is left-wing is ludicrous. It is universally recognized as the newspaper of record. The paper's opinions matter to the American public. Mr. Ahmadinejad's do not. Your comparison to the Holocaust is an irrelevant example of Godwin's law. Your citation of an op=ed from the NYT claiming the NYT is liberal only confirms why it is the paper of record -- imagine such an article being published in a truly left wing source like the Nation. Also it is obvious that the NYT has published many articles with a conservative bent as I noted above. The real issue here is that the criticism of the universally recognized standard-bearer of journalism is absolutely notable, no matter who they endorsed for president.--csloat 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that Godwin's Law is only a recognition of the statistic that, the longer a conversation continues, the probability of a reference to Nazism approaches parity. It was originally simply a sarcastic reflection on the predictability of discourse. Then some (in my opinion) rather snooty usenet types began to act as if a reference to Nazism meant someone had "lost" an argument. This has snowballed into the present, completely erroneous, usage, where people mistakenly think that Godwin's Law reads: "He who is first to reference Nazism in an argument automatically loses and must concede", which is utterly ridiculous. As if we should all abandon the use of a highly illustrative metaphor, just because it's overused! Kasreyn 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever made the claim that the argument was invalid because of the mention of Nazism. I said it was invalid because it was invalid. I am not against all uses of the reference; there are many instances where it is appropriate. But this is not one of them.--csloat 03:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And let's not forget our very own User:Jpgordon's Jpgordon's Law  ;-) --Mark Neelstin 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's law? LOL... nice try, but my analogy is still valid. "Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right." Perhaps you should re-read it, the way you are presenting the quote is blatant POV. Let it sink in a little, come back, we'll talk --FairNBalanced 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No; your analogy is ludicrous. This has nothing to do with Nazism or the Iranian president. You are now the one presenting opinion as fact, quoting Daniel Okrent to claim the NYT is "saturated in liberal theology".... and you ignore my argument that the NYT publishing such a screed shows why they are the paper of record and not some left wing rag! Now, you have not responded to the actual argument here, which is that the NYT editorial page is notable, whether you like its politics or not, and such a critique of the Bush Admin on this issue should not be censored from readers in this way. Please re-read the above arguments and change the page back after you have come to the right conclusion ;) --csloat 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Mr. Okrent is not right wing, so you think this proves your point - I see now. You may be interested in this. You might also want to read the rest of the article you pointed me to, beyond the "liberal theology" line.--csloat 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH OF THIS! There! I feel better! Folks, it is well passed time for you all to stop calling each other names, belittling each other's arguments, slamming the NYT because it is liberal or Limbaugh because he is conservative.

Let's get to the issue. NYT is a legit source. An editorial is representative of their viewpoints. OP-EDs are representative of their commentators. It is fine by wiki rules to quote them. If we do, it would be well that the quote be on topic and that we say something like: "according to the NYT," "according to _______ of the NYT," or "________, writing in the NYT states." If there is a nother view, representing another side to the argument, quote it. Ideally, the reply could be "Bill Krystol countered on Fox News Sunday... or in National Review..."

In short, every POV of significant support should be in. --CTSWyneken 19:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

the newspaper speaks with authority to millions of people. Oooh... and we little lambs can't form our own opinions without it! :-)

Edit war

Now I remember why I stayed away from editing this page. FnB is really not responding to the arguments about why the NYT is notable except to make absurd holocaust references and claims of left-wing bias. I'm not going to edit war over this but I hope the rest of the people here can have an intelligent discussion about this. Here is the controversy: I support this edit because it properly cites a notable source (the New York Times) criticizing Bush for politicizing science via the FDA's statement on medical cannabis. The editorial cites facts (another NYT article by Gardiner Harris), but it is clearly presented as the opinion of the NYT editorial staff. I consider that opinion notable, since it is the widely recognized newspaper of record. FnB keeps deleting this information claiming (1) that it is stated as fact (this seems incorrect to me, but if so, we should keep the quote and preface it differently), and (2) that the NYT is "far left wing," a claim which is absurd and irrelevant. The NYT editorial is notable because of the paper's prominence, not because of its possible bias one way or another. I propose a discussion on keeping this or not, and possibly a vote.--csloat 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Painful to Watch

Mr. Sloat, apparently you need a brush up on what analogy is. One of your main contentions for keeping the quote is that the NYT editorial page is "notable". I believe this is a logical fallacy on your part. I backed up my opinion that your logic was invalid by providing an example of how a source that is "notable" doesn't necessarily mean it should be quoted in Misplaced Pages. Is this article about GWB or the NYT editorial page?

Also, Sorry, I wasn't able to get through to the last link you provided, where you said "You may be interested in this." I don't have a NYT login, and although it's free, I have no desire to register with a newspaper that belongs at the bottom of my bird cage (since it's online, I'd have to put my computer monitor at the bottom of the birdcage, and that would get expensive).

Sloatster, you think this line here: "The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies" is NOT stated as fact?? My previous charge that you are delusional on at least several issues still stands. Pssst. By the way, the NYT is a liberal paper, particularly their editorial section. This fact is quite relevant, unless you'd like to change the Heading of the Science section to read "Criticisms of George Bush on Science" (in an article that's supposed to be a GWB bio). Hell, why not make the wikipedia search term George W. Bush automatically redirect to an article titled Criticisms of George W. Bush.

Let me guess, you probably even think Bushie himself is "right wing", don't you? --FairNBalanced 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious...what papers don't have bias? Russell Abbott 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled about this page, and I'm glad I did. The interesting thing is that on the Talk:Raymond McGovern page, you'll see csloat making exactly the same arguments against including an opinion quote from The Weekly Standard that FNB is making against the NYT here. I smell a double standard. The NYT opinion page is notable to nobody except to their ideological allies (csloat: before responding note I'm talking about the editorial page). The only way a liberal could not recognize the bias of the NYT opinion page is if they mistake their liberal political views for the truth and thus unassailable. That quote is nothing more than coatracking. Merzbow 23:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a NYT subscription and I love the paper, I think they do a good job in keeping things fair and neutral, however the editorial section is far from it. Its just a fact, it is what they are for, writers to take a side instead of just report. Its almost like someone saying the POST editiorial page isn't bias or the NY Daily News. I am not fully against the quote, just I think we should weigh it as what it is, if its from an editorial its just another persons opinion. --Zer0faults 00:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Merzbow, I don't know you, but you don't seem to be reading very carefully. My argument on the McGovern page is not the opposite of my argument here. When The Weekly Standard becomes the paper of record, I will consider their editorials "notable" in this sense. At this point, they have a recognized neocon point of view and are a fringe magazine, not a mainstream news source, and their credibility or notability in the public sphere does not hold a candle to the NYT, liberal or not. Like FnB, you keep referring to the bias of the editorial page as if that were relevant. Nobody is claiming it is unbiased. It is an editorial. But it is notable when the paper of public record takes such a position on these issues. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for you or FnB to understand this simple point.--csloat 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is heard by more millions. He is equally as biased to the right that the NYT editorial page is biased to the left. So he's no less notable than the NYT editorial page, right? So I'm sure you wouldn't object to me adding Rush's response (I'm sure he has one) to that quote? No, you say you don't respect Rush? Well tough, millions of people DO, probably more than the number who respect the NYT editorial page. How about we just not go down this slippery slope? Merzbow 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. He's a cartoon. I don't deny that many listen to him, and some even believe what he says, but his opinion is simply not as notable as the NYT's. They are two different things entirely. You must be aware of seeing this, no? It's not about liberal or conservative at all. Your claim that he is as equally biased to the right as the NYT to the left is comparing apples and oranges. The NYT has a staff of trained journalists and a century and a half reputation for accuracy in journalism and for playing a key role in informing the nation's power brokers. Rush has his pain medicine and a decade-and-not-quite-a-half long reputation for being obnoxious. Compare him to Oprah or Al Franken if you want to, but not the NYT. Anyway I'm not interested in continuing this nonsense. If you really think the NYT is the same as Rush Limbaugh, I really don't see the point of arguing.--csloat 02:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You're deliberately being obtuse. AGAIN, the subject is not the quality of the NYT's news, but the 'quality' of their opinions. You've come up with no objective method for comparing the 'quality' of pure opinion, apart from the listing the size of the audience. My opinion and that of almost everyone on the other side of the ideological divide from you is that the quality of Rush's opinion is superior to whatever collection of liberals is currently inhabiting the NYT editorial department. Once again, I challenge to find an objective method for comparing the quality of the NYT editorial page's opinion to Rush's opinion. Merzbow 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No; you are being deliberately obtuse. I understand what you are saying, but you are just misreading me completely. I never said audience size was the only measure of anything; re-read my claims above and you will see other obvious measures. But my overall point is that Rush and the NYT are not even in the same genre. If you don't understand that, there really is no point in arguing with you.--csloat 03:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I can simply my objection even further. What I see you doing is narrowing your definition of what constitutes a notable source of opinion so far that you exclude every news organ in the world, except for the NYT editorial page, which is conveniently far-left. Then you argue that because you're quoting from a 'notable source of opinion', this relieves you of any NPOV worries. This is subversion of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Merzbow 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The NYT editorial page has never been "far left." What planet are you reading the paper on? You just aren't addressing the issues I have brought up. It doesn't matter. I'm not interested in arguing with you, and I am not interested in defending this point any further.--csloat 03:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting theory, Merzbow. You posit that notability is based solely on circulation. I'd like to refer you to Misplaced Pages's Reliable Source policy, which stipulates that there are more requirements than simple popularity for reliability. Some specific examples (direct quotes):

(excerpts from Evaluating Sources):

• Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?
• Find out what other people say about your sources.
• Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know.
• Are the publications available for other editors to check? We provide sources for our readers, so they must be accessible in principle, although not necessarily online.

(excerpt from Using Online Sources):

• Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Misplaced Pages.

With this in mind, it would appear to me that WP:RS says there's a whole lot more to reliable sourcing than circulation or ratings numbers. Fact-checking in particular catches my eye. The NYT online official site explicitly details their fact-checking policy on their page regarding "guidelines on integrity". I searched for but was unable to find any information regarding fact-checking at Rush's official website. I can note that one of them was mentioned in WP:RS, though. Cheers, Kasreyn 12:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

FnB, I never said I did not understand your Iran analogy, but I responded to it. It is faulty. Mr. Ahmadinejad's opinion on the holocaust is not taken seriously by any Holocaust scholar, and by nobody in the US. The NYT's opinion is taken seriously by millions, even many who disagree with it. Your comments that the NYT belongs at the bottom of a cage or that it is "far left" are just plain nonsense that show how out of touch you are. I haven't denied that it is liberal, but I have pointed out examples of articles that go the other way (e.g. everything written by Judy Miller in the leadup to the Iraq war). You quote half a sentence and ask if it is stated as fact -- no; it is clearly prefaced with the statement that it comes from an editorial. I believe the phrase was "a NYT editorial notes"; we can change "notes" to "opined" if you prefer. I don't understand why you are so intent on hiding the fact that the paper of record came out against Bush's science policy? And why the hell are you calling me delusional? You're the one calling NYT "far left" as if they were endorsing CPUSA, and making absurd analogies, and you won't even bother to read the articles in the paper when I show you one that shows Okrent's opinion on this very issue.--csloat 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

FnB, if you don't have an NYT login, and aren't subscribing to the paper, then how are you so familiar with the liberal rabidity of the NYT? This conversation would be over already, with your own objection validated, if you'd simply refrained from proselytizing.DBaba 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the inclusion of the editorial. Why not take an excerpt from the actual article to which the editorial alludes? The opinion is inferior to the bare facts. It is not this opinion itself that is relevant to the biography of the president, rather the underlying facts. Until 49 Nobel Laureates back this one, I don't buy it as necessary to the bio--looks like the sentiments are already aptly captured in preceding para anyway.DBaba 02:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH OF THIS! See my comment at bottom of section the section above.--CTSWyneken 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An analysis of the NYT quote in question

I prefer not to engage in ad hominem arguments, so here is my take on the quote itself:

1. "The Bush administration's habit of politicizing its scientific agencies was on display again this week..." = biased, inflammatory.
2. "That seems disingenuous." = opinion.
3. "...according to scientists quoted by Gardiner Harris in yesterday's Times."—then we should get that quote instead.
4. "It's obviously easier and safer to issue a brief, dismissive statement than to back research..." = opinion.
5. "...the administration's inflexible opposition..." inflexible as defined by whom? = opinion.

From Newspaper of record: "...the government does not (and can not) define certain papers as having a right to print or otherwise restrict or license newspapers. Therefore, in the U.S. a newspaper of record is generally any public newspaper that has a large circulation and whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered professional and typically unbiased." Fine, the NYT is a newspaper of record. Yes, their opinion is notable. The quote in question does indeed contain factual information. But as it is an opinion, and presented as such, it isn't appropriate for this article. As I stated above, it might be relevant and indeed notable to include this quote in The New York Times article to demonstrate some characteristics of their editorial staff, but not here. --Easter Monkey 04:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Easter Monkey, do you have something from a clearly conservative viewpoint that rebuts this? If so, I'd love to see it in the article. Oh, BTW, see my comment at bottom of section the NYT Quote section.--CTSWyneken 19:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Neh, honestly, I'm just coming in and out—saw this discussion and threw caution to the wind. I did see your suggestion though and thought that that approach would be much better. Although I must say that the phrase, "every POV of significant support should be in" kind of gives me the willies. --Easter Monkey 01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiThePresidency.org

I added this link yesterday, but it got removed, the person saying that it was biased. I understand completely though I have put it back, but will not again, at least for a while. All that I will say is that even though now it does seem to be biased, the people at that site are putting in quite an effort to make it unbiased, and that soon we will probably have people from different points of view at that site. Also, I personally feel that even if the site is biased, no matter whether I agree with it, it has a right to remain. (I would say that if it were totally opposite of my beliefs as well).

Do what you want with it, I am just posting my reasons.

--Falconus 19:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it again--I respectfully disagree that this contributes to a good biography article. Please see What Misplaced Pages is not --> A Soapbox. I would be happy to include it again if it were to become a more balanced information resource. Thanks, GChriss 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be in their. if it's pov, that's irrelevant. it's a wiki. if the site administrators have a bias, it's completely irrelevant, because it's a wiki. really. Kevin Baas 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Lead

George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is the 43rd and current President of the United States and a former governor of Texas. He is currently in his second term as president, which runs until January 20, 2009. >>(change 'runs' to 'should run.')<< -- Dude

Go ahead and make changes to fix grammatical errors, and mark them as minor. ---Idiot with a gun 01:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noticing

In the first paragraph, it lists Bush's term as ending in 2009. I believe that elections are called every four years in the USA, making the end of his term 2008, not 2009.

The presidency is officially turned over when the president-elect takes the oath of office; this has traditionally been done the third Monday of January, if I remember correctly. Thus, Bush's presidency runs until 2009 even though the election is in 2008. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

2009 is correct, but it's noon on the 20th of January, regardless of which day of the week that happens to be. (It used to be March 4th, but that changed with the 20th Amendment to the Constitution). --Easter Monkey 04:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one last thing, the U.S. has no provisions to "call" for elections as is the case in most of the rest of the world. Normally elections are held every two years, since the House terms are only two years and the Senate terms are six. The Presidency is only up for grabs every four years — there are some exceptions but very few. Election day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November regardless of what else might be going on. Thus the only way to get a new President before his/her four year term is up is for the incumbent to die, quit, or be convicted by the Senate (not the same thing as impeached, btw.) --Easter Monkey 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dubya?

Where does this nickname come from, if I wiki it, I just get a redirect to this page. --Ktp72 09:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

From the article: "Among his family, he acquired the nickname "W" (for his middle initial; later Dubya, a literal spelling of a colloquial pronunciation of the letter), which later became a common public nickname, used both affectionately and pejoratively." --Easter Monkey 10:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Stands for "Worst". Gzuckier 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, actually it stands for Walker. I think you can verify this. ;-) --Mark Neelstin 20:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

HA! ur gay. and uncreativeJigsaw Jimmy 04:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no constructive purpose in making personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. If you have a point to make, find a civil way to do it. Kasreyn 09:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

aproval rating is an all time low

yeah why don't we talk about his aproval rating being 30%? -Dragong4

Because GEORGE DUBYA BUSH can DO NO WRONG, that's why!!! see the HYPOCRISY and MULTIPLE DOUBLE STANDARDS here????? --ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIAN

Hi, and welcome. This is a controversial topic which can lead to heated debate. If you are about ready to explode, please stop for a minute, take a deep breath, and relax your eyebrows. Repeat as necessary. Then, please fix your spelling and excessive use of capitals and punctuation. Thank you. --Rofl 04:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Owned. Had to say it.--Exander 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know, this aritcle is sooo biased it's not even funny. -Whatbitch999

Because you want it to be an article that attacks everything about him, right? --Lord Deskana 09:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

need to mention censure

According to this page , Feingold said Bush had ignored the constitution. This might be worth a mention in the article. It sounds notable to me.Eiler7 13:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw we make an article in the article called "controversy"

in that article will state EVERYTTHING that bush has done wrong, or everything that has been controversial, eevrything that people like to critisise him on, etc.

You may want to include this:

COUNTRIES large and small are rejecting President Bush's foreign policy by intimidation, and are banding together to counter the US superpower.

Nomen Nescio 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an article of opinions and partisanship, not the kind of article we are looking for. State what he did, and what happened. If you want to talk about popularity, find statistics. The term "wrong" is way too subjective. ---Idiot with a gun 01:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many protect tags!

Seriously. On an 800x600 display, you can't even see any of the article without first scrolling down. The tags are disrupting the article and redundant. Can two of the three be eliminated please? I don't care which ones. Readers need to be able to see the intro "above the fold" on the page load. Kasreyn 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The other two tags were added recently and were repetitively redundant and repetitious, so I removed them. Then I recalled Jimbo's suggestion and decided to be bold, moving the tag to the talk page. {{sprotected}} has recently been reworded to accomodate for the placing on talk pages instead of the actual page itself, so I think this works out well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say that was a pretty good move - I like it. Can somone explain how this is done? Is this just protecting the page via the admin tool and not placing the sprotect tag on the article? --Supercoop 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, protection is always and only done with an admin tool. The tag has nothing to do with it. And, yes, I also think the removal of that big distracting box from the article was a good move. Shanes 03:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The tag was placed back on the article page today, but I've moved it back to the talk page because most people (at least for now) seem to favor the talk page, and it was per Jimbo's suggestion on the mailing list. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just made this user style which hides those messages. --pile0nades 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I favor keeping the trimmed down version of the semi-protected template on the page. This is a popular page and when people come to it they deserve some sort of explanation on why they can't edit it, on this encyclopedia which anyone can edit. The argument "well, if they try to edit it they find out" doesn't hold because there is no obvious way to try to edit it - "view source" certainly isn't and it's not obvious that clicking "discussion" will get you the information you need. Haukur 01:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Was the intention to leave this article fully un-protected until the debate over what level of protection to apply is resolved? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• There does need to be something to tell people that this page is an exception in your not being able to edit it as a new user. I think the best solution is that we could try implementing a "Hide" function on the {{sprotected}} template; see {{APS Schools}} for an example I could find. This would seem to solve the problem of the template being too big while also ensuring the message stays prominent to new users. Harro5 01:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

My POV on the ongoing debate

Well, this is just an opinion, and only mine, so I'm sure it's not "notable;" however, I'm going to insert it here. The point of the New York Times article is very simple:

Although it reports factual findings from previous articles, it is an opinion piece. As I've been told many times, "Misplaced Pages is not the place for opinions."

This being said, the Bush article can be restructured to present the factual premises as fact, and the opinion stuff as "related opinion."

To those who think that Rush Limbaugh's conservatism is equal to the Times's Liberalism, I disagree, to put it mildly. The Times is much more centrist than Limbaugh. A better comparison would be Limbaugh to Mother Jones.

To those who say the article on Bush is couched in right wing bias, I heartily agree. One only has to read the German Misplaced Pages pages to see the difference (I can read German, so I can tell). Now, I don't mean that we should only post Mr. Bush's shortcomings in the article. We should include any successes he's had in life, as well. In my opinion, however, there are damned few successes, if any.

Just food for thought...

TheKurgan 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If the Times' liberalism is equivalent to Limbaugh's conservatism, then what about Al Franken, Michael Moore, etc.? Are they WAY more liberal than Limbaugh is conservative? Nope. --Kahlfin 20:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to aggree with TheKurgan. The GWBush page is still larded with intermittent right-wing bias, although it's slowly improving, and is a lot better than it used to be. I realize that it's hard to deal with the Bush worshippers, who often claim that facts are "biased opinion", as "FairNBalanced" has amply demonstrated. Sometimes there are not two sides of an issue, but the "he-said she-said" style makes it seem as if there are.

Example: "Bush’s supporters respond that broad powers in the War on Terrorism are necessary to prevent major attacks against the United States and that the president has not abused these powers. " Obviously the President has abused those powers: we already know that he sent an innocent Canadian to be tortured in Syria (Maher Arar), and threw out his lawsuit for damages based on an implausible "state secrets" claim; locked a US citizen up for years without bringing him to trial, only to admit that there was no particular reason not to bring him to trial (Jose Padilla); and those are just the most obvious examples.

Mentioning that Bush supporters believe that the President has not abused his power, without mentioning that they're clearly wrong, is in fact a biased presentation.

Another example. In "Foreign Policy", regarding the so-called "missile defense system". "The American Physical Society criticized this policy change, citing doubts about the system’s effectiveness. " These weren't "doubts", these were certainties. Everyone who's looked into it seriously knows that the system doesn't work *at all*. It couldn't even work properly in tests which were *blatantly rigged in its favor*. This is pretty much covered in the APS criticism.

Meanwhile, pro-Bush sections intermittently present opinion as fact. "A 1985 meeting with evangelist Billy Graham ultimately led Bush to devote himself to a more serious practice of Christianity , giving up alcohol, and beginning a pivotal phase in his life and career." Pure opinion, and hagiography too. Many would contend that Bush is not seriously practicing Christianity.

Unfortunately, this renders English Misplaced Pages a poor source for current affairs information. I'm not sure if there's any way within the Wiki medium to prevent the intrusion of anti-fact biases, though.

Incidentally, some improvements in coverage which could be made for the G.W.Bush page are: (1) "signing statements": related constitutional and rule-of-law issues. (a) Note that Bush applies these differently from previous presidents; while previous Presidents used them to declare that they were going to bring cases to court regarding constitutionality, Bush has used them to declare his intention to disregard a law *without* bringing a case to court. (b) Note that Bush applied such a statement to the McCain anti-torture bill (Or link to a full-length article on the topic.)

(2) Add discussion of issues relating to the extremely heavy use of recess appointments

(3) Discuss the controversy regarding the constitutionality of so-called "faith-based initiatives" (Or link to a full-length article on the topic.)

(4) Discuss Bush's illegal (in violation of FISA) domestic spying programs. (a) Note that Bush specifically stated to Congress in 2001 that he did not want any further amendments to FISA. (b) Note that he then started the programs in violation of FISA, without informing Congress. (Or link to a full-length article on the topic.)

(5) Cover the administration's well-documented penchant for secrecy, and the criticisms thereof.

(6) Cover the administration's aggressive responses to people who disagree with them.

(7) Cover foreign reaction to the Bush administration.

(8) Cover the case in which Bush signed a "law" not passed by both houses of Congress.

Most of these deserve links to full articles. In some cases, the articles already exist, but the links aren't clearly arranged.

There's almost no point in editing a controversial page on Misplaced Pages though, so I won't try. 24.59.100.172 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC) ANON May 25, 2006 24.59.100.172 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush, business and early political career

Is it really necessary to have an article on George W. Bush, business and early political career? Most of that info is already in this aritlce. It should be merged, but I know how you guys are always fighting about this article and all, so I will leave it up to you guys. Hopefully some bi-partisan decisionmaking can take place. --Midnighttonight 08:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Robertsteadman 14:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this would have to be a bi-partisan thing, seems to me like a simple issue of merging topics, not politics. I'm for it. ---Idiot with a gun 01:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, it was a partisan thing that caused the duplication of content in the first place, with one side (i'm not saying which) claiming that not duplicating the content of the subpage was obvious proof of liberal bias, said user has been indef blocked along with a small sock pharm, so it shouldn't be an issue anymore--152.163.100.74 01:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. My vote is for merging the two articles, deleting excess fluff, you know the deal. ---Idiot with a gun 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

George Walker Bush

I imagine this has been talked about before; however, I will throw it out again since I'm not quite willing to research reams of archives. Shouldn't the actual page of George W. Bush be moved to George Walker Bush and make George W. Bush the redirect? --Supercoop 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It is common wikipractice to use the most commonly recognized name, such as Ed Rendell, former mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and current governor of Pennsylvania, rather than Edward Gene Rendell, his proper name. - CobaltBlueTony 18:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• p.s. Dubya redirects to George W. Bush. Kinda the reverse of that... - CobaltBlueTony

Internationally, George W. Bush is rarely referred to as Dubya IMHO Nil Einne 20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace of Bush Senior in intro para?

Can anyone explain why George H. W. Bush's birthplace is included in the intro paragraph? It breaks up the flow of the sentence and - due to the clumsy use of mere commas - could be interpreted to mean George, Junior was born in Mass., which is incorrect. At the very least, the sentence needs to be reworded to avoid confusion. If no one disagrees, I will move Bush, Senior's birthplace down to the Life before Presidency section where it belongs. Kasreyn 23:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. It's unnecessary in an article about GW Bush. --ElKevbo 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Golbez beat me to it.  :) Kasreyn 01:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Cut from "Science" section:

The U.S. Supreme Court had previously found a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creationism in public school science classes was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the separation of church and state..

I don't know what this has to do with anything. Has someone suggested that Intelligent design is a form of Creationism? If so, who? And is this that person's argument that teaching alternatives to the standard theory of evolution is something like indoctrinating schoolkids with a religious idea?

Please answer one or more of these questions, and find a better way to contextualize this quote. Pending that, I think I'll just add a link to Evolution-creation controversy. --Uncle Ed 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in editing this article again, but I think it's obvious that ID is a form of creationism, and this has been recognized by the courts. And, yes, teaching ID in science classes is akin to religious teaching; more importantly, it is non-scientific (as, again, the courts have agreed). Take it to philosophy or theology classes. As for the quote, I think a link to the Evolution/creation page is fine by way of explanation; I'm sure this is already discussed on the Intelligent design page too.--csloat 18:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

PS the most recent court case in the matter, according to the ID page, is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), which clearly found that ID violates the Establishment clause.--csloat 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, that's a truly bizarre thing to say, Ed. Practically everyone opposed to ID has "suggested" - no, outright claimed - it is nothing more than creationism with a new name. Or do you mean suggested on this talk page? I'm puzzled. Kasreyn 22:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so we need something briefly explaining the opposition to Bush's proposal to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in science classes. How about a statement from an educational or scientific body asserting that ID is a form of creationism? --Uncle Ed 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the talk.origins page cited by ref#5 above, and it said:

• Louisiana's "Creationism Act" forbids the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science."

My understanding is that Creation science begins with the premise that God exists. I didn't think ID takes God's existence as a premise; perhaps it draws it as a conclusion?

We need to know more about this to repair the cut text. Otherwise just leave the link. Surely it's all explained at length in our Evolution-creation controversy article. --Uncle Ed 18:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Answering my own question:

• John E. Jones III, United States District Judge, wrote:
  • A "hypothetical reasonable observer," adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism.
  • The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

Does this help? We can portray this is a clash between the nation's chief executive and a District Court judge. --Uncle Ed 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you may not understand what science is, Ed. It is patently unscientific to "begin" anything with an a priori premise - especially one which is an unfalsifiable, untestable hypothesis. Science begins with doubt and observation, nothing more. Falsifiability/testability is a critical component of a theory being accepted as being scientific. ID fails this test entirely. Therefore, whether ID is religious or not, it is certainly incorrect to refer to it as science. Kasreyn 22:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I feel it would be dishonest to portray this as a "clash between the nation's chief executive and a District Court judge". Ridiculous! As if there's no one else in the country but Judge Jones opposing ID. This is, as far as I can tell, a clash between a great many ordinary citizens. Bush merely takes the pro-ID side because that is one of the things his supporters chose him for. It's not Bush's fight any more than it is my fight or your fight or Judge Jones's fight. Kasreyn 23:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is important to have the paragraph about that court decision in the Bush article since it shows the disconnect between what Bush thinks and what the courts have decided. I.e. it shows either that Bush is not a "reasonable observer" as defined by Judge Jones, or that he is not aware of the constitutional questions. - Hayne 23:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Smacks of OR to me. --ElKevbo 18:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you'll tell me what point of view should be inserted, to balance Bush's point of view, we can insert it. Who disagrees with Bush? A court? Atheists in general? A body of science educators?

Surely you're not saying that whenever a judge issues a court decision, this becomes a "fact" which Misplaced Pages should endorse.

How about something like this:

• On August 1 2005, Bush took a stance favoring the teaching of intelligent design (ID) alongside evolution in science classes, saying, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought ... people ought to be exposed to different ideas."
• Opponents regard ID as a reincarnated species of Creationism and argue on grounds of separation of church and state that it should not be taught in public schools (see Evolution-creation controversy)

If you don't want it portrayed as an Executive/Judicial tussle, then how about a "schools of thought" vs. "pushing Creationism" dispute?

I feel that this wording is better. It speaks more clearly to the point of the debate: not whether ID is "wrong", but whether it should be taught in schools. Your version seems to concisely state the opposing viewpoints: that ID is just another idea to be taught alongside others (on the pro- side), and that ID is merely creationism in new clothing which would violate the Separation Clause (on the anti- side). Kasreyn 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Scientific Integrity in Policy Making, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004.
3. Statement Signatories, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004.
5. Edwards v. Aguillard
6. Bush endorses ‘intelligent design’, Boston Globe, August 2, 2005
7. "Creationists, like biological species, come in many varieties: young earth, old earth, and a reincarnated species, intelligent design creationists."

Christmas tree

I deleted the statement " He also took a stand to retain the White House’s main 'Christmas Tree.'" It had been tagged with a {{fact}} tag for several weeks. I myself have searched unsuccesfully for verification of this allegation. If you add it back, please do so with a supporting reference in accordance with WP:LIVING. --ElKevbo 16:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

LA Times letter to the editor reference

I deleted the LA Times letter to the editor reference in the 2000 campaign section. A letter to the editor is very poor reference in this context. There are also two other references right next to it which are not only much better references but say the same thing. --ElKevbo 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

2000 election - plurality of voters

I deleted the statement "Not since the 1888 election had a winner failed to receive a plurality of the popular vote." from the end of the 2000 election section. There has been a {{fact}} tag attached to it for a few weeks. In addition, the wiki article to which it links specifically states that in the 1960 election the winner may have not had the plurality of votes. If you add it back, please do so with a supporting reference in accordance with WP:LIVING. --ElKevbo 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the claim appears to be accurate. I've just gone and checked each Wiki article on every Presidential election from 1888 to 2000, inclusive. (It's not hard at all). Assuming these articles are accurate, then Harrison's win in 1888 is indeed the last time this happened previous to Bush's lack of plurality in 2000. Note that in 1960, according to Misplaced Pages's article, JFK (the victor) had a very, very small plurality.

So how does it sound to reinstate the claim, backed by the same source(s) used by the articles on the 1888 and 2000 elections? If you feel it necessary, we could note that JFK's win came very close to breaking the streak in 1960. Kasreyn 16:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm not sure - I'm just trying to clean up the references (and lack thereof) in this fast-moving article. Please feel free to readd the statement; I won't delete it since I am not an expert in either politics or presidential elections. I prefer to leave the real work on content in this article to the content experts.

I do have some small concern about referencing wiki articles to resolve this issue as that seems to be circular logic and a violation of some policy or principle I can't seem to find right now (and if I can't find then I have no business citing it, right?). --ElKevbo 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't believe in internal citing. It's the scholarly equivalent of masturbation. :P I meant, I'm going to try to find whatever sources the articles on the elections use, and cite them here, too. Kasreyn 17:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with internal citing in principle. If the cited document is well-researched and well-written then it shouldn't be a problem. But I am uncomfortable assuming those two things about generic wikipedia articles. :( --ElKevbo 17:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I've thought of another problem. If I simply add a source showing no victor plurality in 1888, and another source showing no victor plurality in 2000, can I legitimately state "The 2000 election was the first U.S. Presidential election since 1888 in which the victor did not earn a plurality of the popular vote" - or would that be original research? Ie., am I stating only what is sourced, or am I drawing conclusions, which is generally a no-no? Kasreyn 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first problem with that is you're using inductive reasoning. Your conclusion assumes more than the sources tell you, and it's possible for further evidence, such as a source claiming the 1960 election had a non-plurality winner, to contradict your conclusion. But moving beyond that, you have to watch out for the fine line between independant research and framing facts. In this case, if you were to, for instance, cite a comprehensive list of votes that showed that this was the case, but didn't explicitly state it, you would merely be framing the facts of your source in a new manner, and highlighting a curiosity. But then we get into the problem of whether highlighting this curiosity would count as bias. In my view, it probably would in this case, due mostly to the fact that if you can't find a source that confirms this directly, then it isn't already reasonably well-known. And since in this case, it puts Bush in a negative light, it probably counts as bias. (But note that any such highlighted fact that put him in a positive light would also be bias.) DrLeebot 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the first question is not, "is it biased to include fact x", but "is fact x notable?" If fact x is found to indeed be notable, then a neutral way of including it ought to be found. My opinion is that it's mildly notable, but I don't know what other editors think, which is one reason I haven't added it to the article. Kasreyn 20:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree that facts themselves are above bias, and personally claims otherwise and resorts to truthiness are one of the things I really hate about this administration. Where bias can come in is in how you state the facts, and which facts you choose to state. In this case, I'd say that if this fact is notable--that is, someone else has already pointed it out--then it's probably unbiased for us to state it (giving a reference, of course). The problem I dissected above had to do with the implications of it not having been pointed out. But, seeing as Kchase02 has found a citation, this shouldn't be problem. I say we put it in, but note that there is a little controversy over the Kennedy election. DrLeebot 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we follow your reasoning to its logical extreme, making any such negative claim (such as "there were no non-plurality winners between 1888 and 2000") would have to be followed with some twenty-eight source links - one for every Presidential election in the meanwhile. Is this reasonable? Note that when I refer to a negative claim, I mean in the logical sense of claiming the absence of an event, not the political sense of a claim intended to harm another. It's my opinion that facts do not have bias; it is only human choices on which facts to relate, and how to relate them, that introduces bias. Kasreyn 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I found a source, a book by Richard Posner, that at least could be cited, but it doesn't clear up the issue. (word search for "1888") The truth is it depends on how Kennedy's votes are counted in 1960. See 1960_election#Alabama_popular_vote for more info. --Kchase02 (T) 03:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that looks reasonable. Probably best to put it in along with a note about the Kennedy election. DrLeebot 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that probably isn't reasonable for us to do, but it's what would have to be done for someone who's making that deductive argument. Our place is to find someone who has made that deductive argument, and quote them. Coming up with a new argument (even if completely logical and deductive) would count as original research on our part. DrLeebot 14:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced allegations in Administration subsection

I deleted the two following statements from the Administration subsection:

• Critics allege that Bush is willing to overlook mistakes and that he has also surrounded himself with “yes men”.
• Some commentators have claimed that deference to executive privilege was one of the principal considerations Bush’s administration considered when he proposed his three nominations for the Supreme Court, and appointed John R. Bolton to the United Nations.

Both statements have been tagged with {{fact}} for several weeks. They both begin with weasel words. Most importantly, WP:LIVING clearly states that "editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons." I'm not too happy about these deletions as I believe them both to be true but until we can find verifiable sources they clearly don't belong in the article. --ElKevbo 16:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Excuse me, but where is the new user who may have never edited Misplaced Pages before told that this page is the exception and not the norm when it comes to Misplaced Pages? I think that the semi-protection tag should be re-inserted in the article to make it very clear that the rest of Misplaced Pages is open. From what I see, there isn't even a tag on the talk page and the article doesn't even belong in the semi-protection category. Ronline ✉ 01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The protection templates have been subject to editing recently. See the section above "Too many protect tags!" for the status of this discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If the article is semi-protected, then the article has to say that. If people don't like the template been in, then unprotect the page. Leaving it semiprotected and then hiding the fact though not having a template is dishonest and not an option. FearÉIREANN\ 03:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is currently possible, but the way it should be is to inform potential editors that they cannot edit this page (due to semi-protection) after they click on the "edit" link. I.e. clicking on the "edit" link should bring non-eligible editors to a page that explains semi-protection and why they are currently ineligible. There should be no indication on the article page itself about the semi-protection - such notices are highly distracting for the huge majority of Misplaced Pages users who are readers, not editors. The primary purpose of Misplaced Pages is to provide an encyclopedia, not to provide facilities for editors. Editing is a means to an end, not an end in itself, thus Misplaced Pages should be optimized for readers, not for editors. - Hayne 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree - whenever an article is not subject to normal Misplaced Pages editing/oversight processes (ranging from semiprotection to Officezilla) we have a duty to notify readers of this - in the same way that if a TV report is coming from a restrictive country the anchorman will often say 'This report has been monitored by Government X' to tell viewers that the content might be different from what it otherwise would be. I'm all for removing the padlock icon - after all, other 'content templates' (e.g. Template:Cleanup) do not have any icons at all, they simply state the problem with the article, and provide appropriate wikilinks if a reader wants to know more. Cynical 20:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Most readers (I'm guessing) do not realize that Misplaced Pages is editable by anyone. Most readers do not come in through the home page. Hence, if the main purpose of the template is to warn readers about some condition that they might otherwise not realize existed, then we should maybe have a template at the top of all articles saying something like "This article has been written and edited by volunteers. Since anyone can edit this article at any time and write anything they wish, you should not trust the factual content of this article - it might have been subject to vandalism that we haven't yet noticed." Most readers don't care about the editability of Misplaced Pages - they appreciate that the articles exist and they trust them without thinking about where they come from. It's not that I'm against the anybody-can-edit philosophy of Misplaced Pages - far from it, I'm fully supportive of it. What I'm against is the idea that the editability is the most important thing about Misplaced Pages. The most important thing about Misplaced Pages from the point of view of almost all readers is the articles. And from the point of view of a reader, the semi-protection notice is equivalent to having a phrase like "This article is under more scrutiny than most of the rest of our articles so it is less likely to have been vandalized" appended to the above hypothetical warning. It seems as silly to warn readers about this as it would to have that other hypothetical warning on all articles. - Hayne 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Chart summary text in Public perception, assessments & approval ratings section

The text below the ratings chat is way too long (on my monitor there is more text than there is chart). I'd like to shorten the text in the chart to: "Bush approval rating from February 2001 to May 2006. Large increases in approval followed the September 11 attacks, and the beginning of the 2003 Iraq conflict." This is similar or identical to what was previously there before it was recently (yesterday or today) expanded. Discussion? --ElKevbo 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That chart is bad enough already. It's an original research chart, which means we ought to not even be using it. So at minimum, the source of the data must be mentioned. Also, the context about 2nd term ratings must be there. Neutral arbiter 03:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that using plotting existing data in a chart is necessarily original research any more than the infobox at the top of the article is original research. In addition, you can view source information about the chart by clicking on it and thus my advocacy for removing some information from this already-crowded article. I don't see the need for the 2nd term info as I believe that to be common information (indeed, common sense) for anyone who is actually interested in presidential polling numbers. --ElKevbo 03:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with ElKevbo, especially since the information in the caption is already written into the article. The image complements what is already in the text, so a long caption is unnecessary. --Kchase02 (T) 08:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone already began making one of the suggested edits so I'm going to go ahead and make mine. I welcome further discussion and suggestions! --ElKevbo 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I suggest that the religion part of George Bush's article be removed since his religious beliefs should have no bearing on anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfa (talk • contribs) 14:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A person's religious beliefs are definitely of interest in a biography. --ElKevbo 19:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ElKevbo. As far as a Biography is concerned--especially a biography of a leader--it is extremely important. Where we cross the line is when we start making comments on what is right or not. ---Idiot with a gun 01:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is especially ridiculous for a politician who campaigned openly on his religious beliefs. You surely can't be serious!! -Kasreyn 03:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Signing Statements/Unitary Executive

Is anyone planning to add information about these two concepts into this biography. Granted, Bush was not the first to espouse this doctrine, but he is the first to take it as far as it has gone. JJ4sad6 20:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that these subjects are better placed in one of the articles surrounding the controversies of his presidency, which I believe has already been done. As it is, this article is way too long to include everything that's simply notable about him; so we have to relegate information to other related articles whenever possible. DrLeebot 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Immigration Link

I have found an excellent source of information about Bush's Immigration Reform. The link should be included somewheres in the Immigration section 4.5.6. This is the link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/immigration/

Maybe you could add a See Also section under the Immigration section, but I'd rather a link in the text itself.

Jake 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The immigration "section" does seem like it could use some expansion, but adding a link in the article isn't how things are generally done (exceptions being references and when a word is linked wiki-like to another site). Preferably, someone should summarize what is said in this source and reference it. I'll get at it if I have a chance today. DrLeebot 13:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone in and expanded it and included the reference you provided. It could likely use some cleaning up by someone a bit more familiar with standards here. I believe that a brief note should be made about the claims of many critics that his plan to allow immigrants to stay amounts to amnesty anyway, but I left it out because I didn't have a link off-hand. DrLeebot 13:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Best moment in presidency was catching a fish

Should this be in the article somewhere? Bush told a German newspaper a few weeks ago that, since taking office in 2001, "the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5lb (3.4kg) perch in my lake." Of course, that can't be true, since the largest perch on record in the US is under 5 pounds. He said the worst moment was 9/11. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-05-31 19:42

I don't think it's particularly noteworthy. --ElKevbo 19:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A president's own opinion about the best/worst moments in his presidency is not noteworthy in an article on him? How do you figure? — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-05-31 19:48

I simply don't think this particular comment is noteworthy. I doubt he was serious when he said it. I could be wrong and I'll merrily abide by the group's consensus to add or not add the statement. --ElKevbo 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you doubt he was serious? He said the worst moment was the 9/11 attacks. So, he was serious about that, but not about his best moment? On what are you basing this claim that he wasn't serious? Does anything in the BBC article indicate that? His full quotation was, "You know, I've experienced many great moments and it's hard to name the best. I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake." . This makes it harder to see how he wasn't serious. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-05-31 21:03

Agreed - Bush seems to have given it some real thought... "You know, I've experienced many great moments, and it's hard to name the best... I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5-pound perch in my lake." BD2412 T 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that a US President would seriously say that his best moment was catching a fish. On the face of it, it sounds like a poor attempt at humor. Without further context it's difficult to know for sure. I'm just trying to assume good faith. --ElKevbo 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion. Fortunately, at Misplaced Pages, our opinions don't count for much. We simply report on what others have reported. BBC, Reuters, etc, all state his comment without attempting to discern whether or not he was serious. Why should we Wikipedians believe it necessary for ourselves to personally discern his seriousness before reporting on it? Personally, though, I find it hard to believe that he would joke about something like that while mentioning the 9/11 attacks. To jokingly say that your best moment was a fishing trip, and then say that your worst moment was a terrorist attack killing thousands, I think that would piss off a lot of people. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-05-31 21:20

I agree that the statement was insensitive and completely inappropriate. My only concern is that it is such a bizarre statement that I fear it may have been taken out of context. You've got good sources and my opinion appears to be in the minority so go ahead and put it in. If others disagree then that will clearly get their attention. :) --ElKevbo 21:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, folks, can any body think of a better moment in his presidency? Kevin Baas 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

But from a certain perspective, namely, approval ratings, 9/11 was the best moment in his presidency. And I haven't seen any pictures of his fish. Kevin Baas 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok including it in the article, but whether BBC evaluated its seriousness or not, I think it's journalistically unethical to at least put some question as to whether or not he was serious. The man's a horrible president, but I doubt he truly believes his best moment was catching a fish, probably more an attempt at bad humor. --kizzle 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Or a bad attempt at good humor. ;-) --You Know Who 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Good grief. Kizzle is right, a bad and probably inappropriate attempt at humor, but I say leave it out. George W. Bush is a lot of things, and whether you like him or not, and whether you like to go fishing or not, he is, after all, human. Even though his actions affect millions (billions actually) around the globe, not absolutely everything he does, says, thinks, or jokes about is notable, 100% of the time. So he made a lame comment about a fish in a lame interview. Who cares? I've never been President of the U.S. but I can imagine that being on the x where the buck stops when the world blows up would put a fellow under a bit of stress and make him want to just go fishing for a while. But can't we get over it and move on to far more important things? --Easter Monkey 01:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, BBC and Reuters cared enough to write articles on it. That it is an attempt at humor, or is "lame", are both your personal opinions. The quotation still stands as a comment he made, and there is no indication that he was joking in the interview. — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-06-01 02:24

The problem with your logic rests on the fact that attempts at humor sometimes are not reflected by a mere transcript, and sarcasm, unless blindingly Colbertesque, cannot by definition be discerned from a transcript alone. Knowing this, it is irresponsible for us to simply reproduce the statement as reflective of what Bush actually thinks. Yes, it is my opinion that I believe he was joking. But, it is also your opinion that he was not. Simply because it does not say in the transcript, "Ha ha I was joking," does not mean he wasn't joking. (whoah, triple negative). C'mon man, I hate Bush more than a lot of people here, but it's just plain irresponsible and almost Michael-Moorian to simply quote without giving context, such as he possibly was joking. --kizzle 17:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a joke and the "perch" is a mistranslation (English to German to English). It was really a bass ("sea Bass" in German translates to barsch which is translated back as perch.). The White House has an official transcript and even has <laughter> after the bass comment for the comically challenged. --Tbeatty 02:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the transcript? — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-06-01 02:24

Ahh, found it. Well, that's settled. And I, for one, did not throw a hissy fit :) — ₀₉₁₈ • 2006-06-01 02:28

I really was torn whether to respond or not, and I did see the smiley so I will assume good faith. But temptation obviously won out, so there it is. My "hissy fit" was more a commentary on the sorry state of our culture — 1) most people on both the right and the left taking themselves far too seriously 2) the general belief that a priori everything a politician, celebrity or pseudo-celebrity does and says has to be taken seriously and is thus inherently interesting and 3) that context doesn't matter. In any case, I, for one, do indeed have far more important things to worry about and have already wasted far too much time and energy on this one. --Easter Monkey 06:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's from a primary source, why not include it?JJ4sad6 11:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because if he's joking (as the White House transcript would indicate), it's not noteworthy. But on the other hand, the comment about the 9/11 attack would seem to be serious, and that would make it worth including. I'd recommend phrasing it along the lines of "When asked about the best and worst moments of his Presidency in an interview with Kai Diekmann of BILD, Bush replied that the worst moment was the attack of September 11, 2001, and the aftermath of the incident. He then joked that his best moment was when he caught a seven-and-a-half pound large mouth bass on his lake." DrLeebot 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here, but my money is on a left wing media conspiracy--172.161.132.136 13:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Although I still think it's not worth including in this already very long article, that wording appears to be NPOV. This is such a long article that we need to be very critical of proposed additions. --ElKevbo 14:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

With regards to the part about the fish, I'd say it's probably unnecessary. His mentioning of the 9/11 attacks as the worst moment of his presidency, on the other hand, does seem noteworthy, but there are at least two other articles on this site it should go in (George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States and September 11, 2001 attacks), so it's probably best left out of here and put in one or both of those. DrLeebot 17:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This must be the silliest discussion I've seen on here. If you think the quote is notable, that's your opinion. If you think he was trying to be funny, that's your opinion. Leave it out and move on. It's not worth the time you people are wasting on it. Dubc0724 16:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Economy Section

Is anyone going to keep up with the Economy Section? If not then try to leave out monthly stats as they change so often. Also this part Private employment (seasonally adjusted) originally decreased under Bush from 111,680,000 in December 2000 to 108,250,000 in mid-2003. The economy then added private jobs for 25 consecutive months from (July 2003 to August 2005), and the private employment seasonally adjusted numbers increased as of June 2005 when it reached 111,828,000. Considering population growth, that still represents a 4.6% decrease in employment since Bush took office is a year old and seems wrong anyways. The 4.6% seems way wrong by basic math and why isn't this kind of specific info linked? --Kswanks 15:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's wrong, but it might need some clarifying as to the math actually used. Reading it, I'm assuming that what it means is this: The ratio of private employment to population has decreased by 4.6% since Bush took office. DrLeebot 13:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If there's no documents to support statistics and facts such as these, shouldn't it be deleted?--Exander 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In that spirit, I boldly deleted the following uncited lines per WP:LIVING:

"Inflation under Bush has remained near historic lows at about 2–3% per year, where it has been since the 1990s.

Private employment (seasonally adjusted) originally decreased under Bush from 111,680,000 in December 2000 to 108,250,000 in mid-2003. The economy then added private jobs for 25 consecutive months from (July 2003 to August 2005), and the private employment seasonally adjusted numbers increased as of June 2005 when it reached 111,828,000. Considering population growth, that still represents a 4.6% decrease in employment since Bush took office.

In January 2006, the government reported that first-time jobless claims fell to their lowest level in more than five years to 291,000, a sign that the national labor market continues to shake off the effects of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma."

If you add them back, please provide citations. --ElKevbo 21:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Treasury Section

Should the Treasury spot on the administration chart be changed? John Snow resigned, and Henry M. Paulson, Jr. was nominated. --Stonesour025 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Snow is still in the job, his resignation will be effective whenever his successor is confirmed: short answer = not yet. --Easter Monkey 01:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Failure Redirect

Has anyone noticed the failure vandalism, in that the page is a redirect to this article? I tried to change it, but it was protected. 138.162.5.8

User warned, redirect reverted. NSLE _(T+C) at 13:20 UTC (2006-06-08)

The time should be included

When it says in the first paragraph that his term expires on the 20th, it should say 12:00 Eastern time on January 20th

Are you sure? I thought it expires whenever the next president takes the oath of office, which could be 12:01, 12:22, or whatever. Furthermore, it could possibly end before then. We don't need to load the first paragraph down with specifics on the time his term ends. --Golbez 21:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tags added by Llosoc

Llosoc, would you mind explaining your reasons for adding these tags? You should be aware that explaining the specific problems you found is a requirement of applying any of the various NPOV and POV tags to an article. So, what specifically is POV? Kasreyn 23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked him yesterday on his Talk page to explain them, he has not, so I have removed them. User:Zoe| 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Kasreyn 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

his talk page is blank?

What you linked to is Llosoc's user page. He added the note that it was his talk page, but he is mistaken. This is Llosoc's talk page, where you will see Zoe's comment. Cheers, Kasreyn 19:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias.

Por nada.  :) Kasreyn 20:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

$9 / Barrel Oil Caused Jr's Oil Companies Failure ... and Ultimately Alcoholism

I have read that Daddy Bush told Jr. that before he would help him get a political career going he needed to go out "and make his money". Bush started his oil company in Texas as a result (with financing from some of daddy's friends). Contrary to popular rumor, it WAS actually able to find oil in Texas. However, it went under because the company could not produce oil priced below $15/barrel and the market price at the time was $9/barrel and lost the investors money. Within a year he became an alcoholic and got his DUI. I believe all of this is accurate and verifiable and should be included in the article by someone. It really adds a backdrop to the Iraq war and the high oil prices as it points out that Bush's greatest personal failure (of making it on his own after Daddy told him to go out on his own) was because of low oil prices.

Stance on Gay Marriage

I find it odd that the Defense of Marriage act passed in '94 garners no metion in this article, or even any attention from Bush himself. He keeps attempting to use the amendment process, which he has no real power to use directly, without looking at laws established already. I'm not saying include a biased point like that, just a note about the already passed Defense of Marriage act. Under Clinton, for God's sake! -- CmdrClow

Sounds like original research to me. --ElKevbo 04:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Look up the Defense of Marriage Act. It's perfectly substantiated by this very site. -- CmdrClow

Part of the problem with the DOMA (from the conservative perspective) is that it might be declared unconstitutional if it's ever brought to the Supreme Court. For instance, one could make the argument that it infringes upon one's Ninth Amendment rights (the right to privacy and to marry whom one wishes might fall under this category of unenumerated rights). Alternatively, one could say it breaks the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Additionally, there's still a lot of haziness surrounding what it covers (see the Defense of Marriage Act article). For instance, though the United States has a history of giving full faith and credit to all Canadian marriages, recently Canada has legalized gay marriage, and the DOMA makes no mention of whether states can deny rights to gay couples married under Canadian law. So, what has to be done to fix these problems? Simply, the constitution would have to be amended, which is exactly what they're trying to do, and the wording would have to be clarified. This is why you don't see Bush mentioning the DOMA.

Now, just because an argument is substantiated and valid doesn't mean it isn't original research. If it's worth including in here, then it should be possible to find a source that has already made that argument and quote that source. ---DrLeebot 12:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been 17 constitutional amendments in 217 years. Every single constitutional amendment has expanded citizens rights. If this passes, it would not only be an abuse of the amendment process but also the first amendment to restrict citizens' rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CmdrClow (talk • contribs) .

Not true. Remember prohibition? -albrozdude 06:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think CmdrClow meant that there have been 17 amendments since the bill of rights (the first ten) was passed in 1789 (217 years ago) for a total of 27 amendments. --Easter Monkey 08:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be, but CmdrClow is still mistaken in saying that all previous amendments expanded individual rights. The 18th Amendment restricted the right of the individual to purchase alcohol. Brandon39 10:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it's also notably the only amendment to be repealed, meaning that there is currently no amendment in effect that restricts citizens' rights. (But granted, this isn't what CmdrClow said.)

Now, despite the fact that it does limit citizens' rights, does that alone make it an abuse of the amendment process? From the analysis of DOMA, it's apparent that it if ever got to court it would have constitutionality concerns as it goes against the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution. So, if the government wished to create a version that worked, they would have to change the constitution - either by removing the Full Faith and Credit clause or by defining what "marriage" is and thus what the Full Faith and Credit clause applies to.

Now, to be an abuse of the process, it would have to be possible to encode it as simply a national law. Prohibition is a good example of where that was the case - there's no good reason they couldn't have simply made a national law stating all the things that the amendment did. On anything to do with marriage, since it's specifically mentioned in the constitution, they have to at the very least keep the constitution in mind with their actions. And if they're changing the definition of the term in the constitution, it should be at least as hard to do as make and amendment to it - otherwise they could, to make a ridiculous example, redefine "treason" as voting for the Democratic party, an example which makes it apparent that they can't be allowed to go around redefining words in the constitution easily. So what does that leave? Make redefining a word in the constitution require an amendment. If you're changing the meaning of it, you're changing - amending - the constitution. If that's what you're doing, those are the rules you should follow.

A final note to those opposed to this amendment: Be glad that they're trying to make it an amendment rather than a national law, as it's a lot harder to pass an amendment than a law. Please don't go crying "abuse of the amendment system." ---DrLeebot 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The content of a proposed amendment cannot constitute "abuse of the amendment system", or else the entire purpose of the amendment system would be fundamentally undermined. The point of the amendment system is to allow we, the people, to amend our Constitution in any way we choose - and I do mean any way. I am personally opposed to the amendment, politically, but there is nothing improper about proposing it that I can see, except for my feeling that its subject matter is far too unimportant, narrow, and specific to be worth even mentioning in the Constitution's otherwise brilliant text. Now, if votes were to be rigged, or some other irregularity introduced into the process of the amendment system as this proposed amendment works its way through, then that would be an abuse of the system. I, for one, remain quite confident that it has no hope of passing any time soon. Kasreyn 20:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

National Guard section changes and removals

I'm rather curious about the recent changes to this section and their immediate removal with the edit summary of trimming POV material... is the Boston Globe not considered a reliable source? What is POV about noting a sworn deposition, or the opinion of a former assistant secretary of defense?

I feel that the user who removed these remarks is unclear on what "NPOV" means. "NPOV" does not mean "make sure you take an equal number of viewpoints from both right and left, and keep them even at all times." Ridiculous, especially since American concepts of "right" and "left" are not globally accepted. "NPOV" means primarily that claims must be presented in an unbiased manner, without verbiage or structuring that would deliberately frame or bias the reader. It also means not to give undue weight to certain minority viewpoints. Examining the sections removed, I do not see evidence of POV phrasing or verbiage, nor do I think they are being given undue weight. Perhaps the editor who removed them felt they were not notable, or that the Boston Globe was misquoted or is unreliable. These are all other reasons for removal of content. But I'm just not seeing the POV here. Surely a military officer swearing a deposition that he abused his authority is notable in the article on the man that abuse benefited? Surely the opinion of a former assistant secretary of state is notable on the subject of alleged dereliction of duty - an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs, no less!

I must say I'm puzzled. Kasreyn 02:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Did Bush Fulfill His Guard Duties?

According to several experts who examined his record, no.

US News obtained and reviewed Bush's National Guard records and disputes the Bush line that he fufilled the technical requirements of his service.

A recent examination of the records by U.S. News does not appear to support Lloyd's conclusions. Among the issues identified by the magazine:

"The White House used an inappropriate–and less stringent–Air Force standard in determining that President Bush fulfilled his National Guard duty. Even using this lesser standard, the president did not attend enough drills to complete his obligation to the Guard during his final year of service. During the final two years of his service obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. Instead, he took credit for makeup drills he participated in outside that time frame. Five months of drills missed by the President in 1972 were never made up, contrary to assertions made by the White House."

This contradicts the article's claim (before my edit) that Bush "fully completed his required time in service obligations." It also means the citation of the number of points Bush earned is misleading since every year he is above the quota, but it is not mentioned that more is required that simply meeting the quota of 50 points.

IworkforNASA deleted several key facts I added, including that a former Texas Speaker of the House swore under oath that he pulled strings to get Bush into his particular unit ahead of many others on the waitlist. He also slanted the article to make it appear that only "left-leaning" groups investigated or called attention to Bush's record. In fact the two investigations I cited included the Boston Globe's and US News, which is generally considered a slightly right-of-center newsmagazine. I also quoted critizism of Bush's record by a Reagan Administration official.

These should not have been deleted, and I am restoring him. If he feels more balance should be added, I invite him add additional discussion and facts, and to provide citations to these facts.

It is also misleading to simply say that Bush was honorably discharged without mentioning the fact that this does not mean that he fulfilled all of his duties, but simply that the military choose not to make a case against his honorable discharge. As the New Republic's article on the issue notes:

"John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985."

If we are going to note that Bush was honorably discharged, then the context and meaning of being discharged, especially in 1974 when the military was very eager to shed soliders due to the end of the war, needs to be explained. Kitteneatkitten 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Assuming your sources are correct, I would agree with this. Kasreyn 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

An AFD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against United States presidents seems to be converging on a merge decision. That would involve moving the information into this article. 69.181.124.51 05:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hippies

What is wrong with you green day worshipping cock sucking dope smoking hippies? You want to lie in order to get this guy out of office? What alterior motives are behind this??? did you daddy's beat you and so now you have a hate for authority figures? Without a government dont you realise youll STARVE TO DEATH! That wouldnt be too bad except that alot of other innocent people would also starve. FUCK OFF AND DIE IN A GUTTER!

1. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/roane040908.htm

• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Old requests for peer review
• Biography articles of living people