Talk:George W. Bush

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

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 (Abuse RfC), 27, 28, 29

Kizzle's Computed Poll

Please see Archive 26 for full text of RfC | image name=GeorgeWBush.jpg

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

V1.5

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

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

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

Supporting Version 3

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

Supporting Version 4

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

my comment

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

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

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

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

Resume Rfc

Please see Archive 26 for complete RfC text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Substance abuse controversy

Main article: George W. Bush substance abuse controversy

Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth" and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years. He says that he gave up drinking for good shortly after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham. [1], [2], [3] Psychiatrists have argued about whether he currently shows alcohol-related traits.

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [4] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [5]

In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [6], [7]

[end proposal]

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

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

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

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

Arthur Blessit link not controversial

some ignorant admins apparently want to whitewash any link to Arthur Blessit, Bush's connection with Blessit has been well documented, eg on PBS Frontline, and in the book The Faith of George W. Bush by Stephen Mansfield ISBN: 1585423092

"Mansfield details later encounters with evangelists Arthur Blessit and Billy Graham that he believes were pivotal in Bush's spiritual formation."

• Unless Bush actually comes out and says Blessit played a role in his conversion (as far as I know, he hasn't), then there is not enough fact to go on to add this reference. Bush has publicly acknowledged Graham, and Graham only, as the evangelist most critical in his coverting to Christianity. This article is about fact, not the thoughts of an author. Harro5 09:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Funny, have you read the book? How do you know the book is not fact based? Also, what about the PBS Frontline reference? Bush is certainly not the last word for his own history. If that were so none of the other controversies re his alcoholism, drug abuse, AWOL behavior etc would ever be known. Bush discusses a bible meeting prior to the Graham meeting, in spring of 1984, the same week as Blessit's revival stop in Midland Tx. where Bush heard Blessit on the radio and requested a private meeting.

• The Faith of George W. Bush by Stephen Mansfield ISBN 1585423092

[8]

In his book “A charge to keep my journey to the White House” by George W. Bush pages 136-139, he tells in quite some detail about a visit with Rev. Billy Graham in Maine where he says “Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul”. Mr. Bush goes on to say about Jesus, “I would commit my heart to Jesus Christ. I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like me. I was comforted to know that through the Son, I could find God's amazing grace, a grace that crosses every border, every barrier and is open to everyone. Through the love of Christ's life, I could understand the life-changing powers of faith. I began reading the Bible regularly. Don Evans talked me into joining him and another friend, Don Jones, at a men's community Bible study. The group had first assembled the year before, in spring of 1984, [that was the spring of Blessit's week meeting in Midland]

Honestly, what difference does it make? And the Blessit page is just a tiny stub. What does this add to the article. We already know that a Graham's work began his "conversion." What does Blessit add to this? Will I understand Bush better if I know this fact(I guess) about a preacher I don't even know anything about and Wikipedia says nothing about him either?Voice of All(MTG) 18:03, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, what difference do any facts make to an encyclopedia? Blessit precedes Graham by one year. Though Bush is apparently embarassed re Blessit, one would think the true cause of his conversion would be worth mentioning rather than the fake PR smokescreen.

Added info about the middle-finger incidents

I checked the archives of the discussions and saw no mention of it, other than someone complaining about a photo of it being there. Anyway, this stuff's incredibly well-known. And it's a historical fact: He holds the record of being the first President to have been seen giving the middle finger, both before and during office.

Everyone knows of the photo of him giving the camera guy the finger when he was governor of Texas. But also, there's an undated video on Jay Leno of President Bush flipping off the media while in office [9]. This is relevant, because it affects the public's perception of him. So, I put it in the "Public perception and assessments," section. There was also a third report of him flipping off the media, but there was no video or photo of it, so I left it out. 69.138.24.96 07:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Rude Gesture

Under the domestic section it says that Bush holds the distinction of being the only U.S president to be seen using the middle finger, before election and during office. Can anyone tell me if this is a joke or if it is actually true? Thanks.Banes 08:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

a search on google images shows a kerryfinger.jpg image purportedly showing Kerry doing the flipping the bird Gesture. Both Bush and Clinton are also shown doing the heavy metal salute, aka sign of the devil, aka Hook 'em Horns.

So, nothing on the middle finger then? I dont know about the sign of the devil, because the hook 'em horns gesture, according to the link you provided is a University of Austin, Texas, fan symbol. The photo shows Bush using it at a sports event. Anyway that has nothing to do with him giving the finger. Banes 08:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The new show on Comedy Central, Mind of Mencia, the first or maybe second episode ended with a clip of Bush giving someboey? the finger. No hint that it was not real. Circumstances of the clip were not explained. Gzuckier 14:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The clip is real; it was before an interview on a Texas tv station, while he was governor. I'm not sure how encyclopedic it is, though....

There are two clips of George W. Bush flipping the bird. The first is when he was Governor, wearing a lousy blue-grey suit, and he gives a quick little shot of the finger, followed by his trademark snicker [10]. The second, more recent, on-film fingering (or was it a 'thumbing', as some commentators maintain?) took place last month in front of reporters and was on the Jay Leno show [11]. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"What if they're New Here?"

"What if they're New Here?": Is this line meant to be in anti-vandalism header for this article?

It was quietly added last night. I've removed it. If someone wants to ask the question, here on the talk page is the place for it. Not in the comments in the article itself. TexasAndroid 18:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Movement to impeach Bush? Give me a break, that's not neutral

Folks, you might as well have a link to "Nazi", I mean give me a break.

The movement to impeach Bush is NOT mainstream. Just as the 9/11 conspiracy is not mainstream. The former and certainly the latter do not deserve a spot on this page.

I was messaged by an editor here that these links have been "voted on" but I do believe that a majority here are not of the opinion that Bush is a good president, as most internet precedents are.

This is FINE by me, but if you are going to have links to other things about Bush, fine, keep the author link, but delete the movement to impeach him, that is absurd and irrelevant, and certainly not mainstream or NEUTRAL. unsigned comment by 24.206.237.159

I have to agree with the movement to impeach link...it isn't mainstream or neutral. The F911 link was decided as being substantive enough due to the widespread popularity of the film.--MONGO 12:26, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm removing it if its still there.Voice of All(MTG) 17:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

This all seems rather inconsistent to me, considering the recent minor dispute regarding Tom Cruise and the inclusion of the non-neutral website "TomCruiseIsNuts.com (Humorous site chronicling Tom Cruise's statements)". See my comments on the talk page there, if interested. Hall Monitor 18:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the link on the Cruise article shouldn't be there either...this isn't some gossip rag or one that should be covering far out and incredibly unlikely events as a Bush impeachment (based on the evidence currently on hand). Not one senator or congressman is seriously pushing for an impeachment of Bush...it's a far left pipe dream.--MONGO 18:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Until the threat of impeachment is a significant aspect of the public discourse, we shouldn't include it here. --kizzle 20:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

This is a heresy. The project of this site was a people-maintained information base for the people. If even 1% of the people think Bush should be impeached, they have the HUMAN RIGHT to have their voices heard. This is what this wiki was originally all about. you all make me sick.

Hmm... Bush's approval rating has dropped well below 50%. Are we allowed to start a movement now? Or do the American people still have their voices silenced?

Jeez, chill out people. The "movement to impeach Bush" is not mainstream at all. NOBODY is earnestly talking about it. Not one member of congress is pushing for it. This isn't denying free speech. And Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. It is NOT what wiki is all about. Now, plummeting approval ratings, that's valid. But trying to worm in some fringe movement about impeaching him is intellectually dishonest. - JDoorjam 20:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC), former Kerry-Edwards staffer.

Removed sentence

The sentence fragment I removed was due to the use of the words "some allege" in response to the press release of Bush' DUI conviction being a timely press release to influence the election...the sentence I removed stated: and some allege that part of the press deliberately waited to disseminate the information to the public in order to swing the election. If someone can substantiate this then it still would be better placed in the daughter article here.--MONGO 10:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was by far the most popular theory of the time by the "right-wing" press and a few "non-partisan" groups. Also, "allege" is used a few times in the article and is somewhat NPOV...

(semi-blog link follows)

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/102004g.asp

Although I think it goes better in the article as it helps keep the section centered a bit POV-wise.... but YMMV --RN 16:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

An Rfc on the passages discussing drug and alcohol was recently performed and we tried to keep counterbalances either way relegated to the daughter article...I don't disagree with the sentence you had, and in fact am inclined to believe it was true, but if we start putting that in, then counterarguments start to return and the entire section ends up diverging away from the original Rfc...the Rfc is [here] if you wish to read all about it...--MONGO 19:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I see your point but I think you could mention that it (the timing) was just "controversial" and then do the real work in the daughter article. Also, your original proposal seems a bit more NPOV than the current state which has a bit more (albiet subtle) anti-bush stuff in there that weighs it down a bit. I'm pretty impressed with the article though... its too bad that the Microsoft pages don't get the same treatment. --RN 21:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The article hasn't had any major changes in a while...as always, don't be discouraged to add whatever you see fit so long as you know that there has, at least, been a great deal of bickering back and forth since it was first written and it is becoming more NPOV all the time...at least that is what we hope for.--MONGO 02:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Anagram

I apologize that I have to bring this subject here, but I believe in consistency and others a promoting something quite juvenile that it must be brought up here. About 4 editors, 2 might be sock puppets, on Spiro Agnew insist on adding an anagram stating "grow a penis." Responsible editors have reverted them but they insisted that it is appropriate for the article for various reasons and started a poll. I don't think anagrams are appropriate for an article, for instance, it is noted that "George Bush = He bugs Gore."; "George W Bush = He grew bogus." and "George Herbert Walker Bush = Huge berserk rebel warthog." If we go down that way, we will start including anagrams on all the pages (which seems quite juvenile). If you agree that this is inappropriate, please go to that page and vote. --Noitall 14:19, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Bob Saget doesn't have the anagram "Got Babes". Or "Full House's Bob Saget" and "He's Got Soulful Babes". Or "The Olsen Twins" and "Slow, Thin Teens". Just a thought. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Nor does the article on Jimbo Wales present any of the many choice possibilities ... what an outstandingly anagrammatic name. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Gay Appointment

There is a section in the article under Domestic Policy about Diversity and Civil rights that contains a sentence noting that Bush is the first Republican to appoint an openly gay man to his administration. This is true, but the sentence is still misguided. This section should concentrate on Bush's overarching stance on the issues of civil rights, not the token exceptions. Painting the Bush administration as one that is unusually inclusive of homosexuals (as this sentence attempts to do) is horribly misleading.

My beef is with the big deal it makes out of the fact that Bush appointed an openly gay man to a government position. However, there are numerous reasons why this is not a big deal. Firstly, a President makes thousands of appointments during his tenure. Secondly, presidents before him (Clinton) have appointed gay people in much larger numbers. And third, it should be noted that he is really one of the first republican presidents with even the opporunity to appoint gay men. The last time a Republican was in office was 1992, when tolerance and acceptance of the homosexual community was at a very different stage than it is today. Bush is almost certainly not the first Republican to appoint someone who was gay, but is the first to appoint someone who is OPENLY gay. Openly gay politicians were a lot harder to come by in the late 80s and early 90s, and Bush's Republican predecessors shouldn't be faulted for that, nor should Bush be praised for it.

I thus compare it to George H.W. appointing C. Thomas to the supreme court. Should he be praised for appointing a black supreme court justice? He is currently the first and only Republican administration to do so. Yet this is not noteworthy enough to appear in his article, because the *real* civil rights breakthrough was with L. Johnson's appointment of Thurgood Marshall.

Bush's record on support of the gay and lesbian community shows a huge amount of intolerance. To make special note of the one small act of inclusiveness he has made (which in the reference links is alleged to be little more than a token concession to the Log Cabin Republicans, campaign contriubuters), without context or addendum, is misleading and dishonest in spirit.

Please change or delete the sentence so that the sentiment is not so easily misconstrued. Sdauson 17:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I must agree with Sdauson on this. THe sentence is misleading, unless it is acompanied by an explaination of why it is misleading. --jonasaurus 18:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how The whole paragraph is about how he has not been a supporter of Gay Marriage Rights. I do not see why it distorts the picture to point out that he has appointed an openly gay person to his staff. Who are you to say that person is a token member of the staff, calling someone merely a token appointment sure sounds like POV to me. --AjaxSerix 18:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the assertion that it's a token appointment is largely unsubstantiated, and shouldn't be put in the article. But mentioning the fact that Bush has made an appointment of an openly gay person (Bill Clinton made over 150) without putting it in its true context (as outlined above) is misleading, and an obvious attempt to portray Bush in a more favorable light than is deserved on this subject. I would move that the whole sentence simply be taken out of the article. It is not an important or sybolic facet of Bush or his administration. Sdauson 19:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

While I do see your reason for pessimism on it, I think that the first appointment of an openly gay person by a republican President as a significant step forward for Gay rights. Token or not it means that at the very least Bush saw some value politically in appealing to homosexuals, which is a broken ceiling. I think the first person is noteworthy enough. It might be worth it to add though that he picked him to be the AIDS czar, which may highlight the sterotypical view he took in doing so.--AjaxSerix 19:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Then why is George H.W. Bush not to be commended for appointing Clarence Thomas, the first African American to be appointed to the supreme court by a Republican? Or Bill Clinton commended for being the first Democrat to appoint a female justice to the same court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg? It seems like these should be MUCH more important and symbolic acts, as a President gets only one or two nominations to the high court if he's lucky, as opposed to one of the thousands of general appointments a President may make over his career, such as AIDS czar. I mean, hell, why don't we put the fact that George W. Bush is the first Republican president from Texas under the age of 70 with a daughter who owns a Toyota as being indicative of unusual support for foreign trade?

I guess I see the importantance of it being in the traditional opposition of the republican party to gay rights. It is a crack in the wall.--AjaxSerix 19:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the passages about the alleged "gay appointment" are misleading. I particularly agree with the comment above about the misleading sentence. For these reasons, I think that a factual error disclaimer should be added.

That claim is factual, but it may not be NPOV. There is already a POV warning on this article. There is no need for a factual error disclaimer. android79 19:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. These claims have never been verified by a credible source.

It's cited directly in the article: [12]. android79 19:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Do you dispute the reliability of this source? android79 19:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Android79 the statement is factual. The complaint you are making is covered with the Neutrality tag.

Just because the article has an NPOV tag on it doesn't mean we shouldn't be continuously be trying to make it a more neutral article. Neutrality tags aren't a license to put whatever you want into an article. Also, please sign your comments. Sdauson 19:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The last post was me I forgot to sign... always do that... I agree the wording could be made more neutral, my comment was about the person who kept adding the FACTUAL Dispute tag along with the NPOV. I was saying that the second box was not necessary.--AjaxSerix 19:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

WOW it seems like all arguments related to this article are always long and drawn out... anyway I tried to put the sentence in context and removed the disputed tag as it was pretty silly (this article seems to have iron-clad references for EVERYTHING) (2 edit conflicts yikes) --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Better, but I would still like to know why the fact that George H. W. Bush was the first Republican president to appoint a black supreme court justice is not mentioned on his page. Is that fact not significant for all the same reasons presented in the defense of the gay appointment fact? Why is this one more significant than the other? Sdauson 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this page is run by young Republicans, fascists, and Tony Blair-worshippers. You didn't beat the Germans after all. --Paul Laremy, anonymous user

It's good that you are all growed up about things. see...Godwins Law--AjaxSerix 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The sentence used to state that Micheal Guest was the first "openly gay ambassador to be appointed by a U.S. President and have his appointment confirmed by Congress." Clinton performed a recess appointment of an openly gay ambassador prior to this. The sentence was placed there as the only conversation about Bush's stand on homosexuality was totally negative and the addition of the Micheal Guest ambassadorship was added for balance.--MONGO 20:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to tell me that the conversation about Bush's stand on homosexuality SHOULDN'T be totally negative? Do you have any knowledge of his history and record on gay rights? Sdauson 20:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Anon's insertion of disputed

Unless he can point out what fact is incorrect, it will be reverted, and he will be blocked for violating 3RR. The dispute has to be pointed out before the tag can remain. The presence of a dispute is only a matter of record when you put forth the effort to explain it here. So go for it. --Golbez 19:39, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

He hasn't answered my question, and given the last comment, it's pretty clear he's just here to stir up trouble. android79 19:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Longest page ever

I just archived this talk page today, and with one little conflict over the tiniest thing, it is now soooo long again. Good thing I created the empty archive. Looks like it will be needed soon. If someone wouldn't mind doing this, it would make this page a lot more manageable. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Tokenism?

Believe me, if you were in my shoes, any statement portraying Bush as anything but firmly against any and all form of gay rights would NOT be a tiny thing to you. Sdauson 19:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

All? So he doesn't believe gays have the right to life, liberty, property, and to hold public office? If not then why did he appoint one i'm so confused ::( --Golbez 19:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

My guess would be tokenism. Log Cabin Republicans are campaign contriubuters that have taken issue with Bush over his stance on gay rights. His appointee is a member of that organization. But that's just my personal take on the situation. If you want a more objective analysis, I think you should ask yourself that if he *does* believe in the right to life, libery, and property for all, then why has he infringed on their pursiut of happiness [13]? Sdauson 20:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, believe me, I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your entire premise. The entire paragraph is talking about how Bush is against same-sex marriage and for a Constitutional definition of marriage stating it's between a man and a woman. One "tiny" mention of the fact that he is the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man does not disqualify the preceding paragraph. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me like the paragraph should be limited to very important facts, of which I don't think the sentence qualifies. If we're going to seriously delve into his record on civil rights to the extent where one appointment is supposed to make a difference, why no mention of his refusal to designate a gay pride month? Sdauson 20:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't you feel calling him a "token appointment" degrading to all homosexuals, as if one couldn't get appointed unless as a token, and not on their own merits? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that of all the homosexuals available for Bush's choosing, of even all the conservative homosexuals for his choosing, that only one (this one appointee) had the 'merits' to 'get appointed'. The lack of other homosexual appointments is what reveals the appointment to be tokenism, not the appointee's sexuality. Sdauson 20:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but still, by saying he is a token, you are degrading him by saying that he didn't really earn that position and that he was appointed just because he was gay. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

He may very well be the most qualified person for the job, gay or straight, but if that were true, it would imply that Bush makes appointments based on credentials alone, which based on the lack of other homosexuals he has appointed, simply cannot be true. Furthermore, if he was the most qualified person for the job, don't you think he'd still have that job [14]? Evertz was transferred to a desk job at Human Health Services a mere year after his appointment. Sdauson 20:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

To play the Dark Lord, why couldn't this be true? Being homosexual makes you have better credentials than straights? You can guess that there are better qualified homosexuals, but you have no idea. And once someone is in a position, no one better can come along? Bush might have thought he was better for the position than Guest. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, purely statistically it doesn't add up. Assume that there is a set proportion of gay to straight people in the country. I've seen this pegged at anywhere between one and ten percent. Now assume that everyone has equal ability to garner impressive credentials. Thus, of the 'most credentialed' candidates, we have the same proportion of gay to straight, between one and ten percent. Yet Bush only has two gay appointments (Evertz and Guest... Evertz was first, I believe), meaning that in order for even if we say only one percent of people are gay or lesbian (VERY VERY conservative estimate), then Bush's total appointments would number only 200. Now if anyone can find his actual number of total appointments, I salute them, but I would wager that he's made five times that many appointments, as it's not uncommon for a President to make more than a thousand appointments [15]. Sdauson 21:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dauson we already went over this. What do you want now, for us to remove any mention of it? This is a useless arguement. Redwolf24 20:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think removing it is the best solution, as any attempt to put it in appropriate context would undoubtably be interpreted as POV. If you don't want it removed, I'm wondering why no one has stepped up to answer my questions above. Especially the one asking how this is more important than supreme court nominations. I'd like to note that I only advocate removal of the very last sentence. Sdauson 21:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's take a short poll (Even though they're evil)

I think a poll's all nice and well. I don't see how majority support of a misguided statement makes it any less misguided though. Perhaps someone would like to address my concerns as to why this statement is so important as to be included at the expense of an accurate portrayal of Bush's stance on gay rights? I'd like to ask for the third time why this is more important than certain supreme court appointments? Bush's position on gay rights is clear, and this statement is the exception to his rule. No one is absolutist on any one issue, and the point of an encyclopedia article isn't to illuminate every facet of a person's beliefs, but to provide summary and synopsis. Bush's stance on gay rights is decidedly negative, and obscure facts that meekly point to the contrary shouldn't be conjured up in the name of 'balance'. Sdauson 21:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure it is about balance...it is a fact...Bush appointed and Congress approved Micheal Guest as Ambassador to Romania...it is noteworthy not due so much to balance as much as it is a first time event in the history of any Presidency...sure Clinton appointed an openly gay ambassador prior to that, but it was a recess appointment...what political party the appointee belongs to is immaterial...do you think Bush would likely appoint a Democratic Ambassador? Furthermore, some countries would take offense to an openly gay man being their connection to the U.S., in the same way many Muslim countries might take great offense to having a female Ambassador being their connection...unfortunately, international politics aren't always about affirmative action.--MONGO 01:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be having some trouble distinguishing between political parties and political organizations. I was noting that he was a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that contributes money to Republican campaigns, and has criticized Bush in the past over gay rights. It is an argument that supports a "tokenism" claim-- that Bush merely appointed him to appease a campaign contributer. The fact that the appointee is merely Republican has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. Sdauson 02:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Not likely that I have any trouble with that...stick to the facts. The fact is that the appointment occurred and was the first appointment as such to a post this high up to also be confirmed by Congress...if the appointment was a token one, is that any different than most of the appointments made by virtually all the Presidents? Nope.--MONGO 02:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that being confirmed by congress is merely a footnote. You can claim that Bush was technically the first person to appoint an openly gay Ambassador, but look around the web. To the world, Michael Guest is the second openly gay Ambassador [16][17][18], and Wiki should tell it no differently. Sdauson 02:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're the only one who thinks its misguided! That's why a majority would matter! This is getting ridiculous. Redwolf24 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice the person emphatically agreeing with my original post? I'm not the only one, and I need only go talk to a few people on a few GLBTQ articles if you need proof of that. And chill dude, it's just a talk page. Sdauson 21:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

So, you want to remove a fact in the name of balance. Why does this obscure the entire preceding paragraph? Don't you think people are smart enough to know that this one appt. does not make Bush pro-gay? I think the paragraph is fine. And if you think those nominations deserve inclusion, well off you go. And the thing about not declaring a gay pride month... well, I'm off to George Washington to include it there too. We don't generally include stuff people don't do. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that fact is only there in the name of 'balance,' is what I'm trying to say. And trying to balance things that are inherently unbalanced (Bush doesn't have a balanced for vs. against stance on gay rights) is misleading. Anyway, I'll make you a deal-- if I modify Bill Clinton's page to contain a nearly identical sentence stating that he is the first Decmocrat to appoint a woman to the supreme court, and it sticks, then I'll revoke my objection to the statement in this article. You think it'll fly? Sdauson 21:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Err, the point is, not everyone agrees that it is "misguided." I think it's an interesting side note that indicates that, while Bush may be seen to have a negative stance on gay rights, he's not so intolerant as to refuse appointing an openly gay person. Bush's stance is decidedly less negative than that of some other Republicans. android79 21:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I ask you, what person balanced enough to be trusted with the presidency today would be so intolerant as not to appoint one gay person out of hundreds, even thousands of appointments? This section isn't about Bush's personal tolerance of homosexuality, it's about his record on civil rights, to which one appointment is utterly insignificant in the face of the problems currently facing the GLBTQ community. Sdauson 21:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it is "utterly insignificant" perhaps illustrates your point for you better than you think it does. We merely need to report the facts here. If a reader chooses to infer from this passage that this single appointee is a "token" apointee, that inference can be made. If, instead, a reader chooses to infer that Bush ain't such a big homo-hater because he appointed that one gay guy that one time, that inference can also be made. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the former will be inferred by the reader far more often than the latter. To suggest plainly that one of these inferences is the correct one would be POV, and to leave this (admittedly minor) point out of the article entirely would be a mistake, IMO – we'd be missing out on letting the reader form his or her own opinion of Bush's gay-rights record with a little bit of added information. android79 22:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

If the fact is that it is "utterly insignificant", then why is it something that should even be considered when trying to form an opinion about Bush's stance on gay rights? That would go against the definition of 'insignificant'. If utterly insignificant details are important in letting readers come to their own conclusions on Bush's stance on this particular topic, I suggest we do the same for his other sections. Provide statements and actions that suggest he's not too concerned about terrorism, perhaps? After all, as long as it's true, it should be left up to the inferences of the reader, right? Sdauson 22:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's "utterly significant." I was quoting you, though I suppose the way I phrased my reply confused matters. I believe it's a minor point, but not so minor as to warrant exclusion from the article. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comments about terrorism, but if you believe there's pertinent and reliable factual information missing from that section (or others, for that matter) by all means add it. android79 23:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

As for that Clinton comment, he was the first president regardless of party to do so mentioning party is insignificant. However if Bush appointed someone black to the supreme court then we'd say first Republican to appoint someone black to the SCOTUS. Because it is a fact, regardless if he appointed 100000 white men (just for comparisons sake). Kennedy was the first Catholic president, should we not state that there because he's just token? Now anyways lets stop bickering and take the results of the poll to heart. Redwolf24 21:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Umm... I think Sandra Day O'Conner might disagree with you on that. And by the way, George H. W. Bush was the first Republican to appoint someone black to the SCOTUS, and there is no mention of it on his page. Sdauson 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That is, O'Conner was appointed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican. Bush Sr. appointed Clarence Thomas, who is black. [sorry, that was rude] Sdauson 21:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

DAMN THESE EDIT CONFLICTS! I've tried to reply to you four times now. I'm gonna go archive... but one of the things I was trying to say was I thought O'Connor was appointed by Carter, though now I see other wise. Anyways I'm gonna archive now! Redwolf24 22:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh you can't downplay your factual error by pointing out my spelling error. The redirect still works. ;) Sdauson 22:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

*Uses admin powers to delete and protect it* HA! Just fiddling of course. Redwolf24 22:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. Seriously though, I think for the sake of consistancy, you should head on over to Bush Sr.'s page and add in an appropriate snippet. Not that I think anyone will object, but hey, give credit where credit is due right? Sdauson 22:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

line break for edit purposes

Actually I'm not sure now about that as, well, the GOP hasn't showed a problem with appointing people to the SCOTUS, but they have shown a problem with appointing gays. Redwolf24 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Not just people, black people to the SCOTUS. And yes, the GOP does have a spotty record when it comes to civil rights and issues of race. Sdauson 22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you might want to check your history there though. It was not the GOP that were against civil rights, it was the Democratic Party. But that is a discussion for another time, another place. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh come now lets stay on topic (actually IIRC both parties were rather anti-black at the time so NYA NYA!) --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but only one party voted down every piece of anti-lynching legislation proposed. Okay, no more of this. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes we shouldn't mention how the Democrats seceeded in fear of the new president passing a law to restrict slavery <_< >_> *this topic is closed* Redwolf24 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see my statement has been misinterpreted. Sorry about that. I was talking about recent history, on issues such as affirmative action, welfare, and discrimination. Talk of which party supported slavery would have to take into account the fundamental changes in philosophies both parties have undergone since that time. "Democrats" and "Republicans" that long ago are little more than labels. You're sadly mistaken if you think that in today's world, the Republicans are the more 'black friendly' party. Just look at voting records. Sdauson 00:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Voting records" as in whom Blacks vote for? That would obviously by the Democrats, but which party has the first 2 Black Secretaries of State? The first 2 Black Supreme Court justices? And then look at all the racist material (editorial cartoons, etc.) around the time of Condolezza Rice's confirmation hearings. Okay, I'm leaving for the night. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Please take this discussion elsewhere. While riveting, it's not on topic, unless it comes back around to ol' George. (Dark Lord, weren't you just complaining about the size of the talk page? ;-)) android79 00:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, back onto topic then. Why is there no mention of the fact that George H. W. Bush was the first Republican president to appoint a Black supreme court justice? (Republicans are not, as Lord might have you believe, responsible for both Black justices in his history of SCOTUS, nor are they responsible for the first black justice-- John F. Kennedy was responsible for appointing the first, Thurgood Marshall.) Sdauson 00:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Marshall is my hero, and he was appointed by Johnson. Still a democrat, but point is its not Kennedy. Redwolf24 00:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Then you need to correct the Kennedy article where it plainly states that Marshall was appointed by Kennedy. ;) Sdauson 00:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added the statements to the pages of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton noting that they were the first of their party to appoint black and female justices, respectively. I have used nearly identical wording to the wording used in the George W. Bush article. The symbolism involved in appointing to the SCOTUS is much greater than that of Aids Czar, and as such, should be much more appropriate for mention in an encyclopedia article. We'll see how long these statements last in either Bush or Clinton's cases. I suggest that you watch as someone else removes them from these pages for one reason or another, and consider that the George W. Bush sentence be removed for the same reasons. Sdauson 00:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Kennedy appointed Marshall to a court of appeals, not the SCOTUS. Johnson did THAT in 67. Redwolf24 00:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My bad! I misread Marshall's page. I just knew that Marshall was appointed by a Democrat, and not a Republican as Lord claimed.

My bad, too. I don't know what I was thinking when I was writing that. Too late, I guess. But my point still stands. And I know this talk page is already far too long, and this idiotic thread is a perfect example. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 12:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Sentence Poll

Here's the statement: "Bush is opposed to the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and supports the establishment of civil unions ("I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement" - ABC News October 26, 2004), and has endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would define marriage as being the union of one man and one woman. Bush reiterated his disagreement with the Republican Party platform that opposed civil unions, and said that the issue of civil unions should be left up to individual states. In his February 2, 2005 State of the Union address he repeated his support for the constitutional amendment. Even though Bush is opposed to same sex marriages, while not the first president in history to do so, he is the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man to serve in his administration [36]."

Keep Last Sentence.

1. Redwolf24 20:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Lord Voldemort (While I thank Redwolf for putting me here, this does not mean that this is perfect. I am not too sure on the wording, but I do not have a problem with it being in here.) --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
3. android79 21:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
4. Banes 11:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
5. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
6. Voice of All(MTG) 23:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
7. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 01:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC) although it might be made simpler and more clear. something like "Bush is vociferously opposed to same sex marriages. Although Democratic presidents have appointed openly gay men to serve on their administration, Bush is the first Republican president to do so."
8. --AjaxSerix 14:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC) The "vociferously opposed" statement in Kevin Bass' rewrite is a bit redundant given the rest of the paragraph. I like the statement how it is.

I like this sentence much better. It simply lays out the fact that Bush has openly gay men serving in his administration, and is the first Republican to do so, but doesn't try to use it to "tone-down" Bush's stance on gay rights. Anyone else? Sdauson 02:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove Last Sentence

1. Sdauson

Comment You all have it wrong...repeat...Michael Guest is the first openly homosexual Ambassador to be appointed by a U.S. President and to have that appointment confirmed by Congress. If you want to state the facts, then do so. Furthermore, this article is not the place to discuss whether Johnson appointed the first African American to the U.S. Supreme Court, or that Reagan was the first to appoint a woman...that goes in articles on them...not here. If someone wants to go into the Bill Clinton article and add that he was the first President to appoint a gay Ambassador but it was done while Congress was in recess, then that is also a fact, but again, that belongs there, not here.--MONGO 01:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC) Additionally, the last sentence is completely ambiguous...what does Bush's opposition to same sex marriage have to do with the appointment of a gay man to the position? Perhaps, the appointee is also against same sex marriage.--MONGO 01:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC) Lastly, Bush is opposed to same sex marriage...not civil unions...get the facts laid out and lets' do a complete overhaul of the entire passage before we bring it to a vote...where the heck is JamesMLane when you need the right man for an Rfc?--MONGO 01:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, you make it sound like a very obscure distinction to hold. 'First President to appoint an openly homosexual Ambassador that was confirmed by Congress. And even then it's on a technicality that Clinton's appointment was done in recess. Sdauson 02:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

No, your emotions are keeping you from seeing the light...while Clinton made numerous appointments of openly gay men to political offices, an Ambassadorship is a very high level appointment and the fact that Congress approved Bush's appointment makes the entire matter a victory for gay rights advocates...the issue is less about Bush than about events that oocurred...should we instead just sweep this FACT under the table to continue to bolster your conviction that Bush (who is not opposed to civil unions, as I remind you again) hostile to gay rights?--MONGO 02:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ambassadorship is a high level office, one Clinton filled with an openly gay man as well. Why does Bush deserve special praise for it? I doubt Clinton's appointment, the real first, is even mentioned on his page. Tell me how this is such a victory for gay rights? Tell me how gay men and women everywhere are better off because Bush appointed a gay man to be Ambassador to Romania? If this is the biggest nod to gay rights you can find from Bush, then you really need to question what evidence you have to support that he isn't hostile to gay rights. Sdauson 02:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, if the removal of the FACT is what will bring appeasement, then by all means do so. I don't argue that Bush is not a supporter of gay rights...the distinction is that he is not opposed to civil unions...that is a departure from the norm as found in the Republican party. The event happened under his watch. If we should eliminate the wording of the event for this to support a not entirely true conception that Bush is anti-gay, then we end up being POV. The comment that Michael Guest was the first appointed ambassador by any president to also be confirmed by Congress is noteworthy, perhaps less so as a positive about Bush than as a victory for gay rights overall.--MONGO 03:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

This article certainly isn't about Congress, so whether it was a recess appointment or a congressional appointment is irrelevant. The fact remains that Democratic presidents have already appointed openly gay Ambassadors, and perhaps openly gay Secretary of Healths or openly gay (Administration position here)'s. In any case, the assertion that no Republican president has appointed anyone to any position whatsoever in their administration until now has not been disputed, and is a significant fact in itself. Regards same-sex marriage/civil union, obviously same-sex marriage is the much hotter topic, so that's what should be mentioned. Regarding bush's view on civil unions - I have no insight into it, but it's quite irrelevant: firtsly, bush is not a legislative officer, and thus cannot make laws, secondly "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof", and thus civil unions and the laws regarding them cannot be made partial to any establishment of religion, not, technically, can laws make any reference to marriage, marriage being an establishment of religion (although the tax-codes currently do) - bush is obviously quite oblivious to this fact, as he proposed an ammendment to the constitution regarding marriage, without first proposing that the 2nd ammendment be repealed, which would be a neccessary prerequisite to his proposed ammendment. But i'm getting off-topic. The fact remains that Democratic presidents have already appointed openly gay Ambassadors, and perhaps openly gay Secretary of Healths or openly gay (Administration position here)'s. In any case, the assertion that no Republican president has appointed anyone to any position whatsoever in their administration until now has not been disputed, and is a significant fact in itself. Regards same-sex marriage/civil union, obviously same-sex marriage is the much hotter topic, so that's what should be mentioned. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Bush claims to be a reborn Christian, so his stance based on that in opposition to same sex marriage follows that line. No reason to villianize his stance on this for two reasons...in opposition to the Republican party viewpoint, he is not opposed to civil unions, secondly, the vast majority of Americans are also opposed to same sex marriage.--MONGO 02:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Umm, "...asked if they would support a constitutional amendment that would 'allow marriage only between a man and a women and outlaw marriages between people of the same sex,'" 51% responded in the affirmative. I've never seen the number of people in support of a constitutional amendment higher than in the 50s. A majority, yes, but certainly not a 'vast majority'. Sdauson 03:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, was that from a vote? Or was it a poll taken by CNN? The only truly reliable poll is an actual vote. Redwolf24 03:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

...this is gotten ridiculous. I'm not gonna reply to anything else you go ahead and take the last word... Redwolf24 03:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...and those figures are not voting records, they are from a poll.--MONGO 03:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Just thought I should tell you all to bring in your pets, gather your families, and buy lots of canned foods and water. Because I agree with Mongo here. Reporting the -fact- that bush appointed this guy, -and- he was confirmed, a first for an openly gay ambassador, is a neccessity for accuracies sake. Queue the apocolypse. -bro 172.153.17.49 07:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Extracurriculars

Joy Stovall and Canderson7 reverted my insertion of cheerleading without comment. Clearly extracurricular activites are fair game, and listing only the "manly" sports is POV. Summary deletion w/o comment is rude, too. 24.143.132.148 02:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Arnoldlover 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

faith based initiatives

I am sorry if this has already been discussed, but in the faith based initiative ssection, is can we place anything about his attempts to ban pagans from practising thier faith in the millitary, or his attempts to make abortions harder to get? Ketrovin 13:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I fail to see what either of those two things have to do with faith-based initiatives. If you want to include either item elsewhere in the article, you'll have to provide reliable sources. android79 13:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

would those not be things hes tried to enact as policey, based on his own faith? Ketrovin 14:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Faith based initatives are about government funding/favortism going to things that involve churches and suchnot about his policies based on his personal faith.--AjaxSerix 14:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "faith based initiatives" is a buzzword in U.S. politics, having to do with government-supported provision of social services by religious groups. So, initiatives that are based in faith don't necessarily count as "faith based initiatives" in current political discourse! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 18:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection on the way?

Hopefully, the end is near for vandalism to this page and others like it...it looks like semi-protection to me...maybe it will weed out all the anonymous users that obstainately don't register or who venture here purely for the purpose of vandalism...read all about it...[19]--MONGO 17:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

So much for the idea of freely editing it. Yet, he's getting more strict about the ridiculous GFDL on the images and is trying to phase out the fair use ones... irony! --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing worthwhile can long survive without some form of regulations to guide it...as the system is now, there are too many loopholes that allow just anyone to mess with the articles and the risk for copyvio in pictures and content is always present. All freedoms come at a price.--MONGO 17:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, this change would be a good thing (raising the bar to protect against vandalism) and increase the overall credibility of the project in the eyes of our readers. Quite sadly, too much valuable time is wasted on reverting vandalism on topical articles such as this one. Hall Monitor 17:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, many articles can be "completed" and frozen as such. At this point, perhaps new additions should be submitted to a page and reviewed before being put up. However, I would say this would not apply to this article. Certainly no living person's article can be considered "frozen". He cites the Benedict XVI article, but I see that as a triumph of the wiki way. Order from chaos. Within the first 24 hours, there were thousands of edits, dozens of vandalisms, but within a day, it grew into a huge article chock full of excellent information. THAT is the epitome of what Wikipedia can do. Likewise, observe what happened with the 7 July bombings in London article. Yes, articles can be frozen - but none that require any changes ever. The rest, allow chaos to reign. --Golbez 17:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I respect that viewpoint, but credibility is paramount...I am not a fan of locked pages but anon editors with no purpose than to vandalize or troll for disruption need to be dealt with aside from temporary blocks...I applaud your efforts again to fight vandalism in a swift manner.--MONGO 18:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Credibility is paramount, yes, which is exactly why I've undertaken the no tolerance stance with vandalism here. (Before anyone accuses me of partisanship - I'd do the same to John Kerry if it had the same problems) Unfortunately, we can't ban IPs indefinitely, but usually blocking them for a day or two shuts em down.

I kind of look at this as ... drawing them out. Sure, you can keep the vandals from editing the article, but I prefer drawing them out, letting them edit it, and then block 'em. Better than them going to another article and vandalizing that. --Golbez 18:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think requiring users to sign in to edit/load content, at least for high profile pages, the way we must now to upload images, will substantially decrease the vandalism problem and enable the system to continue scaling effectively as more users sign up. -- Barrettmagic 11:40 August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Some time back (about a week ago, in fact) this matter was discussed at length. A poll was called for, and the results were:15 against protection, 7 for. But, the founder is right, even if an act of vandalism stays up for only a minute or two, thanks to your vigilance, a visitor might get a poor impression of wikipedia. Golbez, who seems to know his stuff when it comes to waging war on vandalism, might be right. If someone gets blocked for their childish actions, then maybe they will get the message. On the other hand, that wont matter to the type of vandal who is just passing through. --Banes 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The result was 13 to 7, I believe. Anyway that was for a full lock on the article. We have yet to have a semi-protection vote, which would be much more likely to lean in favor of protection than the previous poll. I definetely believe that vandalism of major pages(often visted) will give people a bad impression about Wikipedia. Therefore, I am going to start a new poll.Voice of All(MTG) 20:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

'get the message?' right now its too easy for repeat offenders. and the number of vandals passing through will only grow exponentially as the numbers of daily users grows at its current pace. i still think the higher profile pages should require a modicum of security - at least a member sign-on similar to uploading images. -- Barrettmagic 12:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protection Poll

This poll is for semi-protecting the George Bush article(for when this protection is available). All in favor of Semi-Protection:

1. Voice of All(MTG) 20:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

All oppossed to Semi-Protection:

1. I vote against until I know exactly what semi-protection is. Golbez 20:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC)