Talk:George W. Bush

Template:FAOL Template:Maintained

Biography Section (First Section)

Either after mentioning of his current 19% approval rating or in the information about impeachment movement, it may be worth mentioning that Bush is not expected to be impeached as the Democratic-controlled Congress can't muster enough courage or even half the courage that the Republican-controlled Congress had when they impeached a President with an approval rating above 50%. Wotring3 (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the third paragraph states: "As president, Bush signed into law a US$1.35 trillion tax cut program in 2001,[3]" It should be followed with "This tax cut was not accompanied by reduced spending and resulted in the National Debt increasing for only the second time in 50 Years (Reagan's Administration being the other time).[226]

226. National Debt History by President. White House Data on Gross National Debt. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Factsonly1 (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. May be worth mentioning, but we also don't want to poison the well. Could go either way. My reasoning: we already mention the national debt rising below. We don't want to be redundant, necessarily. Perhaps, instead, we could make mention in the national debt part that "many economists attribute the rise to a failure to cut spending coupled with the tax cuts". The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Could go either way. I find it hard to imagine a reliable economist would say that the national debt rising is in anyway due to tax cuts though. The federal government has been collecting record tax reciepts ever since those tax cuts went into effect. Finding an economist stating that the rise in national debt is at least partially due to failure to cut spending shouldn't be to hard to find though. Elhector (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I read an article from the AP the other day that stated as much in just as many words. It stated directly that the tax cuts were not enough, by themselves, to reduce debts. They made it sound like they used some sort of metrics and mathematical data. I'm sensitive to the fact that the media is quite eager to make Bush look bad, but it still is a reliable source; now, finding it would be another issue. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem there I presume is the assumption the rising tax collection was because of the tax cuts. In reality many countries without tax cuts have rising tax collection, probably because of growing economies etc and therefore there's no reason to presume that the US tax collection wouldn't have gone up more were it not for the tax cuts. Of course I'm not suggesting that all economists agree I'm sure many wouldn't but I'm also sure many would in fact question how effective the Bush tax cuts have been at growing the economy and reducing US debt Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

From a quick search I came across this [2]. Also this [3] while obviously not a RS may have some helpful links Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find just as many reliable sources saying the tax cuts have helped grow the econonmy and increased tax revenue as we can find reliable sources stating the tax cuts have not helped grow the economy and have had no effect on tax revenue. It seems to be more and more of a problem for Wikipedia as a whole now. It's possible to find reliable sources that completely contradict each other even though they both meet all reliability guidlines. I'm even starting to notice situations where 2 peices from the same source completely contradict them selves. I guess that's the issue here. Is it really a good idea to go that in depth in analysis of 1 small part of GW's domestic policy on an article that is meant to be more of an overall biography of his entire life? I think this would be more appropriate for a different article. That's just my opinion though. Elhector (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Under: "Additionally, questions of possible insider trading involving Harken have arisen, though the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) investigation of Bush concluded that he did not have enough insider information before his stock sale to warrant a case.[33]" .. should we add that the head of the SEC, at the time of the investigation, was formerly GWH's personal counsel? Do you think that might have influenced the decision that there was "not enough information"? James D. Rockefeller (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. That's pure speculation and a stupid assumption to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.71.254 (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Presidency

The whole section on presidency seems to not have any type of ordering. The section 3.7 (Civ. lib.) comes before 3.9 (Sept. 11) yet refrances the events of 3.9. Personally the section should follow chronological order. Covah79 (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Feb 7, 2008

Section Seems to be missing this

Supreme Court appointments

George W. Bush appointed the following justices to the Supreme Court:

• John Glover Roberts, Jr. - 2005
• Samuel Alito - 2006

Malsmith (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions & Polls

The sections dealing with "perceptions" are per se suspect. While I do not doubt that the cited polls took place and I accept the results of those polls as correctly cited, it should be noted that polls are easily manipulated. What questions are asked and what information is given along with the question can tilt the result one way or another. Also, if the party that conducted the poll has an agenda the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt.--SMP0328. (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have retitled the "Criticism and public perception" section to "Public perceptions." All perceptions are either critical, complimentary, a mix of those two, or are strictly factual (e.g. "It's raining outside"). Placing the word "Criticism" in the title of this section is superfluous at best and biased at worst. The new title removes the emphasis on the critical perceptions.--SMP0328. (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

On many articles regarding politicians, instead of a sections entitled "Criticism and public perception" there is a section, with similar content, entitled "Cultural and political image." That title is certainly neutral, as opposed to one that uses the word "Criticism." I suggest renaming the section "Criticism and public perception" to "Cultural and political image." --SMP0328. (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category

May I ask how George Bush is in the category American Cheerleaders? Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

He was a cheerleader in school. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok....Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I just have to say that I cannot believe that even though this is a locked article, a fairly obvious act of vandalism exists at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.239.13 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that he is doing a good job in the role of presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.46.130 (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

this article is not locked, it is merely restricted. the vandalism was autoreverted by a bot moments after it was done. Anastrophe (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

actually, I think it's still there... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.103.219 (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

okay. then perhaps you'd be kind enough to point out what exactly it is then. Anastrophe (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've stated before that I thought this category was silly. It was a brief occupation in school and had nothing to do with his life; you will notice other people with brief cheerleading stints did not have it mentioned on their page for precisely this reason. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

End of Term

There's seem to be an edit battle going on regarding when President Bush's term ends. If he finishes the current term, then it will be January 20, 2009. Technically, it could be sooner (death, resignation, or removal). Some keep putting in the end of term assuming President Bush will finish this term. Others keep removing the date, because he could leave sooner. I suggest "January 20, 2009 (assuming he finishes term)." This would cover both contingencies. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A slightly cleaner version might be "Bush's term is scheduled to end of January 20, 2009". But good idea. - Revolving Bugbear 20:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, too. That area should not be blank (as blank, it serves no purpose), but it should recognize that it's possible that President Bush could leave office prematurely. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that's a bit much for the infobox. ;-) If people must have something, feel free to change it to "January 20, 2001 - present" but we don't predict the future. There are just too many variables to state January 20, 2009 as a definitive end date within the infobox. I know there's a guideline or manual of style page somewhere that covers this, but there are so many of them now, I can't seem to find it. An alternative would be to include a sentence within the text of the article, as suggested by Revolving Bugbear. However, being blank is exactly as the end term parameter should be. Without a date specified, the infobox reads "Assumed office", an accurate description/field for that date. - auburnpilot talk 21:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence very similarly worded to that suggested by Revolving Bugbear in the introduction to the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest it should not say "January 20, 2001 - January 20, 2009" as that is original research because that date has not came yet, and he could be kicked out, have a heart attack, be assassinated, be impeached, resign, and anything like that. That is why i think it should simply say "January 20, 2001 - present" or "Assumed office: January 20, 2001". Mythdon (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed a 44th President edit from the infobox. Wiki editors out there, have got to learn to be patient. PS- Imagine the headaches we'll have between November 4, 2008 & January 20, 2009?? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

President Bush will not succeed himself, so the word "Incumbent" (who is Bush) is not correct. The successor to the current President will be the 44th President. The 44th President will, unless something unforeseen occurs, take office via this year's Presidential election. Hence the link to the article about this year's Presidential election. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note: at Stephen Harper he's not followed by 23rd Prime Minister; at Kevin Rudd he's not followed by 27th Prime Minister etc. Incumbent is used for 'current office holders', please respect that. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I said earlier. For Stephen Harper, it should say "23rd Prime Minister." The word "Incumbent" has a meaning. The fact that something is done repeatedly does not make it correct. For how many centuries was the belief that the Earth was flat repeated? The successor to an office holder is never that office holding. We know for a fact that George W. Bush will not be his own successor, so the word "Incumbent" is unquestionably wrong. Whatever should be in that part of the infobox, the word "Incumbent" shouldn't be it. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But currently the Infoboxes use incumbent in the successor section. Personally, I like your idea - bring it up at Wikipedia: WikiProject Infoboxes, see if they like it. My personal suggestion? 'Remove' the successor section from incumbent infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have made my suggestion at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Infoboxes. Feel free to make your similar suggestion (remove successor section). Thanks for your help. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the successor section in the Infobox. In Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Infoboxes I have been told that the successor section in the Infobox is optional and that it is permissible to remove it. Since it's superfluous ("Incumbent" is below the name) and factually incorrect (see my comments above), I have made the removal. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS- What a bone-head I was, in saying the infoboxes used 'incumbent'. The incumbent infoboxes have their 'successor section' removed. My blunder, sorry SMP0328 and everyone else. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it should definately be mentioned in the infobox under 20th January 2009 but insert a footnote or an asterisk stating that this is considering that he completes his term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.87.22 (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton-Bush Article Editing Double Standard?

- The main Wiki article on Bill Clinton contains extensive info on the (unproven) sexual allegations made by Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. And yet the main Wiki George W. Bush article contains no mention of Margie Schoedinger (who filed a rape lawsuit against Bush and who was found dead of a gunshot wound the following year). True, Schoedinger's allegation was unproven, but then so were Willey's and Broaddrick's allegations. - Why the Wiki double-standard? - More importantly, why is this considered vandalism on a discussion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeMongo (talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign. DeMongo (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source that corroborates what you're alleging? note that BLP talk pages are held to approximately the same standard as the BLP page itself. thus, unsubstantiated claims about a LP are subject to removal. if you can't provide a WP:RS to back up the above, it will likely be removed as well. so, i'd recommend moving with alacrity on that. Anastrophe (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. http://www.fortbendstar.com/Archives/2003_4q/122403/n_Woman%20who%20filed%20lawsuit%20found%20dead.htm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.156.186 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

i'm afraid this sounds like a case of a mentally disturbed individual who imagined quite a lot of things. from the article "Furthermore she states, "Throughout this conversation, she learned that there was no time that the Defendant (Bush) ever stopped watching Plaintiff', nor did he stop having sex with Plaintiff. ". unfortunately, there's no credibility behind her claims. i can't see this single, far-fetched claim meriting inclusion in a BLP. others may disagree. Anastrophe (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So if it's a woman making a sexual assault allegation against Bush, then she is a "mentally disturbed individual" and this info should be kept out of the main Bush article. However, if it's a woman making a sexual assault allegation against Clinton, then it is important, vital information that must be included in the main Wiki article on the Clinton presidency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

you're not assuming good faith. read the article that was cited. everything in it points to a classic disturbed individual making the allegations. it's quite sad, really. clinton had a notable - and corroborated - history of sexually intimate contact with women other than his wife. bush has none, besides this bizarre claim. i'm sure conspiracy adherents will presume bush had her killed to silence her, rather than what sounds like a deeply screwed up individual who eventually took her own life. considering the general antipathy towards bush, don't you think these allegations would have been relentlessly pursued for political gain, had they a shred of credibility? rhetorical query, that. Anastrophe (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of placing an unsubstantiated allegation against George W. Bush in this article, how about removing the similar allegation in the Bill Clinton article? The only reference in that article is to an interview with the accuser. --SMP0328. (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

the difference i believe is the repeated pattern of allegations against clinton, his agreement to settle out of court with paula jones, and the lewinsky scandal. taken together, they add up to a notable pattern. the clinton article also incorrectly lists only the wiley and broaderick allegations in the 'sexual misconduct' section - it should also list paula jones and gennifer flowers as related articles. that makes four separate allegations, and one proven instance. i believe that meets notability. Anastrophe (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You can rationalize this all you want, but the fact remains: if a woman makes a sexual allegation against Clinton, it's included in Wiki's main article and if a woman does the same with Bush, it's not included in Wiki's main article. Incidentally, I don't place any credence in the "notable pattern" argument. The Right-Wing Fringe also hollered about a "notable pattern" of Clinton supposedly murdering various people, including Ron Brown and Vince Foster. But no sane person would believe such charges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see both sides to this. Why not hold all presidents equally accountable? However, the fact is that Clinton spent a much larger amount of his time and energy on affairs than Bush. If there are fewer allegations against Bush, it's because he's done less to elicit them. And after all, every famous man and woman has allegations made against him or her. No reason to dwell on Bush's indiscretions in this article, because they didn't define his presidency in any way. Clinton is another matter. RoverRexSpot (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no conspiracy to keep this out of the Bush article, or to force sex scandals into the Clinton article. Clinton's own actions made his sex acts into scandals, but no proof whatsoever exists to verify the one claim against Bush. This isn't a partisan issue, it's basic fact. The media has treated the allegations against Bush with the attention they deserve, and there is no need or reason to include them in this article. - auburnpilot talk 23:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "no proof whatsoever exists." Well, dead people don't talk---but while we're on the subject, I'd like to point out that no proof exists for the allegations made by Willey and Broaddrick. We're not saying there is a "conspiracy." But there is clearly a double standard. And I won't even get into asking why there is zero mention of Valerie Plame case or the Downing Street memo in the main Bush article. (Any reasonable, intelligent person can see that both of those news stories were vastly more important than the tabloid sleaze sexual allegations included in the main Clinton article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.112.76 (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Clinton article, the page you are looking for is Talk:Bill Clinton. We don't make decisions about that article on this talk page. For the Plame issue, see Plame affair. If you believe it should be added to this article, register an account and add it. Or, make a suggestion of content to add (not just that it should be added). - auburnpilot talk 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Clinton sexual charges are included because enough people believe them. The Bush sexual charges are not included because not enough people believe them. Simple. Wikipedia is a community, and community opinion dictates what is right. Herunar (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's quite a double standard we have going. So the logic is pretty much if someone did something once, you don't have to prove they did it twice? That makes a whole lot of sense. Stop Me Now! (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As others have alluded to, I'm going to say this once, to make it clear as possible. There is no double standard. There is, in fact, a common standard. When an incredible amount of verifiable information exists on a subject (George Bush, in this case), we only include in the main article those facts/incidents that received the most attention. Clinton's extramarital affairs (alleged and otherwise) received obscene amounts of attention from the press. This one incident has received comparatively nill. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the paragraph about albanian perception of Bush

I removed the paragraph as it appears to be a unique case and highly unrepresentative of the subject as a whole, and thus is not notable enough to warrant a paragraph in a tight article like this. Albania is famous for being hated by just about every other country in the world, much like the United States, so I don't find the support surprising. Herunar (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

it's there for NPOV; it shows that revulsion of bush is not universal. it's properly cited, and interesting. it should be restored. Anastrophe (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the material should be restored, but phrased in a more encyclopedic tone. The "rockstar reception" is a bit over the top, even if it is a direct quote from the article. I suggest forming a separate paragraph for the purposes of emphasizing some of the positive international perceptions, since the article now dwells exclusively on the negative. The support of Albania should certainly be mentioned in this capacity. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Anatrophe. The edit made by Herunar was unjustified and so I have returned the removed material to the article by reverting Herunar's edit. --SMP0328. (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Herunar, you could probably read up on WP:NPOV: making statements like "Albania is famous for being hated by just about every other country in the world, much like the United States..." does not lend credibility to your statement. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely stay, although it could probably do with some trimming per WP:Undue weight. His reception in one country, a relatively small country at that, is probably not noteable enough for such a long paragraph in the main article. If there are more examples of a positive reception for Bush internationally they probably should be added but bearing in mind that the section is likely to always concentrate on the negative more then the positive since as that section summarises, the perception of Bush internationally is generally much more negative then positive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Peace prize nomination

I think that mention about Bush being a 2001 Nobel Prize nominee should be removed.

First, the statement appears to be factually incorrect. The source cited in the article to justify this statement, [4], says as much: Despite a rumor that circulated late in 2001, President Bush wasn't amongst the nominees for the 2001 prize...In February 2002, however, reports began circulating that members of the Norwegian Nobel committee had let it slip that George W. Bush was among the persons (along with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani) being considered for the 2002 Peace Prize.

So it seems that Bush was nominated for the 2002 prize, rather then for the 2001 one.

Second, the source cited, snopes.com, seems like a rather weak choice of a source for this kind of information. There ought to be some more direct references in mass media.

Third, and most importantly, the mere fact that some-one was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize does not seem to be sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned here. That is certainly the case when we are talking about a U.S. President. If he won the prize or at least if he was considered a serious contender, that would have been a different story. However, the same snopes.com article says:

The Reuters news agency noted, however: "Neither Bush nor Blair is likely to win. Bishop Gunnar Staalsett, a member of the secretive five-member Nobel committee which elects the winner, has spoken out against the U.S.-led and British-backed strikes on Afghanistan." President Bush was reportedly one of 156 candidates considered for the 2002 Peace Prize, which was awarded in October 2002 to former President Jimmy Carter.

I did a bit of google-searching and it looks like President Bush was nominated by a single rightwing Norwegian MP, see[5]. It seems to me that this episode perhaps belongs as a footnote together with various oddities and curiosities related to President Bush's biography, but not in the first sentence of his biographical entry, where it appears now. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up the Nobel Peace Prize wikipedia article and it says that Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini have also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 05:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, being nominated for a medal so partisan and politically influenced that it makes that UN look functional, and it being refuted by a newspaper with equally partisan marks. Maybe we should look into this more: did it have any chance of success, or was it a fringe nomination, as the guardian states? Can you find any sources about this in mainstream media? The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There did not seem to be a lot of press coverage of the nomination. However, here are links to news-stories by the BBC [6] and by Reuters [7]. Both say that Bush was considered unlikely to win. There is some evidence that the nomination was considered a bit of a joke, e.g. see the parody cite [8]. On the other hand, we should remember that this was before the Iraq war and fairly soon after September 11, when the world opinion of George W. Bush was quite different from what it is today.

Interestingly, it turns out that Bush was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004, see [9], [10], [11]. That nomination was made by another right-wing Norwegian MP and was widely viewed even more unlikely to succeed than the 2002 nomination. According to the Free Republic story referenced above, the Libian leader Muammar Gaddafi was also nominated in 2004.

The Free Republic story also says [12]: Lundestad said many people wrongly believed being a "Nobel prize nominee" was itself a kind of honour. Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have made it to the list -- every member of all the world's parliaments, university professors from law to theology, ex-winners and committee members can submit names.

In my view, this shows that the standard for a nomination is quite low and, in and of itself, being nominated does not represent a particular distinction or honor. This is especially true for some-one like the President of the United States, who has more than enough bona fide distinctions, honors and awards, and other biographical facts that are much more significant than a Nobel Peace Prize nomination. Therefore, I do not believe that the mention of such a nomination belongs in the first sentence of George W Bush's biographical wikipedia article, where it is currently listed. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear me, it's in the lead? Given the evidence you've presented, if it's accurate, this is not appropriate. I agree it should at least be moved down near the bottom (please do so). If it had no chance of success, it deserves nothing more than a passing mention at best, and probably could be taken out altogether uncontroversially. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've corrected the 2001 error and moved the mention of the nomination to from the opening sentence to the foreign perceptions section. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I added it. I wasn't aware anyone could be a nominee. I agree to not include it. Mønobi 03:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Skulls and Bones

I think it is relevant to acknowledge him being in the Skulls and Bones. The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Skull and Bones article, there is a one sentence reference to Bush being in the secret society. It says Bush refused comment. If you can find more information regarding this matter, and have it properly referenced, then put it in the article. --SMP0328. (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

www.fascism.com

Why does attempting to go to this website result in getting to this article? [13] --SMP0328. (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

it simply means that whomever owns the fascism.com domain has put in place a web redirect to this page. it's completely outside of wikipedia's control. well, i suppose if the wikipedia network admins had some free time on their hands, they could block traffic being directed in from 216.52.184.243, but there's no guarantee that the address won't change. it's just part of the way the web works. Anastrophe (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the nature of the web, and I do not believe blocking traffic from a domain sets a good precedent. Would they then block any web pages that linked the word fascism to this site? rob3r —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob3r (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention we should also therefore block any site which links to Bush while expressing a POV. If we're going to block people who call Bush fascist, we should also block those who call him a great person etc Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people just don't have anything better to do with their time or money. It's outside our jurisdiction in this case, so we just have to live with it. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Recognition of Kosovo

George Bush has recognized independence of Kosovo, and we should note this fact in the article. Bosniak (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the last sentence of the "foreign policy" section. His recognizing of Kosovo's independence is mentioned there. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

It seems interesting that George Bush's wiki page has been locked from editing, no doubt of course from various vandalism, when in fact at least one thing so far has been missed.

In the 'Child-hood to Mid-Life' section, someone changed the entry to read as follows: Bush was raised in [vulgar language removed]|Midland]] and Houston, Texas

Maybe the admins might want to change that?!

--24.31.174.129 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What's really interesting is that 24.31.174.129 made this comment at 23:32 UTC, referring to this edit by Harry is so cool 33 minutes earlier, which lasted less than a minute. I wonder how 24.31.174.129 ever saw it, let alone thought it hadn't been reverted. Of course I wouldn't dream of Assuming anything but Good Faith here! -- Zsero (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the vulgar language quoted by 24.31.174.129. Quoting acts of vandalism, especially the vulgar versions, in a talk page only encourages such vandalism. --SMP0328. (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

More Vandalism

If some moderator could please fix this, that would be great. (Kinda says something about me being straight, that aint right?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.67.125 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that this edit comes from an IP all of whose other recent edits have been reverted as vandalism. It is a school IP, however, and some of the edits have been self-reverts, so it's possible that there are vandals and anti-vandals operating out of the same IP. Take that for what it's worth. In any case, this is a marginally legit comment for this talk page, not outright vandalism, so I've restored it. -- Zsero (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Executive Privilege

I made a recent edit

Despite President Bush's lack of involvement in this affair, he still maintains the claim of Executive Privilege for his aides. As Bush has repeatedly stated he has no involvement in this case, "this calls into question any claim of executive privilege."

Executive Privilege in the United States requires the direct involvement of the president of the United States. As Bush has repeated stated he has no involvement in the Midterm firings, he therefor has no claim of executive privilege and therefor the fact that he still claims is significant. Given that it comes up in every meaningful article (including the sources within the section) but is not mentioned in the section proper is a rather glaring omission. Hopping over to the Executive Privilege section of the wiki, all cases directly involve the president of the United States and the United States v. Nixon sets its precedent as requiring the President's involvement. Hence, this calls into question any claims of said privilege and makes it worthy of entry. RTRimmel (talk) 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The internal workings of the executive branch are not the business of the legislative branch. The entire executive branch works for the president, his personal involvement is not required for the privilege to attach. It's a matter of the separation of powers. At least, that's the position the executive branch has always taken; the legislature is entitled to its own opinion, but it can't enforce it, and the judicial branch has no business deciding, because of the political questions doctrine, so that's how it's going to remain indefinitely. -- Zsero (talk) 06:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem being that the supreme court disagrees with you meaning that there is at least some disagreement. And many times the executive branch has not taken the position you are expounding, Bush's executive branch has and that's the point. The two main angles are the president where everything in his office is covered and the democrats where only things directly involving the president are. The supreme court has only weighed in on it protecting the president, hence its significant. At minimum, we only have half the first half of the quote for the previous source, at worst we are misrepresenting the whole thing as this may well boil down to a constitutional crisis. as the Dems have filed contempt of congress against bush's former aides, who are being protected by Bush who is claiming executive privilege more broadly than any prior president including Nixon. RTRimmel (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court hasn't – and can't – give an opinion on this. And every president since Washington has asserted this privilege. Every time a president has allowed executive branch members to testify to Congress it has always been with an explicit waiver of privilege and a reminder to Congress that he didn't have to waive it. -- Zsero (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

... United States v. Nixon is the supreme court giving an opinion on it. Not every president has used Executive Privilege, many could but have not due to lack of need. Every president has not used this privilege to avoid contempt of congress charges for its aides. Executive Privilege does not grant the President absolute privilage in Article II of the constitution. Further, the Supreme Court allows for Executive Privilege to be voided if the information in question is not vital to the security of the nation and if the information is essential to the justice of the case. In short, how is knowing if attorneys were fired for political purposes critical to the security of the nation? Further Executive Privilege applies to "Presidential Materials" and by specifically stating that he was not involved the President has effectivly removed himself... and he still claims the privilege. And given that he has claimed Executive Privilege at least 4 times during these proceedings, the fact that Executive Privilege is not mentioned at all in the article is dubious at best. RTRimmel (talk)

The full quote of the sentence is The executive privilege claim "is surprising in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no involvement in these firings," Leahy wrote in his ruling. "The president's lack of involvement in these firings _ by his own account and that of many others _ calls into question any claim of executive privilege." So by quote mining, we misrepresent Leahy rather badly. RTRimmel (talk)

Either we need to expand the quote to contain the full intent of the speaker. Are we to remove the misquote or write in the full text? RTRimmel (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

US v Nixon did not address the question at all; it had no need to since the material at issue was directly linked to the president. And US v Nixon was about a dispute within the executive branch, not between branches; essentially the Court ended up treating it as a conflict of interest between The President of the United States and Mr Richard Nixon.

No president has ever allowed executive branch members to testify to Congress about the internal affairs of that branch without an explicit waiver preserving the privilege. That is the position of the executive branch, and it's not up to any other branch, including the judicial, to challenge it.

I don't understand what you mean by quote mining. Leahy acknowledged that the president was not involved. That admission is not qualified by anything not quoted. His partisan opinion about privilege is unrelated, and unimportant. He doesn't get to decide how far the executive privilege extends.

-- Zsero (talk) 15:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's one read of it. There is some dispute and Article 2 of the constition lies out Presidential Powers pretty clearly. In any event, the fact that Bush has claimed Executive Privilage 4 times on this one specific event is not worth mentioning at all? Seriously? He claimed Excutive Privilage more than the last several presidents. That not interesting enough to merit anything? Executive Privilage isn't mentioned at all in Bush's article. Claimed it on a congressional investigation like Nixon? Not a bit? When would the use of executive privilage merit mentioning?

So your view is that the President is above the law? RTRimmel (talk)

By quote mining I mean removing portions of a quote to make it sound as if it is a completly different thought. The full quote reads The executive privilege claim "is surprising in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the president had no involvement in these firings," You see how it actually is about Executive Privilge and its been mined to make it look like Leahy's exonerating Bush. He's actually questioning Executive Privilege! Then the quote is mined to completly change what it means. That's quote mining for you! Given that the full sentence has a completly different meaning than the quote suggests, don't you think we need to at least expand it to the full passage or should we remove this misrepersenting passage? RTRimmel (talk)

Finally the constitution, not the executive branch, decides how far that privilage extends. Bush's lack of direct involvement only further muddies the waters, hence the possiblity of a constituional crisis over the whole thing. In cases where the constitution is in question, the Judicial Branch decides the outcome and so they can become involved, just like in US v Nixon. RTRimmel (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. The fact that he's invoked executive privilege may be worth a brief mention; Leahy's opinion that this is questionable is not. 2. It doesn't matter what Leahy thinks about the extent of the privilege or whether it's been properly exercised. What's important in the quote is his admission that Bush had no involvement. The fact that this was not the purpose of the statement is precisely what makes it so reliable and notable; as is the fact that it's an admission against interest. This is basic logic and rules of evidence. 3. No, in a conflict between two branches of government, the third co-equal branch does not decide the outcome. That's the political questions doctrine. Don't keep dragging US v Nixon in, because a) it wasn't a separation-of-powers case, and b) a stronger president would never have accepted the Court's jurisdiction. -- Zsero (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. So we use the whole quote or not at all. 2. His full quote is about executive privilage, the latter half of the sentence is about involvement. We should use the full quote. 3. Its a constitutional matter. When the constitution is in question then the Judicial Branch decides it. This is not a seperation of powers issue, per Article 2 Bush doesn't have the power to do what he is doing in the first place. Or he's above the law. Just because a more powerful president can bypass his constitutional obligations doesn't mean it was legal there either, and further Nixon was so unpowerful due to illegal acts which is what the investigation is looking for in the first place. RTRimmel (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. No. We use the part of the quote that's an unintended admission, and an admission against interest, and not the part that's an attack. 2. It doesn't matter what the full quote's about; in fact that's precisely why the admission is reliable and significant, because it's not the point Leahy was making. 3. Do you understand the Separation of Powers doctrine? How about the Political Questions doctrine? The judicial branch is equal to the other two branches, not superior to them. The separation of powers in inherent in the structure of the constitution, and thus the executive branch cannot be compelled to testify about its inner workings to either of the other two branches. The president is not above the law, but he is entitled to his own view of the law, and can't be compelled to accept the views of the other branches. -- Zsero (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1. So we are quote mining. I didn't realize you had psyic powers as to be able to tell he did not intend on revealing it... in the middle of a press conference. I'm glad you are here to demonstrate to us all what the correct viewpoint is. 2. Its exactly the point he was making. I read that and can easily comprehend what he is trying to do, but if you want to spin it to follow your viewpoint that's cool too. If we can't use the entire thing we shouldn't use it at all. 3. Again, you are saying that the President can perform illegal actions as long as it follows his viewpoint. If the president takes a gun and shoots someone in the face and then claims executive privilege he's off the hook? If his view of the law says that he cannot be tried for performing illegal acts and therefor he's fine? That sounds as highly corrupt as is possible on this earth. This is a constitutional issue, not a separation of powers issue. It doesn't matter who asks, he's overstepped his authority as president in invoking privilege over this, or at least an argument can be made over it so it should be included. The fact that you are twisting facts to get your viewpoint out there (in terms of quote mining) is not exactly encyclopedic. Why can't we just use the entire quote? If only the portion of the quote you agree with is used, isn't that POV and therefor shouldn't we not use the quote at all? Instead of misrepresenting Leahy, why not just remove the quote and state that the Judicial commite chair had absolve Bush from his role in the firings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RTRimmel, please stop it

Look, stop edit warring, and giving undue weight to a matter of little importance. Leahy's opinion about the executive privilege is irrelevant. Of course he thinks it's that limited. He's a) a Democrat, and b) a Congressman. On both counts it's not surprising that he has this opinion, but that doesn't mean it's notable enough to be worth mentioning here, let alone giving it a whole damn paragraph. What is notable is that in the course of his attack on Bush he admitted that there was clear evidence that Bush was not involved in the firings. That is notable, and it's appropriate to quote his exact words in making this admission – and no more.

Dowdifying, or "Quote mining" as you call it, would be if he'd said something like "the president's supporters claim there's clear evidence...but that's not true", and "it seems like there's clear evidence...but appearances are deceptive", and someone quoted just "there's clear evidence...". That would be dishonest. That's what Maureen Dowd did to Bush in the famous incident that gave Dowdifying its name. But that's not what's going on here. Leahy said Bush wasn't involved, and he meant it; naturally his purpose wasn't out support Bush but to attack him, by drawing a conclusion from Bush's non-involvement. But that doesn't make the quote any less genuine, or any less important. It's an admission, and an admission against interest, which is the best kind of admission. It should stay, without the rest of what Leahy said, which isn't relevant.

As for the fact that Bush wouldn't let his advisors testify, that's barely notable at all, and doesn't deserve more than one sentence. The space you've given it is undue weight, and it must be reverted.

-- Zsero (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote you insist on using a quote referring to one of the President's advisors as opposed to multiple others that clearly are speaking about the president and his lack of involvement. Lets be clear here, Leahy has said the president was not involved. Instead of using one of the multiple one sentence statements you instead pick a longer sentence that involves: One of Bush's Advisors, Bush, Executive Privilage, Bush's advisors claiming of privilage on his behalf, the fact that Executive Privilage doesn't apply, and then cut it down to a position that supports your argument INSTEAD of one of the short stubby ones clearly stating just that. At best, this is a very poor editing choice. You keep reverting without providing ANY citations as to why. That section is poorly written and needs modified, if you won't do it, that is fine however it betrays your own bias.

And your viewpoing that Executive privilage is unimportant is hard to justify considering that most of the sources in the article mention it extensivly. It is noteworth that he will not let his advisors testify in this case, that's what the case is about, the fact that it only gets one sentence without even mentioning the privilege by name is not giving it any of its deserved weight. The reason the case has not gone further than it has is entirly based on executive privilege, yet again we don't even have the words executive privilege in the section. RTRimmel (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Several of the sources used in the article site this as involving Executive Privelage.

You tell me to "cite sources". Sources for what? The quote says what it says. I don't need any sources to use that quote. It is a source. Leahy's admission that Bush wasn't involved is significant; his opinion on the limits of privilege is not significant. It's really as simple as that. I've explained this over and over and you keep repeating the same nonsense.

The fact that the president isn't letting his advisers testify just isn't that significant, it's one of the things presidents do, and you're giving it undue weight. I'm coming to believe your reason for doing so is because you want to bury Leahy's admission to make it less noticeable. -- Zsero (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

For previous presidents who have not let their aides testify and to support your additional claims about the unimportance of Executive Privilege. Leahy's article indicates that Presidential aides have in the past without the writ you claim they have had. His opinion carrys the legal weight of the Senate. Your misquote of him is stupid considering that there are several quotes within the articles I've sited that actually clearly and expressly say that Bush is not involved. Your questionable opinion is discounted by the Supreme Court, the Senate, the AP, and a host of constitutional scholars meaning that you have to explain why rather than just delete and claim that the other side is wrong. IE Cite your sources as to why Executive Privilege is not important when the Senate and the AP thinks it is and mention it repeatedly, explain why you would like to use what amounts to quote mining when there are perfectly clear quotes that say the same thing without having to cut anything. You keep spouting off bits and pieces of what Leahy says after cutting massive portions of it out when Leahy actually says what you want him to say in several short, clear sentences.

The fact that Bush is keeping his advisers clear of this rather sensitive subject is significant. You'll notice that most(if not all) of the sources in the article keep flipping back to the aides not testifying AND executive privlege. You need to pick a source or two that don't mention his adviors testifying or his use of privlege and I don't think you'll be abel to find any because that's what makes this noteworthy.

Finally,... I've left in a Leahy quote absolving Bush in the edits I've made and its still there as of now. I just use a different one, one that actually talks about Bush and his lack of involvement. Or I expand the one thats there so that its in some context. You insist on using a quote about one of his advisors using the president's privilege in a case where the president has no involvement and then, instead of using a short and to the point quote about the situation, cutting off all portions of it that go against your point and keeping in the section that sounds like it fits. I'm removing that quote because its not a quote about Bush's involement, rather than its about his advisor using his Executive Privilege (which you don't even mention) incorrectly. Then I put in a Leahy quote that says Bush was not involved. So, again, I'm actually using a Leahy quote in context to prove Bush's lack of involvement rather than 'Dowdifying' one to make it sound like Leahy is. You seem intent on hacking apart a quote that is talking about executive privilege as applied by an advisor and turning into a new quote about Bush's lack of involvment... when there are already so many of those to choose from. Why not use an actual quote where there can be no questions rather than mining one to bits to get the words you need out of it? RTRimmel (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's like I'm banging my head against a wall. You obviously have no grasp of the separation of powers, or the political questions doctrine, or what "quote mining" and "admission against interest" mean. I keep explaining and you keep on ignoring. Someone else better step in here. But the paragraph as it stands gives too much weight to the privilege issue, and buries Leahy's admission of Bush's non-involvement, which should be given in his own words, in a strong quote such as this one. I don't have to look for another quote, because this one is enough. I am not going to argue with you any more, and I don't want to edit-war, but someone is going to have to fix the article; I've still got one revert left before I hit 3RR, but I won't use it now in the hope that either you'll see reason or someone else will step in and fix it. I fear, though, that if anyone is reading this their eyes have glazed over long ago. -- Zsero (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a constituional issue, not a seperation of powers one as I said earlier and as the documents provided and supported by multiple consitutional scholars as well as the AP. The Supreme Court has stated the Bush's stance is invalid in a consitutional light and as we preport to goven through that document your statements here are meaningless. Your inability to grasp the significance of the use of power betrays your lack of understanding of how the US constitution layed out the seperation of powers and checks and balances. The quote you insist on using is about Executive Privilage and one of his aides invoking it. Your reduction of the quote well past Fox's reduction of the quote takes it entirly out of context and significantly changes the meaning. If you want to use it, use enough to retain the original intent rather than what you have converted it into. This is a bad quote. It is not encyclopedic to use a quote that tangentially states involvement where there are multiple, sourced, quotes that say exactally what you are looking for. I used one of those instead. To be clear, again, I used a short Leahy quote that says exactally that bush was not involved rather than his aide's use of his executive powers is surprising and then cutting out every bit of it that made sense and only keeping the back portion because without the first half it can be interpreted multiple different ways.

Yellowdesk already stepped in and reviewed it.

I have read the above discussion between Zsero and RTRimmel and compared their edits. While I am not entirely happy with RTRimmel's version, I think it is better than Zsero's. The nature of the controversy involves both the role of Bush in the firings (or lack thereof) and the nature of the constitutional disagreement regarding the blanket assertion of executive priveledge. Thus it is necessary both to mention Leahy saying that Bush was not involved in the firings, as well as to explain the nature of the constitutional disagreement in the case. In this regard RTRimmel's version is better since it mentions both. Maybe it would be preferable to have two separate sentences/paragraphs: one regarding Leahy accepting that Bush was not directly involved in the firings, and another regarding Leahy stating that there is no blanket executive priveledge for presidential advisors. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

References in a drop down menu

Is it at all possible to have the list of references in a drop down menu, as in hide them by default but reveal them at the click of a button? Because at my default resolution and text size the references measure eight pages long, just under a quarter of this article is taken up by references alone. JayKeaton (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No. They have to be searchable and printable. -- Zsero (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

CSS could make them hideable on screen while at the same time always showing them in printouts. Therefore it should be possible to have a template do the same. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion. -- Zsero (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

19%? No way...

Look at any other poll, none of them even come close to 19%. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=19 I don't see any other 19%. Redsox7897 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The ARG poll is just not credible. For comparison with three other polls taken at about the same time, see here.

And this is not just a fluke; ARG has consistently understated Bush's approval compared to every other poll. One difference between ARG's methodology and that of every other pollster is that ARG always asks a series of questions about the economy first, and then asks about the president's approval. The flaw in this should be obvious.

If nobody comes up in the next 12 hours with a convincing argument why I should not, I'm going to take it out of the article text, and relegate it to a footnote. -- Zsero (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it does look like a blip. That said, the 3 prior months of ARG polls run about average with the other polls on the page. For example, the January poll is 34 for Gallup, 33 for Fox, 29 for CBS and 34 for ARG tying them for highest(so given the sources provided they do NOT consistently under report Bush, there may be other sources I didn't see anything at a quick glance). Now, their January results are significantly lower than the prior months which is odd assuming they are using a consistent methodology which we have to unless we can find information otherwise. I can find enough information that ARG may be shady and some of their practices are not quite as ethical as one would like, though unfortunately many pollsters in the present age use these tactics as well, but I think we can push that down to a footnote in Domestic Perceptions, a "and 19 per cent—the lowest of his tenure—in a survey by American Research Group." esq quote such as was in the source. We don't need to qualify it either unless someone can find a good source indicating that the poll was in fact junk at which point I'm more inclined to remove it than keep it in any fashion. That said, I didn't find anything that definitively stated that they were polling improperly, and again their numbers in the prior months were within a few points (higher in some cases) than their contemporaries. I'm curious as to the fact that no specific date was mentioned vs what happened in February? An easier way to get a bad result of an individual is to simply ask after he did something that would cause a negative perception (for example Bush's polls dropped when he pardoned scooter libby or when a big recession report came out) that could cause a similar drop, but we don't have enough information to achieve a valid answer. RTRimmel (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon further review, I can't find a smoking gun that says that they are bad numbers. I'm not inclined to remove facts without a valid reason and a gut feeling that the numbers are shady isn't one. Do we have any sources that says those are bad numbers? Last time the results were removed, someone validly put it back because they remover couldn't argue the invalidity of the poll result and I suspect that will happen again. The 19% has been used by a variety of news organizations at this point, so I think more detail in the section, "Bush's approval numbers were significantly lower in his second term, averaging 3X% with some polls results going as low as 19%, the lowest ever recorded " rather than going back to the 24% number from October would be better. RTRimmel (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And vandalism again -_-

Will they ever learn? Will a moderator please delete the vandalism on top of the George W. Bush page? Brokenspirits (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What is at the "top of the George W. Bush page" that is vandalism? -- SMP0328. (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Disgusting, irrelevant facts not related to the topic of George W. Bush. I believe it's fixed now. (Sorry, I'm new at this :b Brokenspirits (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No doubt he is talking about this, which was done at 23:36 and was reverted at 23:37, while Broken was complaining about it here. -- Zsero (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am. Sorry, I'm very new at this. Brokenspirits (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely where you should leave a comment if you see something inappropriate in the article and cannot remove it. Thanks for letting us know. Sometimes vandalism is cached, and you must purge the cache to see the corrected version. That is likely what happened here. - auburnpilot talk 00:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep watching Brokenspirits. Vandalism is easily committed here and vandals are not punished often enough. We must be vigilant. --SMP0328. (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Collaboration project

This week, Wikisource is collaborating on works by and about George Walker Bush. Please consider helping out; if you dont have time to transcribe documents, we also need help identifying important documents that should be transcribed, so ... hit the talk page! See you there. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Full Protection?

Why can't articles like this be fully protected? Also, why can't vandalism from REGISTERED USERS spark full protection. Footballfan190 (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the vast majority of vandalism on this page is dealt with in mere seconds. Why would we want to prevent everyone from contributing to this article, simply because of a problem that is corrected within seconds? The vandalism is quite tolerable. - auburnpilot talk 04:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Full protection would mean that the article could not be edited, except by administrators. The article is already semi-protected (no anon edits). --SMP0328. (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Waterboarding bill"

There were reasons other than waterboarding that Bush stated for vetoing the bill. Please amend to note that waterboarding (Section 327) was only a small part of the bill. Full details of the veto can be found here. Also, if this is going to be here, please include "H.R. 2082" (the bill's number). --198.185.18.207 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Given how the press has latched onto the waterboarding section of the bill, I find that its focus is appropriate. Bluntly the other sections encroach on executive power per the constitution and a veto based on those would have hardly been noteworthy in and of itself. Type torture president into google and you get thousands of results proclaiming George W Bush the "torture president" and enough sources to indicate that both waterboarding is Torture and the US has done it with executive approval. If you can read languages other than English the results get far worse. I'll stick on the bill number though, surprised I missed that. RTRimmel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How about lowercasing the heading too, per the manual of style. Cheers. --198.185.18.207 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Intelligence Community Impact"

I feel we need a paragraph or two on Bush's alteration of the Intelligence Community, namely removing the DCI as the oversight for the CIA and the creation of Homeland Security and if possible projections on what Clinton Obama or McCain might do during their administrative transitions to the White House. Would they have the authority to undermine Bush's architecture, could they revert it, would they? It might be a little tangent but I definitely feel that the article needs something to describe the effect he's had on international and domestic espionage, ect besides extensive use of NSA eavesdropping, ty and sorry for spelling. Sanitycult (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no way to know how the next President will act. As for what the successor could do, anything done by Executive order can be undone by a later Executive Order. --SMP0328. (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lame duck

It is not normal for a president to become a lame duck until after the November elections of his or her fourth year in office. It is important to add a section about Bush becoming a lame duck after the mid term elections of his second term. Also it is important to note that the military has refused to cooperate with any possible attack of Iran, in fact it is surprising that one general was not court-martialed after refusing a direct order from the president. --Gonezales (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, one thing at a time here. 1) Mentioning the lame duck presidency is a great idea which I fully support. However, the non-sequitur on Bush's (un)popularity has got to go: [14]. 2) The bit about Bush wanting to attack Iran is not only pure conjecture, it's not even supported by the sources (the article is a *hypothetical*). As for the generals who might quit according to some uncited hearsay put forward by the Times in a hypothetical situation: the reason not to include this should speak for itself. I imagine the UK generals would revolt if Gordon Brown called for a second Holocaust, but since he hasn't, we don't put it in his article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the POV-nature of the additions made by Gonezales (although I don't think Gonezales in necessarily acting in bad faith here), the additions are false. A lame duck is any president approaching the end of his presidency; whether or not such a president lost his re-election bid is irrelevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Only a president who has lost political power becomes a lame duck. --Gonezales (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please lay off the personal attacks and stick to the article. Read the lame duck article. While technically every second term president is a lame duck president, they do not normally become a lame duck president until after the November election has named a successor. I couldn't care less how you edit the section, just don't delete it. According to the article the evaporation of support is what lead to him becoming a lame duck. As to Iran - there is still a lot of posturing in the administration about attacking Iran. It is worthwhile noting that Nixon was bereaved of his finger from the trigger, because insiders were afraid that he would start a nuclear war. A similar situation is manifesting in a less brutal manner. I would also like to see a flow chart for decision making within the Bush white house. I don't think that anyone should think that ideas originate from the top, nor are they approved at the top. --Gonezales (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is making personal attacks. The Evil Spartan's objections are legitimate, and you may want to rewrite the proposed text to reflect his suggestions. Also, to get material into this article, your assertions must be supported by reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Hi Gonezales. I think you may have a misunderstanding of what the word lame duck means - please read up on the article - it means any president who is in his second term of office, and as such, Bush's popularity has nothing to do with his lame duck status. And, if you want to start a thread about the Iran issue, please feel free, but as said, please don't mix the issues. As for deleting the section; as has been shown by 4 people other than yourself (3 on talk pages, one simply reverting and giving a warning): please understand that your edits are not neutral, though you may thus believe them to be; therefore, they have been removed. If you have a more neutral version to suggest, please feel free to do so here. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What part of "an elected official who has lost political power" are you missing? --Gonezales (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you move past the disambiguation page, the article itself explains that a lame duck "lost political power" because of "a term limit which keeps the official from running for that particular office again, losing an election, or the elimination of the official's office, but who continues to hold office until the end of the official's term." (See Lame duck (politics)). Thus, Bush became a lame duck on 20 January 2005. Lordjeff06 (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep reading. In the section on the United States it says "However, presidents are not usually considered to be lame ducks until the election of their successor" --Gonezales (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental question you're evading is, who decides when someone "becomes" a lame duck? It's a term the press use, and as usual some reporters start using it as soon as a president wins his second election, while others hold off until after the midterms, or until the next president has been elected. It mostly depends on context, and to a certain extent on how much delight the individual reporter takes in using the term of the president. That some reporters have started using it of Bush now is not notable; it's their own stylistic choice and nothing more. -- Zsero (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Some reporters called this president a lame duck right after his re-election. That is not normal. It is not "usual" for any reporters to call a U.S. president a lame duck until after a successor is chosen in the November election. The fact that GW became a lame duck two years early is highly notable. --Gonezales (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Along with the objections raised above, the source used to assert that Bush is refered to as a lame duck is an opinion piece, not a news article. Unless a stronger source can be found, or a reason provided to cite one random writer's opinion, the section should stay out. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem with that argument is that the "lame duck" designation will always appear in opinion articles, at least until after the next president is elected, because it is just a matter of perception, not a technical designation. It's never a question of whether a president is a lame duck but whether he's seen as one. A better point to make is that it's not notable if only one or a handful of sources call him one; it might be notable if all the press were using that term. -- Zsero (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider it a problem, just a fact. You'll also always see opinion pieces calling Bush an idiot or saying that he's considered one (in some newspapers) and something more veiled (in the better newspapers). And the inclusion criterion is unchanged: It must be demonstrated that the opinion is worth presenting, for whatever reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but out of politeness you will always find some reporters who decline to call him a lame duck until November 2008. --Gonezales (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't just declare it to be notable and expect us to agree with you. If you can demonstrate that it's a notable opinion, then we can consider it. But opinion pieces don't do that. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone who has supported removing this edit and not allowing it back in unless multiple reliable sources can be provided. Every president becomes a lame duck; this is nothing new or specific to Bush. - auburnpilot talk 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So add a couple of sources. Add a dozen sources. Be my guest. And yes every U.S. president becomes a lame duck, when a successor is chosen, although theoretically we could one day have a president who was actually respected and who never became a lame duck. --Gonezales (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Iran

As to Iran - there is still a lot of posturing in the administration about attacking Iran. It is worthwhile noting that Nixon was bereaved of his finger from the trigger, because insiders were afraid that he would start a nuclear war. A similar situation is manifesting in a less brutal manner. I would also like to see a flow chart for decision making within the Bush white house. I don't think that anyone should think that ideas originate from the top, nor are they approved at the top. The most likely decision maker appears to be Cheney, but the role of other advisers is clearly significant. Bush says that he is the decider, but that seems to be just idle rhetoric. --Gonezales (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. An attack on Iran may very well become necessary, and if it does there is no reason to doubt that the military will take orders just as it has always done. If you want to allege a serious threat of mutiny, you'd better have a much better source than you have provided. -- Zsero (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Necessary? Don't make me laugh. As if the Iraq war was necessary? --Gonezales (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about our opinion of what is necessary. You simply cannot assert that Bush has tried to attack Iran, but was thwarted by military commanders, unless you have some seriously reliable sources. So far, you do not. Additionally, a "flow chart for decision making within the Bush white house" has POV written all over it. - auburnpilot talk 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about Bush? I said there was posturing in the administration about attacking Iran. Since Bush is part of the administration he should be included in the discussion. You could make a better case for "wanting" to attack than you could for "tried" to attack Iran. Here are a few RS's to get you started:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2558296.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/12/usa6?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRE20070204&articleId=4670

http://media.www.dailyiowan.com/media/storage/paper599/news/2007/11/06/Metro/Edwards.Critical.Of.White.House.Bellicosity-3081472.shtml

This one says Cheney and the neocons are "desperate to start a war with Iraq". http://www.alternet.org/story/40042/

I would equate "trying" to "wanting", not to "tried". And yes there are plenty of reliable sources to indicate the refusal by the military to cooperate. I'm looking for a reliable, accurate flow chart, not someone's opinion of the flow chart. Gonezales (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these sources support your claim of a mutiny. That the president is considering a strike on Iran is neither controversial nor notable - of course he's considering it, as any president would be. It would be very irresponsible of the president not to be constantly considering it, with the situation as it is. That's not news. And if he decides it is time for such a strike, no doubt the military will accept his orders as is its duty; if you have reliable sources suggesting otherwise, that would be notable. -- Zsero (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Now it is my turn to ask you to keep your "of course" opinions to yourself. Feel free to start the section with the "wanting" to attack Iran portion. I'll look for some sources for you to add to the "refusal" portion. None of the above were intended to show mutiny, all were intended to show intent to attack Iran. Below are the sources intended to show mutiny.

This one you already have - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

Here are some more: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/preventing-a-rogue-president-from-committing-a-war-crime-open-letter-to-the-new-generation-of-military-officers-by-lt-col-robert-m-bowman/

There is a petition asking the military to refuse orders: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran

Here is a group of citizens asking that the U.S. not attack: http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2007-10-02-14-05-07-news.php

This one is a retired colonel: http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/022807WA.shtml

And a retired general: http://www.rense.com/general78/pdet.htm

Here is an opinion by Dana Priest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/09/26/DI2007092601556.html

Fallon refused to send a carrier to Iran: http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=37738

Here is an article in the Nation about the duty to refuse: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071022/brechersmith

--Gonezales (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these sources are about the President. They're about various people attempting to foment insubordination among the military. If they were notable people, then this information would belong on the articles about them, provided the sources are reliable, since it would be defamation to accuse them of this without a RS. But it has nothing to do with this article. If any active-duty officer showed insubordination, you can be sure they'd be out or in jail by now; the fact that they're not means this hasn't happened, and thus doesn't belong in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your speculation has no place either here or in the article. --Gonezales (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Information about the situation with Iran belongs at Iran and weapons of mass destruction. It's not information about the President as such; it's just a world situation that any US president would have to be on top of, including preparations for a possible strike against Iran. If and when he were to order such a strike, it would become news about him. -- Zsero (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah. Intent is equally important to report. What are his intentions? --Gonezales (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"What are his intentions?" unless you own a crystal ball, it has no relevance to this BLP. Anastrophe (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't climb a mountain or hit any target unless you aim for it. I want to know where he is aiming now, not in the future. --Gonezales (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You want to know? I can tell you, of course he's got contingency plans for the Iran situation, including all-out war. That much is obvious, because he'd be derelict in his duty not to. But that's not what WP is for. -- Zsero (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. Let's leave Gonezales alone. He is clearly here to push a POV, as is evident in his contributions and blatant anti-Bush vandalism. DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You know I'm sure I'm not the only one who has access to Google, I'd appreciate a little help. And no I am not here to push any POV, I'm here to provide factual information for an encyclopedia. I am just as willing to provide pro-bush information as anti-bush or no position-bush information. The only thing I'm looking for is the truth. --Gonezales (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for the truth, you've come to the wrong place. Simply put, what you've proposed thus far will not be included in this article. It violates NPOV and frankly isn't relevant. I'll have to find the quote, but when asked if there were plans to attack a certain country, a recent president responded with something along the lines of "Of course we have contingency plans. We have plans for everything". Having plans doesn't mean they'll be used; it simply means somebody is prepared. - auburnpilot talk 21:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the West Wing episode, where the contingency plans for an invasion of Canada are found to be woefully out of date. (I'm sure that the Pentagon's actual plans for such an invasion not only exist but are no more than 10 years old.) -- Zsero (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, I am here to provide truth that I have found in reliable sources, not to find truth here. If I don't find truth here, I am here to fix it. It is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia to speculate on the schemes of the bush administration, but well within scope to document plans that have been revealed. I'm not talking about contingency plans, I'm talking about actual plans. In this case I'm not even talking about plans as much as objectives. Is an objective of the administration to invade Canada? No. Is it an objective to attack Iraq? I don't know, and like I said I have no opinion, but there are plenty of references that make it sound like it is. Now the question is how do you put that into an encyclopedia? --Gonezales (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

" Now the question is how do you put that into an encyclopedia?" You don't. We don't speculate, or use sources that "make it sound like" something is or isn't happening. We use reliable sources and state facts. That is what an encyclopedia does, and I'm afraid you don't understand that. If you can provide proof that the Bush administration is plotting to attack Iran, then we'll have something to add. Until then, we don't add unsubstantiated opinions/conjecture/rumors. - auburnpilot talk 22:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Plotting" sounds like something nefarious. Given the current situation, they must be actively planning for a variety of scenarios, including both air strikes and a full invasion. Even if we had sources for this, I'd oppose putting it in the article because it isn't notable. If one of these plans were to be implemented, then it would be notable. -- Zsero (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Republican candidate succession box

I put John McCain as Bush's successor in the succession box.[15] Surely, with the note that McCain is only the presumptive nominee, this is acceptable? --Philip Stevens (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the big hurry? Let's wait until he is the nominee (assuming nothing dramatic happens between now and the convention). -- Zsero (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. No need to try to guess the future. --Gonezales (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He is not the nominee until he gives his "official" acceptance speech at the RNC later this year. We should wait until then to add him to the succession box. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. McCain is the presumptive nominee, not the nominee. There is a difference. - auburnpilot talk 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New approval ratings?

So we are ignoring the 19% poll, did someone finally find something that said it was a bad poll. Please throw that up there as a source. And the sources provided indicated that Bush's lowest approval was a Newsweek poll of 26%, and sepearatly Reuters has his lowest at 24%. Both are verifyable and lower than the 'lowest' section we currently have up. Unless of course Newsweek and Reuters are both also unreliable? I'll fix it later, but again I'm inclined to leave the 19% up there unless someone can find me something that says that its not a reliable number. So far we've had two people saying that it sounds bad but haven't backed anything up with anything other than their own gut feelings. And then acted on it. I'll drop the ARG poll like a dirty fish if someone can find something that indicates that someone non-partisan and crediable considers it a bad number, the worst I found was that they used occasionally questionable methodology in an article that was describing common polling practices during the Artic Wildlife Refugee drilling debate(drilling vs energy exploation or otherwise modifying the wording to gain approval), but the polling was considered 'good' then so I'm inclined to wonder why the same methodology as used by other organizations is bad now? RTRimmel (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

When we have four other polls from the same period that have significantly higher numbers, we have to treat the ARG poll as an outlier. It deserves a mention in the footnote, but it cannot be reported as the actual approval rating, which the other polls measured in the 24-28 range. -- Zsero (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Outlier or Trend would be a better question as the poll is not all that old. Hate to say it, but what would be better is a morrandum on putting approval ratings in the article until 3-6 months after they happened but that's not practical. That said, after reviewing Truman's polls I'm not sure they should be there as well as the methodology between polls done 50 years ago vs today are quite a bit more primitive(Remember Dewey beats Truman after all). I'd prefer to see something like casting Bush in the same light as Presidents such as Nixon and Truman, or just remove that entirely and let the interested bodies go down to the approval ratings section for comparisons against other presidents as I am still leary about having that comparison in the header. Now, if we get more polls in the very low 20's next month the 19% number is going back in, but if they go up then I'll agree it is a pointless outlier. RTRimmel (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about polls taken in the same period. All except one measured an approval in the 24-28 range, and one measured 19. That's clearly an outlier. The suggestion that perhaps it's a "trend" is refuted simply by stating it. -- Zsero (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A review of the date range when the data for the poll was gathered came at the time of a stock market down turn, an increase in unemployment, additional reporting on the mortgage meltdown, and a general consensus in the economic community that the US was were headed into a recession. Its as valid a number as say, an abnormally high number caused by a national tragedy causing people to flock under a President more due to his title than for any actual belief in his policies. That number cannot be relevant if this one isn't, or maybe not because no one has cited anything that declares the numbers bad. So it may very well be the beginning of a trend. It may not. I'll entertain either depending on how the US economy goes. Again, the ARG numbers were consistent with all of the other sources until that month so I'm just curious for an actual source that can credibly dissect why the number is low. So far we have your opinion, which is fine and possible correct, however as you are not a statistical mathematician with a psychology/political background I'd prefer to hear from an expert. Its a citing sources thing. We are removing a cited source that has been used by the media because... you believe it to be bad without providing any evidence that fits into the citation guidelines. If someone adds it back all you have to go to is a very inconclusive discussion that ends with no one can find a source that says its a bad number. If its a bad number then and expert somewhere has torn it to bits, find it. Otherwise someone will just tack it back on and you don't really have a leg to stand on for its removal. RTRimmel (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. How many times do I have to say this: it's an outlier because all the other polls from the same period gave much higher measurements. When you have five measurements of the same thing, and four give results in one range while another is significantly outside that range, that's the definition of an outlier. And it is standard practise to eliminate outliers from reporting, and relegate them to footnotes. -- Zsero (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. And a trend is the beginning of a shift in positions that we haven't had enough time to properly evaluate. Hence they have a term for it. Again, its a wait and see thing. Patience young one. RTRimmel (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant, because the polls are all for the same period. Either one poll got it badly wrong, or all the rest did. Whatever the explanation is, a "trend" cannot be it. If the ARG poll accurately detected the beginning of a trend, why did none of the others also pick it up? And if all the other polls were correct, then the drop ARG reported did not exist, and so can't be the beginning of a trend. -- Zsero (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is almost funny, but ok. Polls get it wrong all of the time, ask a pollster, thats why they take a bunch of them. Trends are almost always only caught by a handful, or even one, of the polls when they begin and they typically begin as outliers or simple low/high results. THe ARG poll is actually within the statistical margin for several of the polls in question, so it is a low outlier, but not so much that the poll would be considered much more than an odd blip, and if you were gathering data you would have to include its results within your formula because of that, odds are you'd have several others within the margin lines of your results. Trends occur OVER TIME, so looking at 100 results from the same period will not let you find them as they don't work like that. You actually have to wait a few months and look at the same polls with the same questions and the same kinds of sample groups. Trends occur over time. Trends occur over time. And again, Trends occur over time. Repeat that to yourself and move on. You can look at a million results for the same day and you will not find a trend because they occurred on the same day and trends don't. Be patient. It will sort itself out. We need to see if the outlier result ends up being the beginning of a trend, as I've said before, it could be either and trends do begin this way. Of course, trends don't always start from one odd outlier and the 19% is an outlier and that could be due to terrible methodology or a really bad sample group. We really have to wait 2-3 months for a meaningful discussion of this. As of now, March's results are pegging it more and more into an outlier, and numbers did seem to be tightening up. So maybe you and your crystal ball are dead on. I'd prefer to wait for the data though, its more encyclopedic.

i think a strong case can be made for not allowing poll numbers into the article until they've 'aged' at least one month. this is wikipedia, not wikinews. as it stands the article suffers from recentism. one thing is clear though, it's not appropriate to cherry pick which poll to quote in the article. one reliable poll organization should be chosen, and should remain the standard. gallup? ARG is not nearly as widely quoted as gallup (or the other 'big ones', names of which escape me). either that, or we add a section purely on popularity polls, and quote four or five of them each time new results come out. not a practical or encyclopedic path, that.Anastrophe (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics.com was used in the past; it has an average of four or five major polls (such as gallup, AP-ipsos and Rasmussen) for a given time period.--70.113.72.230 (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is in several important polls in the past (Dewey beats Truman, for example) small research groups have gathered correct information while the bigger pollsters have been plainly wrong, they were ridiculed when they provided their results only to be proven correct later, so I'm not necessarily inclined to lock out the small polls but certainly we omni-sentient editors can throw them in after the fact, proving our awesomeness, when they apply, so if the ARG poll is correct we can fling it back on if it's not then to the digital dustbin with it. RTRimmel (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Polls Again

I've rationalised the collection of polls into one footnote. As it stood, the sentence in the lede was simply false; it said that Gallup had found a high of 90 and a low of 24, and that is just not true. The lowest Gallup found was 29. The bulk of polls have shown lows in the low 30s. The CNN story says the 31 that it just found is the lowest it's ever found; that's not at all notable, because it's right in the mainstream of the polls, as shown at Polling Report and Real Clear Politics. The only two polls that have found significantly less than 30 are Reuters/Zogby at 24, and ARG at 19; those are certainly noteworthy enough to be in the footnote, which is where I've put them. So the footnote now has these five links. -- Zsero (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bush's lowest approval ratings were in October and June in 2007, so while the information in the sentence is correct... the sentence is also false. We need to include the 2007 numbers and the lowest approval rating in 07 which was 24%, or the 26% newsweek numbers. We cannot pick and choose the polls we use, you cannot determine that poll A is valid and poll B is not. I'll let the ARG slide simply because I want to see it play out, but they do appear to be erronious at this moment. Reuters, on the other hand, is a valid source and so it has to go back up there unless you have a reason not too and a pollster will tell you citing poll averages that all use different methodologies and questions is not a way to do it. In 2007 Bush's appoval rating was bad with numerous polls in the mid 20's, with Reuters being the lowest credible one with an approval rating of 24%. That is worthy of an actual line in the paragraph, not a footnote that most people will not read. RTRimmel (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to the page George W. Bush

Is it true that if you vandalize the page George W. Bush, you can get arrested? Footballfan190 (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, absolutely true. persons who vandalize the george w. bush page are taken into custody by the secret service, which is responsible for the protection of the president. after initial processing, the suspect is transferred to military control as an 'enemy combatant', and moved to guantanimo, where suspect is forced to listen to john ashcroft's rendition of 'let the eagle soar' until death. Anastrophe (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You better believe it's true. They trace your IP address all the way back to your house to find out where you live ... and then, yes, you are arrested by the Wikipedia CIA. - DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 18:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Would someone that can edit this page, remove the entries for "Texas Ranger" and Dropping the Soap" I do not have the ability to edit. Matthew Glennon (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thx :) I warned him too. Matthew Glennon (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Fully Protect this Page

Why is it that this article which is the most heavily vandalised of all articles on wikipedia does not get full protection? Why is it that we have to have users constantly refreshing this page every single second for vandalism when this could save them a lot of time by having no one edit the page. Having it semi-protected is useless, people just constantly make new users and even if you block their IP address there will NEVER be a stop to the vandalism. Have it fully protected so only admins can edit the page. This will save a lot of time for everyone. Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to have users constantly refreshing this page; we only need a good number of active users to keep it on their watchlists. Looking at the last week's worth of vandalism to this article, the longest any vandalism lasted was 16 minutes. The second longest was 4 minutes, and the third longest was 3 minutes. There were many incidents of vandalism that lasted no more than 2 minutes, and much was probably reverted almost instantaneously by RC patrollers. That's another reason we don't need full protection, as a page like this is always going to be more heavily scrutinized by such individuals, and they're the ones who can see an edit the very moment it's made (with no need for refreshing!). All in all, the vandalism to this page is actually pretty light compared to what I've seen elsewhere, and I think the semi-protection is to thank for a lot of that. I don't think locking 99.998% of registered users from editing this article is justified by saving ourselves from the occasional need to hit the undo button. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, i guess you know best. Its just that there must be an easier way to do this, its sort of like grafitti out there in the public, you erase it and then it comes back. But can you give me some example of the heavily vandalised pages you were talking about. If this is light then show me something, i was just interested. Thanks Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, take a look at this history of Popcorn, and scroll down to Christmas and then four days earlier (as well as some random other spurts), and you'll see the frequency of vandalism that I consider bad. And the two dates I specified were but a single vandal, mind you. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see a heavily-vandalised page, have a look at the history of Zebra before it got semi-protection. Or Condom. -- Zsero (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Menopause

Is he sufferring from menopause?