Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Environmental record

I have recently made some questionable changes to the Bush article and related articles, and for that I apologize. (You can blame it on me, or you can blame it on the slow server response I was experiencing, doesn't matter.)

However,

Over the past few days there has been what I perceive as an effort to remove all mention of Bush's environmental record from Wikipedia by Excising it from his biographical article, with the excuse that the article is "too long," Moving it to an obscure separate article with a single link to the main George W. Bush page Then removing all the information in the obscure article completely. I am here to tell you now, this will not occur. Bush's record on environmental issues is extensive, it deserves a write-up in this or any other encyclopedia, and it is going to by God have one. - Hephaestos 19:56, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can we just have a Bush's adminst enviromental policies section in the Bush page that list his plans / programs and than critics and supporters opionions of them and be done with this Smith03 20:04, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My apologizes I did not attempt to remove Hephaestos statement I don't know if it caused by server being screwing or what Smith03 20:38, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just protected the page for a little while. I don't like the man, but that is no reason to vandalize the article. Danny

---

The trivia section is not appropriate, as it will enevitably only include unflattering/inappropriate/POV bits.Vancouverguy 00:51, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't think it will be exclusively negative or unflattering, though the accurate item I inserted initially is unflattering. Lets see if it grows popular and if it does, it'll merit a page of its own. What's your favorite piece of flattering trivia about GWB? His strong desire to get back to Washington DC on 9-11, perhaps? A charming nickname for his wife? Presidents are human, with human foibles. Those don't need to be concealed, for they are part of all of us.JamesDay 01:01, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please keep in mind this is an encyclopdia article and not a diary of everything a person does in his or her lifeSmith03 02:21, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I thought it was interesting, so I added it to Barbara and Jenna Bush. I think it'd have more impact on my life to have my breasts flashed on national TV, rather than be the cause of someone else's breast-flashing. :) Martin 18:53, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Since the removal of Bush's environmenatl record from wikipedia. there still seems not much on it of bushes page? or should the orginal page with the stuff on be reverted back? -fonzy

How much was there? Enough to keep a separate page? There are some stray enviro facts in the current article. I suppose they could be moved to a new section or a reverted page. I would say be bold and do what you think right (I may regret saying that huh?)Ark30inf 02:11, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Wiwaxia, Here's what I think. I think this article is a monument to how bad Wikipedia can get and I urge you to continue adding crap to it until it bursts at the seams. Hopefully various news magazines will use this article as an example of what a Wikipedia article is and we can all be proud of the coverage. The page already makes it clear that Bush never did a good or non-controversial thing in his life. I am not touching this, not reverting this, not NPOV'ing this, I'm just LMAO at it. Maybe somewhere there is a liberal who can write for the enemy and likes tilting at windmills. Until then, keep shoveling it in.Ark30inf 01:50, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

External links

A quick question, not that I'm pro-Bush, but why are "negative" links included in an encyclopedia article? Aren't we supposed to take a neutral point of view, instead of pointing people to websites that launch fallicious attacks? I'm really just curious.

I agree, I think those links (a few of them) should be moved to under "External links". Evil saltine 01:47, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Maybe some of them. To follow on Evil saltine's thought: For external links, how about we just list the top Bush sites you get when doing a Google for "George W. Bush"? It's a slightly better selection than these, I think, and if Google lists any anti-Bush in the top few hits, they are probably significant (although their significance is probably somewhat temporal, I suspect a number will not be around in say 10 years after Bush is no longer running for office). We should label them appropriately, though. Daniel Quinlan 02:04, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

I did a Google search on "George W. Bush" (with the quotes) and think it could be useful, although I don't think a "top (however many)" would be helpful. For positive links, the top four or five were all for the re-election site (under different hostnames, but the same site). For negative links, the top one looks to be "bushorchimp.com", which I really kind of doubt is better known than "smirkingchimp.com" for example.

Generally what we've been doing in other articles is not to cut out information (such as negative external links) but rather balance it out with information from the opposing POV (e.g., adding positive external links) and I think that would be the thing to do here as well. - Hephaestos 22:57, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't need to link the same site multiple times. But, in the case of recent/current presidents, I don't think every "anti" or "hate" site is encyclopedic and it would be better, in all these cases, I think, to stick to more reputable sites. The recent "Bush == Nazi" flash advertizement added by User:Saddam is sort of a case in point. Anyway, as far as the links go, I think we need to trim down the lists and I think a google-based method would be good. How about this: anything from the top 20 is fair game and pick out 5 of the better ones for both "pro" and "anti"? I think an endless list of links doesn't really do any service to Wikipedia readers. Daniel Quinlan 00:42, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

How is it neutral to label criticism as "fallacious"?

The "Bush == Nazi" stuff I removed back in October was fallacious, specifically meaning that it drew logical conclusions based on fallacious reasoning.

The "fallacious" claim I responded to was sweeping.

The earlier version of the article did have a lot of fallacious external links, such as the example I mentioned. The "fallacious" comment was not my own, although I did agree with the assessment. Daniel Quinlan 06:33, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Comments by 68.6.96.140

In fact the wiki article omits many demonstrated facts about Bush, sticking to a rather bland "mainstream" treatment; that sort of treatment is in itself fallacious. Consider, e.g., www.bushlies.com, a professional and well-researched site by established journalist David Corn.

David Corn presents a very one-sided very of facts. He's the Washington editor of The Nation magazine which is about as hard core a leftist magazine as you get in the U.S. short of the World Workers Party newsletter. I'm sure he's mostly factual, but it is a very one-sided view of facts, perhaps not unlike the one-sided view of facts you get from an administration spokesperson.

You claim it's one-sided without demonstrating that. You make an ad hominem argument despite my admonition. Conclusion -- you're an intellectually dishonest jackass operating on bad faith. Nothing you say has any value. Everything Corn says is well documented and true -- *regardless* of what he edits; try to show otherwise or shut up. He also is a frequent guest on CSPAN; are *they* radical left-wingers? But for you, an association with the Nation poisons the well, You ad hominemizing asshole ideologue, you.

Please avoid personal attacks on Wikipedia. CSPAN seems to provide a reasonable mix and balance of guests of various views although their call screening does leave something to be desired. Unlike major networks, they also give a lot of coverage to minor parties and news that doesn't appear on the front page. Daniel Quinlan 06:33, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

How much of his material has made it into the wiki article? And please don't resort to ad hominem claims about his "bias" -- his claims are either factual or they aren't, and perceptions of bias are themselves biased.

True enough. I think when making criticism (in general) one needs to be careful to use logic and connect facts that are indeed connected. For example, Hillary Clinton critics are quick to point out the killing she made in Cattle Futures with basically no experience in the area, pointing out various connections she had at the time, etc. However, they are light on details and valid logic, just as most Bush criticisms are.

"just as most Bush criticisms are" -- hey, there's some "logic" and "facts". NOT. David Corn has in fact been very critical of people like Mike Ruppert for not connecting facts. But Corn's work itself if logical, connected, documented. The only challenge you can offer is ad hominem tripe about his connection with The Nation. Fucking intellectually dishonest asshole.

You are quite a persuasive fellow. Daniel Quinlan 06:33, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

No one is accused of being "biased" if they take a very negative view of Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Stalin, and other political figures who happen not to be American presidents. Even a very negative view of Warren G. Harding is not considered "biased", merely factual.

If you look at those articles, those people actually get a very factual straightforward treatment. You don't need to dress up Hitler to make him look bad.

Ditto for Bush, unless you refuse to give him a "very factual straightforward treatment".

The same is arguably the case for George W. Bush. Rather than thinking in terms of POV, think in terms of facts and evidence. The material at bushlies.com is well documented. The satirical sites, OTOH, are worthless and inappropriate to an encyclopedia. One can state that Bush was often the butt of satire due to his propensity for malapropisms -- that's a *fact* that's not mentioned in the article (but there's a lot of talk about "nicknames", while much of the significance of their use, such as that "Kenny Boy" demonstrates that Bush lied about not knowing Ken Lay before 1994, and that calling foreign leaders "pootie-poot" is seen by some as about on the moral level of getting a BJ while on the phone with them, as Clinton did, has been edited out by people who probably equate their "middle of the road" politics with "neutrality" or "objectivity"). Consider the person who writes below about revising "lists of criticisms" because they weren't "sufficiently countered" -- but if the criticisms are *valid*, then no *honest* counter is possible. The idea that all criticisms (of Bush, but not, say, Attila the Hun, even though his wildly negative popular perception is anti-historical) must be counterable is a highly politically charged one -- it assumes that "he can't be that bad", a position that can only held by ignorant people who get the bulk of their information from mainstream media and Wikipedia.

"BJ"? You lost me after that. I reverted your edit since it was non-NPOV and didn't add anything to the article. Bush appears to have known Ken Lay, but Clinton also associated with a lot of people in jail. I think that happens a lot to politicians. However, unless there's a real connection, there's no reason to add unsubstantiated allegations and innuendo to an already bloated with criticism article. Daniel Quinlan 05:27, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Didn't add anything? So you think Condelezza [sic] Rice is a cabinet member? You're a fucking dishonest asshole. I made a number of substantive uncontroversial changes, and some factual changes that *you* happen to find offensive. Who the fuck are you to "revert" my additions? And your comments about Ken Lay are retarded. Before my edits the article claimed that "pootie-poot" was the best known "nickname" and didn't even *mention* Ken Lay, even though a google search produces far more hits for "kenny boy"+lay than "pootie-poot". And my nickname edits weren't "critical", they merely mentioned that Lay was a friend and contributor. But apparently even the implication was too much for you. Feh. You disgust me.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know about the spelling error, I fixed that and also noted that she is not a cabinet level officer. Daniel Quinlan 06:33, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

His career is remarkable for his rapid political ascent; for example, both the previous president, Bill Clinton, and Bush's opponent, Al Gore, have had to spend their entire adult lives in politics before reaching national levels. However, few statistics can be applied to the small number of presidential campaigns. The selection of the few candidates is not random. This is also true at the state governor level, as can be observed by the varied previous careers of candidates for such office.

I removed this paragraph because it really dose not make a whole lot of sense and really dose not tell us anything Smith03 01:51, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jogging

It is misleading and wrong to say press coverage of Bush's jogging is definitive or unique. The press loves to cover presidents jogging; Clinton was often shown jogging, despite his state of physical fitness [1] and Clinton was the first president to install a jogging track at the White House [2]. The press has been covering presidents jogging since at least the Carter administration [3], [4]. - Hephaestos 16:13, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Link

No one list links to the US Commission on Civil Rights? http://www.usccr.gov look for Election 2000 and see the report on Voter Disenfranchisement Sparky

That would go better in U.S. presidential election, 2000 than here. - Hephaestos 00:05, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

External links (again)

To re-hash a discussion above, there are way too many "oppositional" external links at the end of the article. If any of them were used as sources for material in this article, I suppose they should be listed, although finding less-biased sources would be preferable. I propose that we remove those "oppositional" links in favor of this Google directory listing which has more links than we'd ever want to list here. On balance, I think the Newsmax link can go in favor of this Yahoo! News aggregation. Heck, despite all the negative sites, we don't even have a direct link to Bush's "official website". Comments? --Minesweeper 10:48, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

Good luck. I agree the article is a piece of junk compounded by a long list of negative "attack site" links. It's a shame people don't really care about NPOV when it comes to people, institutions, and things that they don't like (or like a lot). The frequency with which this page is vandalised is a symptom. Some people are just more sophisticated about adding negative information to articles. As far as changing the links, I think we should fix our own rather than rely on Google. I proposed some time ago that we pick the top 10 sites on Google and leave it at that. I think that is probably as neutral as we can hope for here. Then again, maybe we should just redirect to another online encyclopedia or biographical web page that has professional editors and higher standards. Daniel Quinlan 11:05, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

One way or another, I think the "Oppositional Bush links" header has got to go, since it basically acts like a beacon inviting anyone to add the anti-Bush link du jour. I don't think this article should become a link directory, since Google/DMoz already take care of that. --Minesweeper 11:05, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Surviving Americans

From the beginning of the article:

"Bush is also thought to be one of the best US presidents ever and the man who will bring peace to the world. As of November 24, 2003, 89% of Americans survived approved of his handling of the War on Terror."

Where do those figures come from? And surely "bringing peace to the world" is a little POV? --KF 08:50, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Obviously this was rather funny vandalism. Guaka 21:02, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ray McGovern quote

I'd like to add this, but can't find a good spot...

Ray McGovern, a former CIA employee said of Bush: "Now we know that no other president of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably." and "The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything." [5]

And of course, I realize that it's kind of tricky to add it and not step on someone's toe... Guaka 21:02, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd recommend against adding it to this article. This page is biased enough as it is. If you believe the quote is truly encyclopedic, then include it Mr. McGovern's article. We don't have critical quotes by Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich in Bill Clinton's article, for example, and it's better off for it. --Minesweeper 11:05, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Vandalism: semi-protecting page?

After looking at the changelog I wonder if it might not be possible to have a kind of "semi-protection", where users need to be logged in to modify a page. This would be a not-too-intruding way to block the largest part of vandalism. If people really want to feign anonymity they could be pointed to the talk page, and use it as an intermediate (like I try with the McGovern quote). Guaka 21:08, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So people will log in and then vandalise the page. Remember that creating an account is easy. As a rule we'd prefer to encourage vandals to stay logged out.

Also, consider that this page (and certain others) serves as a lightning rod. When vandals edit this page, which is highly visible, it will be swiftly reverted, and then we know that the rest of their edits may be suspect. So allowing a bit of trouble here actually makes the wikipedia as a whole more robust.

However, if you still feel this is a good idea, go to wikipedia:bug reports to request the feature, or start reading wikitech-l to help develop it yourself. :) Martin

Didn't think of it that way. But your arguments convinced me! Thanks :) Guaka 23:16, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

google

go to the google website (www.google.com) and type in miserable failure and then hit the "i'm feeling lucky" button. Kingturtle 05:37, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nicknames

It's not POV to acknowledge that Presidents have nicknames. The nicknames are facts, even if the nicknames themselves have a POV origins. jengod 23:44, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Okay, the presence is not purely POV, but it already turned into a POV target in Bill Clinton and here. My main beef is that I don't think nicknames belongs in the side bar. It's not in any other head of state template. It's not unlike my removal yesterday of "right honourable" from the first sentence of every single Canadian PM article. Here, the NPOV flaw is that you can't explain the origins and use of nicknames in the sidebar. It's better left to the article text in all of the presidential articles. Daniel Quinlan 06:03, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't mark such a significant change to an article as minor.

Neutrality Dispute of early Jan. 4

In response to the Chris D Jackson edits, I don't think that including a list of issues like that is NPOV, esp. given the (IMO) somewhat slanted nature of the accompanying text. Meelar 07:27, Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

What is the dispute here? As I said on the Gore talk page, if Gore will have controversies on his page, I will put Bush's on his. It's just fair. ChrisDJackson

I guess my issue would be that only one side of the argument is represented. For instance, about the Niger uranium claim, there's the quote from the State of the Union, followed by a detailed rebuttal, but no response from Bush's supporters. Also, in the "Controversial Personal Issues section", you listed links to Bush's arrest record, Suspension from flying notice, and other negative materials (including an article in a left-leaning magazine) under the heading "Extra Credit". Meelar

Are controversial personal issues supposed to be positive?

63.205.47.65 02:20, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The argument is Bush's word vs. the other sides claims. If you want to present "another side", go ahead, but I think to bring up those issues are legit. The articles listed under his National Guard section is relevant are not biased, they are legal documents: Chris

I say this list of controversies and alleged lies has no place in an article on a sitting president, simply because there is no real objective test to determine if they are real controversies or just politically-motivated attacks - Tim

Oh, but it is ok to do it to Al Gore, the guy who got more votes and was VP? I say, make a seperate page for each, but if you don't want to do that, be consistent. ChrisDJackson

It is permissable to discuss controversies surrounding Al Gore, the guy who got the most votes (and lost) in 2000 and is not currently president, as well as Andrew Jackson, the guy who got the most votes (and lost) in 1824 and is not currently president, as well as Samuel J. Tilden, the guy who got the most votes (and lost) in 1876 and is not currently president, as well as Grover Cleveland, the guy who got the most votes (and lost) in 1888 and is not currently president. My point is, whoever is currently president will be hounded by many dumb, politically-contrived controversies and it is not clear how these can be separated from legitimate controversies, until after the president leaves office. - Tim

Also - a similar policy would be good for Howard Dean or whoever gets the Democratic nomination - to prevent political spin from getting into a NPOV encyclopedia article. - Tim

1. If the argument is Bush's word vs. the other side's claims, than fine; but they aren't presented as claims. Instead, there are statements like "No evidence of this claim has ever surfaced", or "This statement was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler..." (emphasis mine). There are no attributions and no links to outside sources; it's presented as facts.

2. As "Al Gore" currently stands, there is no separate section regarding controversies, though some of them are addressed in the article. Thus, I feel like having a "controversies" section in the Bush page is a bit much, especially since the Al Gore controversies that are covered are quite POV. And the "Extra Credit" heading is just blatant.

Signed, Meelar

That is stupid, Bush is open to criticism just as Gore or Bill Clinton is. Damn, you people crucified Gore and Clinton while in office, but you cant stand for legit arguments to be posted on your boy Scrub. Thats pretty bad. Chris

I'm actually a diehard lefty, but my personal political views don't have anything to do with this. I simply feel that the article, as it currently stands, violates NPOV and should be edited accordingly. Apparently you disagree, but what is the substance of your disagreements, and could we agree on compromise wording that might leave the information available but altered? P.S. I wasn't involved in the Gore controversy, so please don't hold me accountable for anything therein, though it was edifying to read the transcripts. Meelar

To state that controversy about Bush should not be included just becuase he is President is ridiculous. The same standards should apply to all public figures about what to include and what not to include. I really see no difference between whether the guy's running for president, president, or formerly vice president, as long as he is still an active politican making speeches, etc.

That said, including controversies in a separate section is very awkward. That is what is done for the Al Gore article and I am in a process of merging the content of the second half with the first.

It is not our business to be dispelling random rumors that spread through the media. This is a biography. Let's prevent wikipedia from turning into http://snopes.com. There's just some stuff that we could care less about. --Jiang 09:24, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree, except for the last paragraph. We should dispel rumors which verifiably exist, but not necessarily in the article about a person. If the issue is sufficiently separate from the person's biography, and clear cut, then a separate article may be justifiable (e.g. Paul is dead for the Paul McCartney hoax). I do feel that all valuable content that is on snopes.com should sooner or later also be on Wikipedia in one form or another.

I did notice that the entire section about the National Guard service seems to be at least in part a copy & paste copyright violation [6]. Also, the "Extra Credit" links belong in the regular ext. links section.—Eloquence

The original contributor of the National Guard service section has clearly failed to understand USAF flight training procedures. All USAF/USAFR/ANG pilots spend roughly two years in training before reporting to an active duty flying unit. As with all his contemporaries, Bush spent these two years learning both the basic, universal aspects of flight and the specialized skills needed to pilot his aircraft type (the F-102 Delta Dart, in Bush's case). This is standard and in no way an indicator of some imagined hypocrisy. -- Basileus 04:11 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Department of Homeland Security

The Department of Homeland Security is listed under "Bush Security Initiatives". As I recall, the Bush administration created the White House Office of Homeland Security, headed by Tom Ridge, shortly after 9/11, and actively opposed the creation of the cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security for several months.

I don't have the details handy, so I'm not editing the main article yet; perhaps someone else would like to do the research. (If not, I'll probably do it myself when and if I find the time.) —kst

Claims About Iraq

I feel that the section titled "Claims About Iraq (war)" is NOT NPOV. The controversies about the Iraq war are covered in the "Military Campaigns" section. I propose we remove everything in the Claims about Iraq (war) section. Can we have a vote on this?Meelar 01:49, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Things of the form "argument, rebuttal" don't belong in a biography. - Hephaestos 01:55, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, merge any content --Jiang 02:20, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Arguments and rebuttals which are well known are appropriate. Lirath Q. Pynnor

this is a biography in an encyclopedia. --Jiang

again, if you have a Gore controversies section there will be a Bush one too. If you dont like the quotes and arguments format, rewrite it but the conent will stay either way if it does on the Gore page. It is dumb to say that Bush should not be up for criticism because he is the sitting president. That is just ignorant to say. Chris

Only one person appears to support the idea that sitting presidents should not be criticized. I can guarantee that this is not, and will never be, Wikipedia policy. <speaking for others without permission>Our issue is that having a separate section or article about controversies is biased because it implies that there is a certain view that is correct and some "other" view that is different and needs to be located elsewhere. Only truly obscure criticisms should be moved to a different article (e.g. flat earth supporters). Criticism of both Bush and Gore belongs in the articles Al Gore and George W. Bush, but integrated into the text so that it reads as a neutral encyclopedia article and not half biography/half pointless polemic.</speaking for others> Tuf-Kat 01:16, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

OK, it's been about two days. Should I start merging the content and deleting the "Iraq war claims" tomorrow, or should I wait a bit longer? Consider this last call. Meelar 05:32, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead! --Jiang 00:50, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Dubya"

This seems to be a simple thing, but the nickname "Dubya" was just added yesterday. Right now, the article says it's a derisive name, but I seem to recall that it's pretty popular with supporters of Bush too. I was going to edit the page, and say something along the lines of:

• "Dubya" is a nickname that Bush has carried for a long time. It can be considered to be a positive or neutral nickname, although many opponents of the President will elongate the name and lower the tone to use it in a derisive manner.

Anyway, I'm not a fan of the guy, so I wouldn't want to put words in the mouths of people who do like him. Plus, I'm sure the nature of the nickname has changed quite a bit over the last few years. —Mulad 21:03, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That would be OK. Most of the uses I've heard of are derogatory (for instance, the term is a favorite of Maureen Dowd of the New York Times), but if you're aware of other uses, by all means. Meelar 23:51, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Edit peace

I merged the content from the contested sections, and I feel the article is now more neutral. Unless anybody complains, I'll take off the NPOV header within a few days. Comments? Meelar 17:05, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Also Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 1 & Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 2