Talk:George W. Bush

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George W. Bush article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 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, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

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, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36

intro

When and why did we get rid of the last part of the intro describing his family? Marskell 10:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Since when does anybody have the facts about George W. Bush? He's got so many personas and personalities it would take 50 qualified psychologists to keep up with all of them. Kudos to all of you who are trying to keep the page from being vandalised. Guess that is proof that George's popularity keeps going down the toilet.

Ah well.

{Hahaha politics, no.} --Zorak 08:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The debate over the reference to Salem bin Laden. If it is inaccurate - then it should not be there period. If it is accurate - then it's not a cheap shot to include it in some way. Not disproportionately prominently. But an en passant reference is not a cheap shot. We need to know what percentage of the company or funding came from that source. If it was a significant amount then it should be referenced. If it was a petty amount - then to mention it would be unnecessary and one could say its inclusion was inflammatory but added no substantive knowledge. The structure of the Arbusto financing must be on public record. Someone should look it up and see the merit or otherwise of including the info.Davidpatrick 18:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-vandal solution

Apply vprotected and protected tags to stop vandalism! It will work well!! --Prestaugh 11:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really think until bush falls out of the limelight should be a block on the page. Maoririder 14:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC) vandalism will just increase if nothing is resolved. Maoririder 14:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SOmeone added {{Template:stopvandalism}}. Let's see if it works (highly unlikely). Izehar 23:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Historical comparisson

The debate over what to do with this article is somewhat similar to the the one over the controversial decision to permanently protect the Main Page to deal with the high levels of vanadalism to that page. It's somewhat interesting to go back through the page history and see that the "unmanageable" level of vandalism that was then being debated was an attack once every couple days. - SimonP 20:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's an unmanageable level of vandalism here. Every time a vandal "strikes" a group of people immediately revert; do you know how many times I've tried to revert, but someone else has beat me to it? I mean if this page is locked, then were will it end? After all, Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopaedia". Reverting vandalism is the price we have to pay if we want Wikipedia to retain that title. Izehar 20:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we must deal with some bad things in order to keep our favorite encyclopedia free and open, but I really don't think vandalism is one of them, except on a small level. There is no reason why we should have to constantly revert this page, and if we can impliment a better solution, we won't have to. Would you mind considering the options posed in the threads above? P.S. This page is still too long, and no one is axing it! (I would, but I'm not too sure how to go about doing this). Thanks and good luck, Mys e ku rity 21:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no, the level of vandalism is quite manageable. I just feel bad for the database :\ the edit history becomes almost unreadable. Maybe we should have pruning bots that silently remove edits that were immediately reverted from the edit history. Regarding vandalism, sneaky changes to little-watched articles are a much more serious problem. No vandalism to this article goes unnoticed, but I've found months-old vandalism in less prominent articles before. dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, guys, I respect your website and all, but I still reserve my right to sate unequivicably that your president is a complete douche-bag. cheers

famous personalites??? lol

What a laugh. Mandela and chavez! any other bush haters you want to quote? How bout Castro? North Korean dictator Kim? Or perhaps the famous bin laden. That would be a nice conclusion to this excellent fair and balanced wikipedia article.--Capsela 22:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda reminds me of the Oscar Wilde quotes on Unencyclopedia. -Mys e ku rity 00:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is why quote sections are usually POV. This article is too long already, I support removing the quotes. They're out of context and obviously cherrypicked from among Bush's most notable critics. Rhobite 06:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or else we should try to find some quotes that show international opinion of a favorable view of Bush...and that aint going to be easy. I'm sure the opinions of folks like Chavez or Mandela are likely to be biased. But with an approval rate of almost zero internationally, it is doubtful any leader outside the U.S. is going to upset his/her constituants with any prose about Bush. But everyone already knew that so I'm just chiming in.--MONGO 08:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it's easy to cherrypick quotes of international leaders who think Bush is a moron, because there's whole orchards to choose from. You are free to try the opposite, but you won't be cherrypicking so much as hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. Maybe known Mafiosi like Berlusconi or Aznar, yeah that'll make GWB look better. Maybe the Uzbek chief of intelligence, too. And I think even Berlusconi is not as chummy with Bush as he used to be (of course, now that it looks like Bush is sinking, Berlusconi has no reason to stick around with him) dab (ᛏ) 15:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

on second thoughts, Chavez isn't exactly a beacon of integrity himself, so that Chavez dissing Bush needn't be a negative experience for Bush, at least not as much as being dissed by Nelson Mandela himself ;) dab (ᛏ) 15:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair maybe? He has supported Bush's foreign policy although he has still been critical of other conservative aspects of Bush's administration. Rhobite 16:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Tony Blair's opposition party is suggesting he resign, and his popularity is just as low as Bush's it's probably not a good idea to use him to make Bush look good. See below link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/09/world/main1028144.shtml

I rm'ed (propably being reverted as I write...). It's impossible to have a section of that sort which is NPOV. Marskell 17:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good riddance. Trying to keep a selected selection of quotes NPOV is impossible. Besides, we already have a link to Wikiquote for that sort of things. Shanes 04:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: use [[q:George W. Bush|Wikiquote]] instead of an external link. This produces Wikiquote. -Mys e ku rity 04:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Didn't know or had forgot that syntax. Shanes 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template

I made a template for this article to bring attention to the fact that this article is vandalized 100 times per day. This article is pretty much complete. I think it should be permently protected, but that is just me.

I added the template to warn portetial vandals about the policy, but made it flexible enough to be used in other heavilly vandalized articles. --Karrmann

This page should be protected.

I'm sorry, but this poage needs to be protected considering that this page was vandalized 100 times today, it despritely needs protection.

--Karrmann

Yeah, but there are probably 100 admins looking at every edit done to this page, and that's without counting the Counter Vandalism Unit. I'm starting to think that there should be some sort of semi-protection status, but not full protection. Tito xd^(?!?) 00:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We could go on about this forever. If you protect this page, then you have to protect all of them. We can't do anything about Bush's popularity (or lack thereof), and feeling is high in this country (and in the international community) against Bush. You have to take into consideration things like this will happen with a person like Bush, and just deal with it. Asking if we should protect this one page (which has exploded into many) is like asking if we should throw out the Constitution now that we've got the Patriot Act. It's about Wikipedia, the FREE encyclopedia. That's it. 142.151.143.157 04:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, that 2004 IPSOS poll in the section "other countries" should be updated to reflect current antipathy towards Mr. Bush. There was one done this year as well. http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/ap/?CFID=3323812&CFTOKEN=36009387 142.151.143.157 04:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have proof of Bush being anti-Catholic?

Edit here [1] states that bush spoke at Bob Jones University and attempts to connect with the later statement in the edit that doing so somehow means he is anti-Catholic...does anyone have anymore substantive proof of this other than this editors opinion?--MONGO 20:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - even if it is though, there cannot be many sources about the subject. Izehar 20:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The passage in question reads "In 2000, after having received the Republican nomination for President of the United States, Bush visited and lectured at Bob Jones University. This caused considerable controversy, as the university in question has had a long record of anti-Catholic indoctrination. Bush attempted to play down his visit, claiming that he did not endorse the university's views, even going so far as to write a letter of apology to the Archbishop of Boston, however many maintain that Bush's visit indicates that he is more closely alligned with the anti-Catholic fundamentalist Christianity sects in the United States." The first sentence is fine because indeed, he did give a speech there...but how much controversy did it cause? Does the Bob Jones University have a history of anti-Catholic "indoctrination"? Furthermore, it states that he "attempted" to down play his visit...and who are the "many" that maintain that Bush is therefore anti-Catholic? It seems to me that Bush has a strong support from Catholics in the U.S. due to stance of opposition to abortion rights. The passage is unsourced, POV and is unencyclopedic.--MONGO 08:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been reverting even stronger POV from 66.32.126.54 (talk · contribs). Although I simply don't think that portion of the article is accurate or POV. I might take it out if no one comes with sources. Tito xd^(?!?) 08:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to think that BUsh may very well be anti-Catholic in his relious views, but that doesn't mean I think that he has a problem with Catholics as people...regardless, it would be nice if a source for this type of thing could be found...I've looked and turned up nothing except opinion [2] and then this one which states that Bush isn't against Catholics [3] and here brother Jeb defends Georgie after he went to Bob Jones (as if that isn't a biased source!)[4] and then Bush defends himself here [5]...so indeed there were some questions to be answered about his visit to Bob Jones University, but I see nothing except the same innuendo he was defending himself from 5 years ago trying to be passed off as encyclopedic.--MONGO 08:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is evidence he is anti catholic, there is little reason to mention that here as that in itself is controversial and easily disputed. To mention it sounds quite POV to me as well. Cowman^Talk 19:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think if it were true, everyone would know about it already (liberal media would have jumped on the bandwagon). I'll take it out now. Tito xd^(?!?) 21:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have evidence that Bob Jones University also forbids interracial dating. How POV was it in the first place for Bush to offer a speech there? I believe it may be worth mentioning. Gilliamjf 00:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It is an introductory-level article on Bush, not Bush-bashing. If there is mainstream media criticism of the speech, and it can be sourced, then it goes back in. Otherwise, it's out, not just according to WP:NPOV, but to WP:V. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was criticism of Bush for this incident, but it was based on the university's racism, not its anti-Catholicism. I believe one critic pointed out that, if Jeb Bush and his Hispanic wife had met each other as students at Bob Jones University, they wouldn't have been allowed to date. JamesMLane 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection

I realize that the relevant conversation has now been archived to archive 36, but I honestly wish not to see this proposal die down. The vandalism at this article is too great to just sit back and watch it, and I feel that semi-protection would be the best option. I am unsure of what needs to be done in order to establish semi-protection, but I wish to make it available as soon as is humanly possible. But the more important question is in regards to peoples' feelings about protecting/semi-protecting said article. What do you, as an editor, feel? Thoughts, please. -Mys e ku rity 03:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say bring it back, that was an active ongoing discussion. --kizzle 04:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JanesMLane already dragged it out of the archives once I think...maybe we need to take it over to the Village Pump and never shut up about it till something is done.--MONGO 04:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all three of you. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) That was me who brought it out (I was editing the page, then Voice of All archived it, I got an edit conflict warning, and moved it back. I agree about the Village Pump thing, as I've heard (never actually been there), that things can be easily forgotten/passed over, and so I really hope this isn't one of them. If we know what language this should be programmed in, I can send a note to everyone in Category:Wikipedian programmers/try to contact the devs, but I don't know how well this cold-calling will work. I really think this needs to be implimented and "never shut up about it"; otherwise, we'll all get screwed. Oh, I think I'm going to file a Bugzilla reqest. Thanks, Mys e ku rity 05:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "never shut up" seems the strategy--cold-call away, I say. There's a thread open on Jimbo's talk. Perhaps he'll rouse himself to comment if a dozen people show up and note agree. Marskell 05:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla requests are probably not the best idea, since there are dozens of feature requests that are currently on the back burner. I suggest asking someone farther up for her opinion until there is some substantial discussion about this. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with both above. I was just filling out the Bug report, when I saw this, and I had been feeling similar thoughts as yourself. As for cold calling, whom should I "call"? What language will this be written in? And what to do about rousing the editors to leave a note on Jimbo's page and demand semi-protection? Where should I/we go to get more people interested, and have Jimbo himself declare a national state of emergency? -Mys e ku rity 05:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, it seems that aside from my complaint above, much of the talk on this page is about the vandalism...that in itself shows that we are all so busy with our own duties and dealing with the constant reverts of vandalism here that we don't even have time to really edit this article and make it better! I also just want to add that until we get a bunch of folks who are willing to keep at tis ad nauseum, we don't stand much of a chance of Jimbo allowing it to happen. I myself am somewhat torn as to whether I want to change anything at all and continue along a path as we have had of constantly dealing with vandalism (the wiki way) or of some form of semi-protection, subpaging or another idea. I am a strong advocate of an open wiki, but obviously something needs to be done here. Maybe an installment at the Village Pump and an Rfc on the issue? We did a bugzilla approach to semi-protection and it got shot down...kizzle is the man to ask about that.--MONGO 08:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two suggestions: Copy and paste the discussion ongoing on Jimbo's page to each of the high level wikipedia people (wasn't there just an election of some sort? try those people who just got elected)... second, maybe create a Wikipedia:Combating_extreme_vandalism project page and invite as many users as you can. --kizzle 20:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are going about this wrong way. Wikipedia is not so hierachical as you appear to think and you won't get an edict from Jimbo or anyone just by talking. If you really feel the "simple-minded vandalism" problem is so bad, please go ahead with an idea along the lines of the kludge solution I mentioned on Jimbo's talk page. This is something you can do now without twiddling your thumbs waiting for a developer who may never materialise. I guarantee you at the very least this solution will get the attention of more people. Wikipedians fear change, so the solution may get crushed, but it will be better than just sitting with nothing but a bugzilla page.

I know I am not on the arbcom so you may not see me a "senior" Wikipedian, however I have been contributing for three years and have seen time and again how policies actually change. Indeed I have been responsible for several of them myself ;). Pcb21 Pete 11:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be fully protected like the Main Page, not semi-protected. The vandalism to this one article is extraordinary. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pcb, didn't mean to reference the "high-up" wikipedians as being somehow superior to you, as I've only been editing for about a year now. Its just more likely they have clout with developers, which is truly where this will get fixed. I agree the kludge solution should be put into effect, but its a temporary band-aid to a problem that needs to be addressed within the software itself. --kizzle 21:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added: Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. Comments/additions welcome. -Mys e ku rity 05:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American viewpoint

{In Latinoamerica is common the expression "Bush go home!" in the hundreds of manifestations that happened when he went there.} It's TRUE, even thought you don't want to believe it. Thousands have died because of Bush's administration, we don't say "thank you, Mr. Bush". It will be like saying "thank you Führer Hitler for the Holocaust". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.187.201 (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{I have an idea. Stop bringing bloody politics into these discussions and keep it OBJECTIVE. Bush isn't recieved well by all, point. No American president is loved by the world, because the "primary" power is disliked.

Comparing the Holocaust to the Iraq War is LAUGHABLE. George Washington lost more soldiers in Valley Forge (not even combat) then we have in Iraq and Afghanistan. Compare this "war" to any other war in US History, and this is a minor engagement. Compare it to the Holocaust and you will see the same thing.

Of course there will be individuals in nations who dislike Bush. Thats part of a hate of US; we'e the main military power, as stated. People dislike that, to be honest. Though www.theotheriraq.com is worth mentioning...} --Zorak 08:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Vampire?

C'mon guys, give it up. I wonder how many people saw that This man is an evil man and some say he is a vampire and burst into uncontrollable waves of laughter like I did? Are you liberals really that desperate that you have to stoop so low as to do that? Funny, funny, funny. Roygene 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, some are. Please don't forget, however, that a similar situation has been going on at Kanye West, which we've dealt with here. Wikipedia is nice because its good editors are able to cross partisan lines for the purposes of building a better encyclopedia. -Mys e ku rity 01:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing policy states that we cannot edit the page unless we want it to get published again. Since he's still in office, this doesn't make too much sense. Maybe after he dies in 25-50 years. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sure i follow you. the article can always always always be editable forever. publishing involves making a copy of one particular version in time, frozen, subject to approval, to announce to the world "this is a reliable piece of information and i recommend this to you but not our editable development version that we are working at the moment". yes, they can get out of date quickly, so you are suppose to republish as you should. -- Zondor 05:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotect poll

I boldly put a poll on Jimbo's talk page :-).Voice of All^T|@|ESP 05:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, and please offer any feedback and insight you have. Thanks, Mys e ku rity 05:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV-section: Death Penalty

I tagged the Death Penalty section with a NPOV tag as I find the word choices to be overemphasizing and misleading. The section as it is now:

George W. Bush is a fierce supporter of the death penalty. As Governor of Texas, George W. Bush was responsibe (through the signing of death warrants and the refusal of clemency) for the deaths of 152 people. As President of the United States he has continued in his fervent and active support for capital punishment, including presiding over the first federal execution in decades, that of Timothy McVeigh. For this reason, he is viewed as a particularly evil person by many opponents of capital punishment.

"fierce supporter", "fervent and active support", "he is viewed as a particularily evil person" are all POV, unreferenced and unencyclopedic.--MONGO 11:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at it now. --BadSeed 11:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, thank you.--MONGO 11:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Can we protect this page against re-direction by the Dublin redirect vandal?? --Sunfazer 15:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. There's no point protecting this page sicne it will then remain permanently protected. It's protected against outright moves, however. -Splash^talk 15:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, when you unprotected it, you didn't re-protect it against moves, at least I don't think. Second of all, there's no point in unprotecting it, and yes, until we have semiprotection, I am now suggesting it stay protected permanently. We don't have time to clean up after the lower elements of internet society. We can either revert vandalism every four minutes, thus damaging Wikipedia's reputation, or we can prevent vandalism altogether, thus damaging Wikipedia's reputation, but less so. --Golbez 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Golbez on this issue. This page should be protected for the time being. It seems kind of silly to just let people keep vandalizing it and reverting them. I believe protection is the best solution for right now.--Alhutch 21:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think people will ever stop vandalising??? Maoririder 21:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 18:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

simply look at the page history and see what percentage of the recent edits are substantive and meaningful. the great majority of edits to this page are vandalism and subsequent reverts.--Alhutch 21:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you know why look at what the man has done no arguement... Maoririder 21:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with this situation is that this is an article that needs to be updated frequently. Since Bush is the current President of the United States, many of his daily actions may be notable enough to merit inclusion in the article. In particular, Bush's ongoing statements and actions on the Iraq War should be included as they take place. Protection may make the article severely outdated, which in its own way may be as damaging as vandalism. Firebug 21:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have hundreds of administrators. If an update needs to be made, it can be submitted here. The page history speaks for itself, there's no reason I and the other good editors on this site should have to waste our time cleaning up after people when we could be expanding and improving the pedia. Perhaps permanently protecting this article will accelerate the development of a semi-protection mode. --Golbez 21:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the rub. Admins have no content control role, yet you propose we engage in one by having people submit their edits to our approval. Yuk. I'm going to unprotect this again, and protect against moves only. -Splash^talk 21:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Splash, if you continue to constantly expose a heavily vandalized article to further vandalism, I'll be forced to open an RfC on you. Please stop this insanity. --Golbez 03:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please calm down and read Protected pages considered harmful and WP:AGF. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)}

If you feel that way, why not come to Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and tell us what you think? This will greatly reduce vandalism, while still allowing good users to edit.

Vprotected, but temporarily of course

There's some guy with a lot of IP's available having his fun with penises at this page, and with Jimbo's number. Thus, it's vprotected, though this should be undone quite soon. Just get this guy to wander off (plus this is such a visible page its not one where I particularly want Jimbo's homephone number). R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the protection option is for. Immediate problems that cannot be solved by other means. -Splash^talk 02:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But how many times must we do this in order to keep it from being vandalized? I completely see your point in allowing new users to edit this article, but I think the number of vandalisms this article faces by newcomers is far too great. How many times do we have to protect this page? I want non-admins to be able to edit this too, which is the point of having semi-protection. I'm sorry we're having this disagreement, but I think that we should try to keep Wikipedia as clean as possible and retain our already valued editors. This is not to say that we should not actively recruit new users, we just need a little more of a buffer on pages like George W. Bush. We have 800,000 articles: If a new user can't edit a dozen of them, do you honestly think they're going to be turned off forever? People outside the project don't care that much if you can't edit a few pages, but they care when they see an image of Hitler when they're looking for information on George W. Bush. -Mys e ku rity 21:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newbies cannot edit the Main Page anyways, and that doesn't stop them from joining Wikipedia. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 18:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush's Training in the Texas Air National Guard

Earlier, the article stated that, in 1968 at the height of the Vietnam War, Bush entered the Texas Air National Guard and spent 2 years learning to fly. However, someone has removed the latter part. I think that this is relevant to the article, and complements the timeline. I am considering readding it, and don't regard it as being POV. Any objections? Gilliamjf 03:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. Might be helpful if someone can find out the average pilot-training period in the late 60s. The Land 17:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gilliamjf; I changed it. Originally it read as if he didn't do his other duties; only flying around goofing off. The current "He trained in the guard for two years, learning to fly during this time" that we wrestled over is more direct and to the point. If this were of an accelerated time then adding that would be more prudent rather then dancing around the fact. Although, I suspect that two years is ample time to learn at least "how" to fly; becoming an expert might take longer. --Supercoop 17:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two years for a Reserve pilot sounds reasonable, considering this would involve basic flight school, intermediate training, and training on the F-106, which would be several hundred hours. In the Second World War, it took about 280 hours training for an RAF pilot to pass basic flight training, and it was about 1500 hours in total. Bush was compentent enough to fly Delta Darts, which was a high-speed interceptor. Personally, I've always said "You can lie to your friends, you can lie to your boss, you can lie to your loved ones, and you can even lie to God, but you can't lie to an airplane. It will kill you."--GABaker 1630 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Tired

There really should be comments on this page about how Bush has used a false understanding of terrorism to endorse a national aggression. Terrorism is not a nation, rather it functions like an organization. To fight it with massive military action will only cause more distruction. How much more obvious does Bush need to be that he is filling us with lies and using terrorism as a ploy?

Thank you for your opinion. If you can provide specific sourced examples of Bush using terrorism as a ploy, or using a false understanding of terrorism, we would be happy to include it in the article. However, I find it unlikely that you will be able to find actual proof of these things. I do wish you luck in your endeavors though. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean, unlikely? How about pretty much anything he said over the past four years? It's not like they are trying to hide what they are doing, they just shrug off criticism as long as they can get away with it. The problem is not that there is no proof, the problem is that his electorate is beyond giving a damn, so it doesn't matter if there are proofs. dab (ᛏ) 19:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I ask for specific sourced examples of said activity. How do you prove that what he is doing is using terrorism as a ploy? How do you know that that's not what he and his administration really thinks? I am trying to be NPOV here. If there are specific sourced examples of him deliberately using a false understanding as a ploy, please provide them. But since, I am going to assume, you cannot read Bush's, or his administraion's, mind, you cannot prove it. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agree with LV, it is unlikely that you can find sourced examples. NPOV!!!!!--Alhutch 21:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did something get messed up?

My edit, 16:43, 30 November 2005 Lord Voldemort m (revert vandalism) definitely did not show up as I had made it. Perhaps a few things got messed up too (look at the history). Any idea what happened? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's there now. Maybe it's a problem with your browser?--Sean|Black 21:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the vandalism I reverted now shows that I put it there... see? I am confused. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's odd. Maybe you have dissociative identity disorder? :).--Sean|Black 22:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm some guy in Ohio. I was researching Bush and deleted the offending phrase concerning conservative inbreeding--I got rid of that, that wasn't vandalism. Sorry for the confusion; I'll find a more official way to edit next time. 12:08AM Dec 1

Ethan, don't worry, you just beat him to the revert, and he reverted to an old version. We'll fix that. You're not in trouble. That said, you should really create an account! Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 05:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In short, LV, your revert came at just the wrong moment, (but said vandalism had been there long before you made that edit). BDAbramson T 05:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts sometimes screw up things. I did one a while back on this page, got an edit conflict message, then saw in the page history that I was credited for reverting TO the vandalized form. Pollinator 05:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to go on record saying that it was a WP, not operator error. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

Please look at Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy and vote. It would directly affect this article directly. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question... How many times is this going to get linked here? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More than once. -Splash^talk 15:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As many as it takes to get you guys to come discuss the proposal so we don't have to spend so much time complaining about vandalism on this page. --kizzle 02:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iron fist

Splash says that protection is only to be used temporary to save from a wave of vandalism.

If I look at the history, last 50 edits, and see that every. single. edit. of the last 50 has been within a 24 hour period, and has either been a vandalism or a revert, I will protect. It is quite simple. If y'all want it unprotected, slip in a valid edit here and there. But if no valid edit can have been made in the last 50, then clearly there's nothing valid to add, and no reason to further risk our reputation by allowing editing.

This is a wave of vandalism, and the protection is as temporary as the vandalism is. --Golbez 15:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we acquire good edits when the page is protected as at present? I wanted to copyedit the first section (I could, I'm an admin, but I won't edit a protected page). Protecting it and then demanding good edits is an impossible situation. -Splash^talk 15:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm sure someone will unprotect it. Maybe you. But what I meant was, is it too much to want a single valid edit every 25 edits within a single day? If we can't get that then there's apparently no valid edits to make. Perhaps you could unprotect it and make your edit - that would certainly reset my timer!

But I decided to expand it to 100 edits, and look!

02:30, December 1, 2005 128.192.206.55 (→Education, military service, and early personal life - changed "after his family moved" to "as his ..." -- makes more sense)

A valid edit! Made within the last 24 hours! Hallelujah! So I'll expand it to 100. But please tell me why you think this article should be unprotected before the devs give us new toys? To get valid edits? Of which there are about 1 in 100, and yes, we CAN vet them, we were chosen by the community to be administrators, and we aren't being content masters, we are being the heads of a moderated mailing list, moderated solely to keep out spam. Make your edit. It's our article now. Thank the vandals. --Golbez 15:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deal. -Splash^talk 17:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected again *sigh*. I know most of the world (myself included) thinks the guy is a gobshite but the scale of vandalism here is flaming ridiculous. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we need to do something. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the linking. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that this would also be made easier by foregoing the traditional four warnings. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 21:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's "gobshite"...most of the international world thinks a lot less about him than the average American...besides...if you people want semi-protection, then the best way to have it is to leave the darn article unprotected....build your case!--MONGO 21:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we're doing, we tag them with {{bv}} and then block if they continue. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point....I want the supporting evidence for the need for semi-protection to be in the form of the edits displayed in the activity to this article. If we leave it protected then whomever will decide this matter will just say that, well, just keep protecting it whenever the vandalism is out of hand. It's been out of hand for a long time and I would prefer if we continue with rollback and warnings as much as possible.--MONGO 21:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)][reply]

I think (correct me Titoxd if I'm putting words in your mouth) that he was probably meaning that comment more for me than for you, Mongo. · Katefan0^(scribble)/my ridiculous poll 21:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with Katefan): Yes, it was intended for Katefan, not for you, Mongo. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think that semi-prot is a policy for one article. That won't fly. -Splash^talk 21:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about guideline and policy pages, or pages like Wikipedia:Introduction to name a few?--MONGO 21:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I surely hope not. They are fluid by design. Why on earth would we want to protect pages that receive next to no vandalism. The idea fundamentally misunderstands the point of both protection and semiprotection. -Splash^talk 21:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are guideline pages and policy pages "fluid by design", especially when vandalism may be concerned. I have no fundamental misunderstanding of the protection policy...as far as I am concerned, I never use it. But the semi-protection feature is an excellent idea and is a far cry better than having a one in five chance that the passing reader will open the Bush article and see a picture of whatever or text filled with obsenities.--MONGO 02:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was nowhere close to 24 hours and I and others made good edits. Easy on your protection button. It's harmful. -Splash^talk 21:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That deal was with me. I don't care anymore, you probably won't find me around this page much anymore. One less vandal watcher, congrats. However, Jtdirl did it, and I did revert because it was a bit of a disrespect to him to undo his probably reasonable protection so soon. (See a theme?) --Golbez 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I undid, because we're trying to collect some data here. No offense intended, Jtdirl, but we need to have it open to see how much problems it causes being that way. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. He can read this talk page as well as anyone else can. -Splash^talk 21:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OY!!! --LifeStar 21:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your OY!!! and raise you a Good Lord Jesus Please Take This Sin Away From Me!!!. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! --LifeStar 21:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its only the persons point of view to edit because they think he is a bad man by calling him satan and stuff but wikipedia adminstartors what can you do with this iron fist? Maoririder 21:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected again?

Why is this page protected AGAIN?? Some of us would actualyl like to make some changes here.

Because other users haven't been able to play nice. and keep this page from vandalism for even the shortest period of time. If you check the page history, you can see the ratio of productive to unproductive edits—it's not good. Until then, you may post sugguestions to this talk page, or wait until the vandalism passes before adding the information. Sorry for the inconvenience, Mys e ku rity 06:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~)

I'll unprotect. If you reprotect, at least use {{protected}}. The alternative to protecting is rolling back and blocking vandals, of course. Just slap vandals to this article with 24h blocks without warning, they know what they are doing. dab (ᛏ) 11:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sustaining problem?

I've tried to make a number of actual edits to this page (especially the Immigration section -- which specifically asks for more information) only to have them be seemingly reverted without even being read. The reason Vandalism is such a problem is because everyone wants it to be, IMO.

Ahem. Do the math and then tell us that we don't have a real problem. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 14:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's a poor excuse for blindly reverting good edits, if that was done. -Splash^talk 16:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it wasn't me. I read what the editor put in before reverting. However, it's possible that this did in fact happen. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I figured it wasn't. I commented just because we had another anon complain of the same treatment yesterday on John Seigentheld Sr. (however it's spelt), and it's very poor form of whoever did do the revert. -Splash^talk 16:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add new section

Since yesterday was AIDS Awareness Day, I thought it would be good to add a section to foreign policy regarding his HIV/AIDS program. Here it is. If someone wants to add it, great!

====HIV/AIDS====

In the State of the Union message in January, 2003, Bush outlined a five-year strategy for global emergency AIDS relief. Bush requested $15 billion for this effort and Congress supported the president's proposal. The emergency relief effort is led by U.S. Ambassador Randall L. Tobias, the Global AIDS Coordinator at the Department of State. $9 billion is allocated for new programs in AIDS relief for 15 countries most affected by HIV/AIDS. Another $5 billion will go to continuing support of AIDS relief in 100 countries where the U.S. already has bilateral programs established. And $1 billion will go to support The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This budget represents more money contributed to fight AIDS globally than all other donor countries combined.[6]RonCram 14:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I'll add that in. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, this is part of Bush's foreign policy, not domestic policy. Ambassador Tobias works for the Department of State and all of the money is spent overseas.RonCram 15:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. Fixing now. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 15:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for adding it! RonCram 15:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. It's too bad that we have to watch over this article so closely, but when you see how much this page is vandalized... Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 15:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism hindered?

Ever since the warning and the no section edit variable were added to the article, vandalism to the article has dramatically decreased. Your thoughts? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 17:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've given it about two hours, since ~10:27am. In the 2 hours and 15 minutes since, I count ten vandalisms (and ten reversions), a few refinements to your warning, and one legitimate edit. Going only based on history, it has spent eight minutes in a vandalized state. So, it has been in a vandalized state 6% of the time, with a vandal edit made approximately every 13.5 minutes.

Extrapolated, this "dramatic decrease" means that this article will on average be vandalized 86.4 minutes a day - nearly an hour and a half - and collect over a hundred vandalisms (plus up to a hundred reversions).

Over the space of a year, this means it will only be vandalized for 31536 minutes, or 21 days - a mere three weeks time. And it means administrators and kind layusers will have spent their time reverting nearly forty thousand vandalisms.

If we call this an improvement, there are far, far deeper problems. --Golbez 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have only been 5 vandalisms since I added the __NOEDITSECTION__ variable, 2 hours ago. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 17:55

Salem bin Laden

I would like people's comments on whether his partnership with Salem bin Laden in Arbusto Energy should be mentioned in the article. I think if it's true, there's no reason to leave it out.--Alhutch 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. It has it's significance in its own little way. Only people who want to whitewash GWB would want to omit that. Izehar 18:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not here to sneak in subtle suggestions of conspiracy theories. As for your second sentence, you know what happens when you assume... — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 18:06
It should obviously be left out, if we're not going to mention any of the other investors. Read the company article at Arbusto Energy. Bush established the company, and had several investors, one of which was representing this half-brother and cousin of Osama bin Laden, so it is obviously a cheap shot to sneak in "bin Laden". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 18:06
Indeed, this is already covered sufficiently in Bush family conspiracy theory. BDAbramson T 18:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two choices are: You either list all the investors listed in the company's article, or you don't list any of the investors. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-2 18:09

Thank you Brian for expanding that portion of the article. I strongly agree that we should disclose all the investors in the interest of completeness, but disagreed that making mention of Salem bin Laden in this section was even remotely "sneaky", although it did need some rephrasing for accuracy. Hall Monitor 18:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]