Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 30
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Tokenism?
For first part of discussion, see Archive 29.
Believe me, if you were in my shoes, any statement portraying Bush as anything but firmly against any and all form of gay rights would NOT be a tiny thing to you. Sdauson 19:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- All? So he doesn't believe gays have the right to life, liberty, property, and to hold public office? If not then why did he appoint one i'm so confused ::( --Golbez 19:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- My guess would be tokenism. Log Cabin Republicans are campaign contriubuters that have taken issue with Bush over his stance on gay rights. His appointee is a member of that organization. But that's just my personal take on the situation. If you want a more objective analysis, I think you should ask yourself that if he *does* believe in the right to life, libery, and property for all, then why has he infringed on their pursiut of happiness [1]? Sdauson 20:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, believe me, I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your entire premise. The entire paragraph is talking about how Bush is against same-sex marriage and for a Constitutional definition of marriage stating it's between a man and a woman. One "tiny" mention of the fact that he is the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man does not disqualify the preceding paragraph. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- It seems to me like the paragraph should be limited to very important facts, of which I don't think the sentence qualifies. If we're going to seriously delve into his record on civil rights to the extent where one appointment is supposed to make a difference, why no mention of his refusal to designate a gay pride month? Sdauson 20:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't you feel calling him a "token appointment" degrading to all homosexuals, as if one couldn't get appointed unless as a token, and not on their own merits? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- I find it hard to believe that of all the homosexuals available for Bush's choosing, of even all the conservative homosexuals for his choosing, that only one (this one appointee) had the 'merits' to 'get appointed'. The lack of other homosexual appointments is what reveals the appointment to be tokenism, not the appointee's sexuality. Sdauson 20:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but still, by saying he is a token, you are degrading him by saying that he didn't really earn that position and that he was appointed just because he was gay. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- He may very well be the most qualified person for the job, gay or straight, but if that were true, it would imply that Bush makes appointments based on credentials alone, which based on the lack of other homosexuals he has appointed, simply cannot be true. Furthermore, if he was the most qualified person for the job, don't you think he'd still have that job [2]? Evertz was transferred to a desk job at Human Health Services a mere year after his appointment. Sdauson 20:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- To play the Dark Lord, why couldn't this be true? Being homosexual makes you have better credentials than straights? You can guess that there are better qualified homosexuals, but you have no idea. And once someone is in a position, no one better can come along? Bush might have thought he was better for the position than Guest. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, purely statistically it doesn't add up. Assume that there is a set proportion of gay to straight people in the country. I've seen this pegged at anywhere between one and ten percent. Now assume that everyone has equal ability to garner impressive credentials. Thus, of the 'most credentialed' candidates, we have the same proportion of gay to straight, between one and ten percent. Yet Bush only has two gay appointments (Evertz and Guest... Evertz was first, I believe), meaning that in order for even if we say only one percent of people are gay or lesbian (VERY VERY conservative estimate), then Bush's total appointments would number only 200. Now if anyone can find his actual number of total appointments, I salute them, but I would wager that he's made five times that many appointments, as it's not uncommon for a President to make more than a thousand appointments [3]. Sdauson 21:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's suggesting 100% of GLB people are open about their sexuality, AND that they have an equal chance of supplying the necessary credentials for. Hell, you also have to consider that gay/lesbian/bisexual individuals are less likely to apply to a position in a conservative government.
- No, purely statistically it doesn't add up. Assume that there is a set proportion of gay to straight people in the country. I've seen this pegged at anywhere between one and ten percent. Now assume that everyone has equal ability to garner impressive credentials. Thus, of the 'most credentialed' candidates, we have the same proportion of gay to straight, between one and ten percent. Yet Bush only has two gay appointments (Evertz and Guest... Evertz was first, I believe), meaning that in order for even if we say only one percent of people are gay or lesbian (VERY VERY conservative estimate), then Bush's total appointments would number only 200. Now if anyone can find his actual number of total appointments, I salute them, but I would wager that he's made five times that many appointments, as it's not uncommon for a President to make more than a thousand appointments [3]. Sdauson 21:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- To play the Dark Lord, why couldn't this be true? Being homosexual makes you have better credentials than straights? You can guess that there are better qualified homosexuals, but you have no idea. And once someone is in a position, no one better can come along? Bush might have thought he was better for the position than Guest. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- He may very well be the most qualified person for the job, gay or straight, but if that were true, it would imply that Bush makes appointments based on credentials alone, which based on the lack of other homosexuals he has appointed, simply cannot be true. Furthermore, if he was the most qualified person for the job, don't you think he'd still have that job [2]? Evertz was transferred to a desk job at Human Health Services a mere year after his appointment. Sdauson 20:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but still, by saying he is a token, you are degrading him by saying that he didn't really earn that position and that he was appointed just because he was gay. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Finally, just as we haven't heard the names of every single appointment Bush has made, we also don't hear about every individual's sexuality. At least I hope we wouldn't. The news is boring enough as it is.65.31.59.176 15:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC) blueeyes::
- Dauson we already went over this. What do you want now, for us to remove any mention of it? This is a useless arguement. Redwolf24 20:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think removing it is the best solution, as any attempt to put it in appropriate context would undoubtably be interpreted as POV. If you don't want it removed, I'm wondering why no one has stepped up to answer my questions above. Especially the one asking how this is more important than supreme court nominations. I'd like to note that I only advocate removal of the very last sentence. Sdauson 21:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Dauson we already went over this. What do you want now, for us to remove any mention of it? This is a useless arguement. Redwolf24 20:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Let's take a short poll (Even though they're evil)
- I think a poll's all nice and well. I don't see how majority support of a misguided statement makes it any less misguided though. Perhaps someone would like to address my concerns as to why this statement is so important as to be included at the expense of an accurate portrayal of Bush's stance on gay rights? I'd like to ask for the third time why this is more important than certain supreme court appointments? Bush's position on gay rights is clear, and this statement is the exception to his rule. No one is absolutist on any one issue, and the point of an encyclopedia article isn't to illuminate every facet of a person's beliefs, but to provide summary and synopsis. Bush's stance on gay rights is decidedly negative, and obscure facts that meekly point to the contrary shouldn't be conjured up in the name of 'balance'. Sdauson 21:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure it is about balance...it is a fact...Bush appointed and Congress approved Micheal Guest as Ambassador to Romania...it is noteworthy not due so much to balance as much as it is a first time event in the history of any Presidency...sure Clinton appointed an openly gay ambassador prior to that, but it was a recess appointment...what political party the appointee belongs to is immaterial...do you think Bush would likely appoint a Democratic Ambassador? Furthermore, some countries would take offense to an openly gay man being their connection to the U.S., in the same way many Muslim countries might take great offense to having a female Ambassador being their connection...unfortunately, international politics aren't always about affirmative action.--MONGO 01:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to be having some trouble distinguishing between political parties and political organizations. I was noting that he was a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that contributes money to Republican campaigns, and has criticized Bush in the past over gay rights. It is an argument that supports a "tokenism" claim-- that Bush merely appointed him to appease a campaign contributer. The fact that the appointee is merely Republican has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. Sdauson 02:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not likely that I have any trouble with that...stick to the facts. The fact is that the appointment occurred and was the first appointment as such to a post this high up to also be confirmed by Congress...if the appointment was a token one, is that any different than most of the appointments made by virtually all the Presidents? Nope.--MONGO 02:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- The fact is that being confirmed by congress is merely a footnote. You can claim that Bush was technically the first person to appoint an openly gay Ambassador, but look around the web. To the world, Michael Guest is the second openly gay Ambassador [4][5][6], and Wiki should tell it no differently. Sdauson 02:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not likely that I have any trouble with that...stick to the facts. The fact is that the appointment occurred and was the first appointment as such to a post this high up to also be confirmed by Congress...if the appointment was a token one, is that any different than most of the appointments made by virtually all the Presidents? Nope.--MONGO 02:40, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to be having some trouble distinguishing between political parties and political organizations. I was noting that he was a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, a group that contributes money to Republican campaigns, and has criticized Bush in the past over gay rights. It is an argument that supports a "tokenism" claim-- that Bush merely appointed him to appease a campaign contributer. The fact that the appointee is merely Republican has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. Sdauson 02:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure it is about balance...it is a fact...Bush appointed and Congress approved Micheal Guest as Ambassador to Romania...it is noteworthy not due so much to balance as much as it is a first time event in the history of any Presidency...sure Clinton appointed an openly gay ambassador prior to that, but it was a recess appointment...what political party the appointee belongs to is immaterial...do you think Bush would likely appoint a Democratic Ambassador? Furthermore, some countries would take offense to an openly gay man being their connection to the U.S., in the same way many Muslim countries might take great offense to having a female Ambassador being their connection...unfortunately, international politics aren't always about affirmative action.--MONGO 01:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- You're the only one who thinks its misguided! That's why a majority would matter! This is getting ridiculous. Redwolf24 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you didn't notice the person emphatically agreeing with my original post? I'm not the only one, and I need only go talk to a few people on a few GLBTQ articles if you need proof of that. And chill dude, it's just a talk page. Sdauson 21:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- You're the only one who thinks its misguided! That's why a majority would matter! This is getting ridiculous. Redwolf24 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- So, you want to remove a fact in the name of balance. Why does this obscure the entire preceding paragraph? Don't you think people are smart enough to know that this one appt. does not make Bush pro-gay? I think the paragraph is fine. And if you think those nominations deserve inclusion, well off you go. And the thing about not declaring a gay pride month... well, I'm off to George Washington to include it there too. We don't generally include stuff people don't do. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, I think that fact is only there in the name of 'balance,' is what I'm trying to say. And trying to balance things that are inherently unbalanced (Bush doesn't have a balanced for vs. against stance on gay rights) is misleading. Anyway, I'll make you a deal-- if I modify Bill Clinton's page to contain a nearly identical sentence stating that he is the first Decmocrat to appoint a woman to the supreme court, and it sticks, then I'll revoke my objection to the statement in this article. You think it'll fly? Sdauson 21:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Err, the point is, not everyone agrees that it is "misguided." I think it's an interesting side note that indicates that, while Bush may be seen to have a negative stance on gay rights, he's not so intolerant as to refuse appointing an openly gay person. Bush's stance is decidedly less negative than that of some other Republicans. android79 21:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I ask you, what person balanced enough to be trusted with the presidency today would be so intolerant as not to appoint one gay person out of hundreds, even thousands of appointments? This section isn't about Bush's personal tolerance of homosexuality, it's about his record on civil rights, to which one appointment is utterly insignificant in the face of the problems currently facing the GLBTQ community. Sdauson 21:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that it is "utterly insignificant" perhaps illustrates your point for you better than you think it does. We merely need to report the facts here. If a reader chooses to infer from this passage that this single appointee is a "token" apointee, that inference can be made. If, instead, a reader chooses to infer that Bush ain't such a big homo-hater because he appointed that one gay guy that one time, that inference can also be made. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the former will be inferred by the reader far more often than the latter. To suggest plainly that one of these inferences is the correct one would be POV, and to leave this (admittedly minor) point out of the article entirely would be a mistake, IMO – we'd be missing out on letting the reader form his or her own opinion of Bush's gay-rights record with a little bit of added information. android79 22:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- If the fact is that it is "utterly insignificant", then why is it something that should even be considered when trying to form an opinion about Bush's stance on gay rights? That would go against the definition of 'insignificant'. If utterly insignificant details are important in letting readers come to their own conclusions on Bush's stance on this particular topic, I suggest we do the same for his other sections. Provide statements and actions that suggest he's not too concerned about terrorism, perhaps? After all, as long as it's true, it should be left up to the inferences of the reader, right? Sdauson 22:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it's "utterly significant." I was quoting you, though I suppose the way I phrased my reply confused matters. I believe it's a minor point, but not so minor as to warrant exclusion from the article. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comments about terrorism, but if you believe there's pertinent and reliable factual information missing from that section (or others, for that matter) by all means add it. android79 23:02, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- If the fact is that it is "utterly insignificant", then why is it something that should even be considered when trying to form an opinion about Bush's stance on gay rights? That would go against the definition of 'insignificant'. If utterly insignificant details are important in letting readers come to their own conclusions on Bush's stance on this particular topic, I suggest we do the same for his other sections. Provide statements and actions that suggest he's not too concerned about terrorism, perhaps? After all, as long as it's true, it should be left up to the inferences of the reader, right? Sdauson 22:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that it is "utterly insignificant" perhaps illustrates your point for you better than you think it does. We merely need to report the facts here. If a reader chooses to infer from this passage that this single appointee is a "token" apointee, that inference can be made. If, instead, a reader chooses to infer that Bush ain't such a big homo-hater because he appointed that one gay guy that one time, that inference can also be made. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the former will be inferred by the reader far more often than the latter. To suggest plainly that one of these inferences is the correct one would be POV, and to leave this (admittedly minor) point out of the article entirely would be a mistake, IMO – we'd be missing out on letting the reader form his or her own opinion of Bush's gay-rights record with a little bit of added information. android79 22:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I ask you, what person balanced enough to be trusted with the presidency today would be so intolerant as not to appoint one gay person out of hundreds, even thousands of appointments? This section isn't about Bush's personal tolerance of homosexuality, it's about his record on civil rights, to which one appointment is utterly insignificant in the face of the problems currently facing the GLBTQ community. Sdauson 21:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- So, you want to remove a fact in the name of balance. Why does this obscure the entire preceding paragraph? Don't you think people are smart enough to know that this one appt. does not make Bush pro-gay? I think the paragraph is fine. And if you think those nominations deserve inclusion, well off you go. And the thing about not declaring a gay pride month... well, I'm off to George Washington to include it there too. We don't generally include stuff people don't do. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- As for that Clinton comment, he was the first president regardless of party to do so mentioning party is insignificant. However if Bush appointed someone black to the supreme court then we'd say first Republican to appoint someone black to the SCOTUS. Because it is a fact, regardless if he appointed 100000 white men (just for comparisons sake). Kennedy was the first Catholic president, should we not state that there because he's just token? Now anyways lets stop bickering and take the results of the poll to heart. Redwolf24 21:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Umm... I think Sandra Day O'Conner might disagree with you on that. And by the way, George H. W. Bush was the first Republican to appoint someone black to the SCOTUS, and there is no mention of it on his page. Sdauson 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- That is, O'Conner was appointed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican. Bush Sr. appointed Clarence Thomas, who is black. [sorry, that was rude] Sdauson 21:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- DAMN THESE EDIT CONFLICTS! I've tried to reply to you four times now. I'm gonna go archive... but one of the things I was trying to say was I thought O'Connor was appointed by Carter, though now I see other wise. Anyways I'm gonna archive now! Redwolf24 22:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh you can't downplay your factual error by pointing out my spelling error. The redirect still works. ;) Sdauson 22:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- *Uses admin powers to delete and protect it* HA! Just fiddling of course. Redwolf24 22:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hehe. Seriously though, I think for the sake of consistancy, you should head on over to Bush Sr.'s page and add in an appropriate snippet. Not that I think anyone will object, but hey, give credit where credit is due right? Sdauson 22:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- *Uses admin powers to delete and protect it* HA! Just fiddling of course. Redwolf24 22:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh you can't downplay your factual error by pointing out my spelling error. The redirect still works. ;) Sdauson 22:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- DAMN THESE EDIT CONFLICTS! I've tried to reply to you four times now. I'm gonna go archive... but one of the things I was trying to say was I thought O'Connor was appointed by Carter, though now I see other wise. Anyways I'm gonna archive now! Redwolf24 22:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- That is, O'Conner was appointed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican. Bush Sr. appointed Clarence Thomas, who is black. [sorry, that was rude] Sdauson 21:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Umm... I think Sandra Day O'Conner might disagree with you on that. And by the way, George H. W. Bush was the first Republican to appoint someone black to the SCOTUS, and there is no mention of it on his page. Sdauson 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
line break for edit purposes
- Actually I'm not sure now about that as, well, the GOP hasn't showed a problem with appointing people to the SCOTUS, but they have shown a problem with appointing gays. Redwolf24 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Not just people, black people to the SCOTUS. And yes, the GOP does have a spotty record when it comes to civil rights and issues of race. Sdauson 22:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I'm not sure now about that as, well, the GOP hasn't showed a problem with appointing people to the SCOTUS, but they have shown a problem with appointing gays. Redwolf24 22:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, you might want to check your history there though. It was not the GOP that were against civil rights, it was the Democratic Party. But that is a discussion for another time, another place. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 23:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh come now lets stay on topic (actually IIRC both parties were rather anti-black at the time so NYA NYA!) --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe, but only one party voted down every piece of anti-lynching legislation proposed. Okay, no more of this. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 23:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes we shouldn't mention how the Democrats seceeded in fear of the new president passing a law to restrict slavery <_< >_> *this topic is closed* Redwolf24 23:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I can see my statement has been misinterpreted. Sorry about that. I was talking about recent history, on issues such as affirmative action, welfare, and discrimination. Talk of which party supported slavery would have to take into account the fundamental changes in philosophies both parties have undergone since that time. "Democrats" and "Republicans" that long ago are little more than labels. You're sadly mistaken if you think that in today's world, the Republicans are the more 'black friendly' party. Just look at voting records. Sdauson 00:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- "Voting records" as in whom Blacks vote for? That would obviously by the Democrats, but which party has the first 2 Black Secretaries of State? The first 2 Black Supreme Court justices? And then look at all the racist material (editorial cartoons, etc.) around the time of Condolezza Rice's confirmation hearings. Okay, I'm leaving for the night. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 00:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please take this discussion elsewhere. While riveting, it's not on topic, unless it comes back around to ol' George. (Dark Lord, weren't you just complaining about the size of the talk page? ;-)) android79 00:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Alright, back onto topic then. Why is there no mention of the fact that George H. W. Bush was the first Republican president to appoint a Black supreme court justice? (Republicans are not, as Lord might have you believe, responsible for both Black justices in his history of SCOTUS, nor are they responsible for the first black justice-- John F. Kennedy was responsible for appointing the first, Thurgood Marshall.) Sdauson 00:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Please take this discussion elsewhere. While riveting, it's not on topic, unless it comes back around to ol' George. (Dark Lord, weren't you just complaining about the size of the talk page? ;-)) android79 00:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I have added the statements to the pages of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton noting that they were the first of their party to appoint black and female justices, respectively. I have used nearly identical wording to the wording used in the George W. Bush article. The symbolism involved in appointing to the SCOTUS is much greater than that of Aids Czar, and as such, should be much more appropriate for mention in an encyclopedia article. We'll see how long these statements last in either Bush or Clinton's cases. I suggest that you watch as someone else removes them from these pages for one reason or another, and consider that the George W. Bush sentence be removed for the same reasons. Sdauson 00:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Kennedy appointed Marshall to a court of appeals, not the SCOTUS. Johnson did THAT in 67. Redwolf24 00:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- My bad! I misread Marshall's page. I just knew that Marshall was appointed by a Democrat, and not a Republican as Lord claimed.
- My bad, too. I don't know what I was thinking when I was writing that. Too late, I guess. But my point still stands. And I know this talk page is already far too long, and this idiotic thread is a perfect example. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 12:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Sentence Poll
Here's the statement: "Bush is opposed to the legal recognition of same-sex marriages and supports the establishment of civil unions ("I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement" - ABC News October 26, 2004), and has endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would define marriage as being the union of one man and one woman. Bush reiterated his disagreement with the Republican Party platform that opposed civil unions, and said that the issue of civil unions should be left up to individual states. In his February 2, 2005 State of the Union address he repeated his support for the constitutional amendment. Even though Bush is opposed to same sex marriages, while not the first president in history to do so, he is the first Republican president to appoint an openly gay man to serve in his administration [36]."
Keep Last Sentence.
- Redwolf24 20:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Lord Voldemort (While I thank Redwolf for putting me here, this does not mean that this is perfect. I am not too sure on the wording, but I do not have a problem with it being in here.) --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- android79 21:14, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Banes 11:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
- Voice of All(MTG) 23:07, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Kevin Baastalk: new 01:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC) although it might be made simpler and more clear. something like "Bush is vociferously opposed to same sex marriages. Although Democratic presidents have appointed openly gay men to serve on their administration, Bush is the first Republican president to do so."
- --AjaxSerix 14:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC) The "vociferously opposed" statement in Kevin Bass' rewrite is a bit redundant given the rest of the paragraph. I like the statement how it is.
- Hyacinth 21:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- That is significant and may explain why he nominated John Roberts Jr., a man who helped overturn Romer v. Evans and is now opposed by some conservative groups. As a Governor of Texas he also nominated gay friendly justices. Take a look at this website by a Christian extremist with many citations berating Bush's pro-gay stances. [7] Appointed openly gay man to head HIV position, signed two documents, one allowed Michael E. Guest's domestic partner to be an equivalent as a spouse and another allowing victims of 9/11 to receive federal compensation for same-sex partners. 70.57.82.114 10:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- GregAsche 23:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC) it seems relevant, given Bush's stance on gays...
Remove Last Sentence
- Sdauson 15:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC) The sentence is insignificant, both as an act (it's one appointment of hundreds/thousands), and as a would be "indicator" of Bush's stance on civil rights and homosexuality.
- KillerChihuahua Not germaine to subject.
- Not relevant. So what? Some president probably appointed the first black man to office, and the first woman, the first person with a Q in their name, the first person with red hair, the first person younger than 30, the first person older than 50. It isn't notable. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- NickGorton Its not germane to the topic. Besides, it sounds like "I don't mind black people. I have lots of black friends. I just don't want one of 'em marrying my sister." But then, that's probably an accurate description of Bush's motives. Tokenization is as tokenization does.
Comment on Sentence Poll
You all have it wrong...repeat...Michael Guest is the first openly homosexual Ambassador to be appointed by a U.S. President and to have that appointment confirmed by Congress. If you want to state the facts, then do so. Furthermore, this article is not the place to discuss whether Johnson appointed the first African American to the U.S. Supreme Court, or that Reagan was the first to appoint a woman...that goes in articles on them...not here. If someone wants to go into the Bill Clinton article and add that he was the first President to appoint a gay Ambassador but it was done while Congress was in recess, then that is also a fact, but again, that belongs there, not here.--MONGO 01:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC) Additionally, the last sentence is completely ambiguous...what does Bush's opposition to same sex marriage have to do with the appointment of a gay man to the position? Perhaps, the appointee is also against same sex marriage.--MONGO 01:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC) Lastly, Bush is opposed to same sex marriage...not civil unions...get the facts laid out and lets' do a complete overhaul of the entire passage before we bring it to a vote...where the heck is JamesMLane when you need the right man for an Rfc?--MONGO 01:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Mongo, you make it sound like a very obscure distinction to hold. 'First President to appoint an openly homosexual Ambassador that was confirmed by Congress. And even then it's on a technicality that Clinton's appointment was done in recess. Sdauson 02:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, your emotions are keeping you from seeing the light...while Clinton made numerous appointments of openly gay men to political offices, an Ambassadorship is a very high level appointment and the fact that Congress approved Bush's appointment makes the entire matter a victory for gay rights advocates...the issue is less about Bush than about events that oocurred...should we instead just sweep this FACT under the table to continue to bolster your conviction that Bush (who is not opposed to civil unions, as I remind you again) hostile to gay rights?--MONGO 02:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Ambassadorship is a high level office, one Clinton filled with an openly gay man as well. Why does Bush deserve special praise for it? I doubt Clinton's appointment, the real first, is even mentioned on his page. Tell me how this is such a victory for gay rights? Tell me how gay men and women everywhere are better off because Bush appointed a gay man to be Ambassador to Romania? If this is the biggest nod to gay rights you can find from Bush, then you really need to question what evidence you have to support that he isn't hostile to gay rights. Sdauson 02:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Again, if the removal of the FACT is what will bring appeasement, then by all means do so. I don't argue that Bush is not a supporter of gay rights...the distinction is that he is not opposed to civil unions...that is a departure from the norm as found in the Republican party. The event happened under his watch. If we should eliminate the wording of the event for this to support a not entirely true conception that Bush is anti-gay, then we end up being POV. The comment that Michael Guest was the first appointed ambassador by any president to also be confirmed by Congress is noteworthy, perhaps less so as a positive about Bush than as a victory for gay rights overall.--MONGO 03:29, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Ambassadorship is a high level office, one Clinton filled with an openly gay man as well. Why does Bush deserve special praise for it? I doubt Clinton's appointment, the real first, is even mentioned on his page. Tell me how this is such a victory for gay rights? Tell me how gay men and women everywhere are better off because Bush appointed a gay man to be Ambassador to Romania? If this is the biggest nod to gay rights you can find from Bush, then you really need to question what evidence you have to support that he isn't hostile to gay rights. Sdauson 02:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, your emotions are keeping you from seeing the light...while Clinton made numerous appointments of openly gay men to political offices, an Ambassadorship is a very high level appointment and the fact that Congress approved Bush's appointment makes the entire matter a victory for gay rights advocates...the issue is less about Bush than about events that oocurred...should we instead just sweep this FACT under the table to continue to bolster your conviction that Bush (who is not opposed to civil unions, as I remind you again) hostile to gay rights?--MONGO 02:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- This article certainly isn't about Congress, so whether it was a recess appointment or a congressional appointment is irrelevant. The fact remains that Democratic presidents have already appointed openly gay Ambassadors, and perhaps openly gay Secretary of Healths or openly gay (Administration position here)'s. In any case, the assertion that no Republican president has appointed anyone to any position whatsoever in their administration until now has not been disputed, and is a significant fact in itself. Regards same-sex marriage/civil union, obviously same-sex marriage is the much hotter topic, so that's what should be mentioned. Regarding bush's view on civil unions - I have no insight into it, but it's quite irrelevant: firtsly, bush is not a legislative officer, and thus cannot make laws, secondly "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof", and thus civil unions and the laws regarding them cannot be made partial to any establishment of religion, not, technically, can laws make any reference to marriage, marriage being an establishment of religion (although the tax-codes currently do) - bush is obviously quite oblivious to this fact, as he proposed an ammendment to the constitution regarding marriage, without first proposing that the 2nd ammendment be repealed, which would be a neccessary prerequisite to his proposed ammendment. But i'm getting off-topic. The fact remains that Democratic presidents have already appointed openly gay Ambassadors, and perhaps openly gay Secretary of Healths or openly gay (Administration position here)'s. In any case, the assertion that no Republican president has appointed anyone to any position whatsoever in their administration until now has not been disputed, and is a significant fact in itself. Regards same-sex marriage/civil union, obviously same-sex marriage is the much hotter topic, so that's what should be mentioned. Kevin Baastalk: new 02:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Bush claims to be a reborn Christian, so his stance based on that in opposition to same sex marriage follows that line. No reason to villianize his stance on this for two reasons...in opposition to the Republican party viewpoint, he is not opposed to civil unions, secondly, the vast majority of Americans are also opposed to same sex marriage.--MONGO 02:32, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Umm, "...asked if they would support a constitutional amendment that would 'allow marriage only between a man and a women and outlaw marriages between people of the same sex,'" 51% responded in the affirmative. I've never seen the number of people in support of a constitutional amendment higher than in the 50s. A majority, yes, but certainly not a 'vast majority'. Sdauson 03:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, was that from a vote? Or was it a poll taken by CNN? The only truly reliable poll is an actual vote. Redwolf24 03:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Just thought I should tell you all to bring in your pets, gather your families, and buy lots of canned foods and water. Because I agree with Mongo here. Reporting the -fact- that bush appointed this guy, -and- he was confirmed, a first for an openly gay ambassador, is a neccessity for accuracies sake. Queue the apocolypse. -bro 172.153.17.49 07:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Redwolf24, I would remind you that when miscegenation laws were struck down by the SCOTUS, the majority of the US population supported these laws preventing interracial marriage. This is why civil rights should never be decided by a majority vote. This is the reason that the constitution and judiciary are so vital. So, to the point, who gives a rats ass what the majority thinks? Was slavery OK since the majority (well at least the majority of people allowed to vote – white men) supported it? That ignorance is popular does not change the fact that it is ignorant. - NickGorton 22:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Extracurriculars
Joy Stovall and Canderson7 reverted my insertion of cheerleading without comment. Clearly extracurricular activites are fair game, and listing only the "manly" sports is POV. Summary deletion w/o comment is rude, too. 24.143.132.148 02:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Arnoldlover 20:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I also agree, and think his cheerleading is worth including. With that said, referring to his cheerleading as "fair game" does seem to suggest it might not be from a NPOV; still, I thought your edit was worth keeping. It occurs to me (see discussions below) that people may have a knee-jerk reaction to revert changes made by anonymous contributors on this page. JDoorjam 16:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see details of his exercise routine in this section. A great article in th Economist recently described his workouts, and emphasised his affinity for surrounding himself with athletic peers. It made the case that this was a Republican trait. --Zegoma beach 13:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
faith based initiatives
I am sorry if this has already been discussed, but in the faith based initiative ssection, is can we place anything about his attempts to ban pagans from practising thier faith in the millitary, or his attempts to make abortions harder to get? Ketrovin 13:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I fail to see what either of those two things have to do with faith-based initiatives. If you want to include either item elsewhere in the article, you'll have to provide reliable sources. android79 13:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
would those not be things hes tried to enact as policey, based on his own faith? Ketrovin 14:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Faith based initatives are about government funding/favortism going to things that involve churches and suchnot about his policies based on his personal faith.--AjaxSerix 14:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- The phrase "faith based initiatives" is a buzzword in U.S. politics, having to do with government-supported provision of social services by religious groups. So, initiatives that are based in faith don't necessarily count as "faith based initiatives" in current political discourse! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 18:03, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Semi-protection on the way?
Hopefully, the end is near for vandalism to this page and others like it...it looks like semi-protection to me...maybe it will weed out all the anonymous users that obstainately don't register or who venture here purely for the purpose of vandalism...read all about it...[8]--MONGO 17:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
So much for the idea of freely editing it. Yet, he's getting more strict about the ridiculous GFDL on the images and is trying to phase out the fair use ones... irony! --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Nothing worthwhile can long survive without some form of regulations to guide it...as the system is now, there are too many loopholes that allow just anyone to mess with the articles and the risk for copyvio in pictures and content is always present. All freedoms come at a price.--MONGO 17:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this change would be a good thing (raising the bar to protect against vandalism) and increase the overall credibility of the project in the eyes of our readers. Quite sadly, too much valuable time is wasted on reverting vandalism on topical articles such as this one. Hall Monitor 17:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, many articles can be "completed" and frozen as such. At this point, perhaps new additions should be submitted to a page and reviewed before being put up. However, I would say this would not apply to this article. Certainly no living person's article can be considered "frozen". He cites the Benedict XVI article, but I see that as a triumph of the wiki way. Order from chaos. Within the first 24 hours, there were thousands of edits, dozens of vandalisms, but within a day, it grew into a huge article chock full of excellent information. THAT is the epitome of what Wikipedia can do. Likewise, observe what happened with the 7 July bombings in London article. Yes, articles can be frozen - but none that require any changes ever. The rest, allow chaos to reign. --Golbez 17:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I respect that viewpoint, but credibility is paramount...I am not a fan of locked pages but anon editors with no purpose than to vandalize or troll for disruption need to be dealt with aside from temporary blocks...I applaud your efforts again to fight vandalism in a swift manner.--MONGO 18:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Credibility is paramount, yes, which is exactly why I've undertaken the no tolerance stance with vandalism here. (Before anyone accuses me of partisanship - I'd do the same to John Kerry if it had the same problems) Unfortunately, we can't ban IPs indefinitely, but usually blocking them for a day or two shuts em down.
- I kind of look at this as ... drawing them out. Sure, you can keep the vandals from editing the article, but I prefer drawing them out, letting them edit it, and then block 'em. Better than them going to another article and vandalizing that. --Golbez 18:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think requiring users to sign in to edit/load content, at least for high profile pages, the way we must now to upload images, will substantially decrease the vandalism problem and enable the system to continue scaling effectively as more users sign up. -- Barrettmagic 11:40 August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Some time back (about a week ago, in fact) this matter was discussed at length. A poll was called for, and the results were:15 against protection, 7 for. But, the founder is right, even if an act of vandalism stays up for only a minute or two, thanks to your vigilance, a visitor might get a poor impression of wikipedia. Golbez, who seems to know his stuff when it comes to waging war on vandalism, might be right. If someone gets blocked for their childish actions, then maybe they will get the message. On the other hand, that wont matter to the type of vandal who is just passing through. --Banes 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- The result was 13 to 7, I believe. Anyway that was for a full lock on the article. We have yet to have a semi-protection vote, which would be much more likely to lean in favor of protection than the previous poll. I definetely believe that vandalism of major pages(often visted) will give people a bad impression about Wikipedia. Therefore, I am going to start a new poll.Voice of All(MTG) 20:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- 'get the message?' right now its too easy for repeat offenders. and the number of vandals passing through will only grow exponentially as the numbers of daily users grows at its current pace. i still think the higher profile pages should require a modicum of security - at least a member sign-on similar to uploading images. -- Barrettmagic 12:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- The hope is that semi-protection would reduce the amount of vandalism. Another possibility, though, is that it would merely displace the vandalism from the current favored targets to different ones. At least one RC patroller has also suggested (IIRC) that this article serves as a vandal-catching device. An anon IP that vandalizes this article often hits other articles as well, and an editor who fixes the GWB vandalism can then find the others and fix them, too. If this page were semi-protected, more vandalism to other pages might go undetected for longer periods. I don't know whether this is a good argument, but I do know that it applies primarily to vandal-fighters who don't have this article watchlisted, and therefore won't participate in this discussion. If the feature is implemented, then there should be a wider opportunity for discussing its application to any particular page. JamesMLane 22:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Semi-protection Poll
This poll is for semi-protecting the George Walker Bush article(for when this protection is available). Semi-Protection will allow for certain pages to be edited only by registered users(no anons). If an anon wants to edit, they must simply register. This is not a vote, but a poll to get an idea of the level of support for keeping anons from editing this article.
Also, please vote on the semi-protection proposal's creation page to vote on whether or not you want this type of protection created at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=675. There are only a few votes on that page so far. [9].
Assuming that all this tool does is let admins semi-protect pages like locks, except that registered users can edit, would you want this article protected?
All who would like to see this article Semi-Protected:
- Support. Voice of All(MTG) 20:08, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. So long as "semi-protection" is defined as only allowing this article to be edited by a registered Wikipedian (as opposed to an IP address). Hall Monitor 20:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I really don't think any page should be allowed to be edited anon users should have to register, it's not like it requires their personal info or anything.--AjaxSerix 21:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support It seems like a small enought thing--Rogerd 02:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Support I haven't seen any anonymous users make a good contribution to this article. I agree that high profile pages, such as this, would benefit from semi-protection. maltmomma 12:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Support This is a great idea. Most malicious users never take the time to go through registration, they think that anonomyity makes them purely anonymous. --NightDragon 07:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support --kizzle 21:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
- --MONGO 07:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC) Yeah, I support it...concerned over what the Wiki top dogs have in mind though....
All opposed to any form of Semi-Protection for this article:
- oppose covering flypaper in a layer of plastic is not a great way to increase it's effectiveness.Geni 15:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Comments:
- I vote against until I know exactly what semi-protection is. Golbez 20:27, August 5, 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation but I'd still prefer an official MediaWiki, Meta, or Wikipedia: article explaining it. I won't vote on something that doesn't exist. --Golbez 20:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Golbez, it is explained on the proposals vote for creation page on wikimedia.[10]Voice of All(MTG) 20:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Again, that's just a proposal on bugzilla. Call me a stickler for the law, but I want to see the final version before voting. --Golbez 20:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Is this a poll or a vote? A poll is simply gauging opinion, with the understanding a more formal guideline would be introduced. To Golbez', you're being a tad stickler-y if its just to gauge opinion. I'm in favor of user registration to high-profile pages (heavily trafficked, vulnerable pages) - even still, I dont understand the big deal over requiring everyone to login before editing content. Seems to me that would solve many problems. Barrettmagic 15:30 5 August 2005
- It is just a poll, although the link leads to an actual vote.Voice of All(MTG) 22:52, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Golbez, it is explained on the proposals vote for creation page on wikimedia.[10]Voice of All(MTG) 20:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Let's see this semi-protection thing in practice before we vote on it. android79 21:06, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with android. Redwolf24 21:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ditto, although it sounds like a bad idea and against the wiki way... for one thing theres no shortage of admins to handle this. Anyway, lets see the resultant product before making assumptions --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- See my comment above. JamesMLane 23:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- I am in favor of semi-protection of some form but undecided due to not knowing what the constraints will be...to really keep vandals out, it might be necessary for all of us to provide more personal information than some folks might want, which may eliminate good editors...anyway, I have to wait to see what the proposals are if and when they ever do become a reality.--MONGO 01:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I kind of like using this article as a canary in the coal mine. It gets easily 10x more vandalism than any other article on Wikipedia, and we just found a few other vandalisms from the last IP, so it's somewhat useful. I dunno. We'll see how well semi-protection works in practice. I'm not totally against it. --Golbez 22:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- If you like the idea but don't know about the exact specifics, then say you are for it. This is just a poll not a vote, since semi-protection does not yet exist. The details can be worked out when it is created, but it is a pretty simple measure anyway.Voice of All(MTG) 22:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Thing is, I see no point to this poll. If it's non-binding, then what's wrong with just commenting about it? :) --Golbez 22:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- This poll does give a link to the vote for the protecton bug, that is binding. As for whether people want anons to edit the GWB page, I wanted to see what the consensus was with an actual tally.Voice of All(MTG) 23:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Thing is, I see no point to this poll. If it's non-binding, then what's wrong with just commenting about it? :) --Golbez 22:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- If you like the idea but don't know about the exact specifics, then say you are for it. This is just a poll not a vote, since semi-protection does not yet exist. The details can be worked out when it is created, but it is a pretty simple measure anyway.Voice of All(MTG) 22:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I gave a rant on the bug page with my opinions --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I would have to agree that a vote is early...the Reuters newsflash just explained that Jimbo et al my be looking at what the best way is to protect against vandalism. No doubt (I hope) they wouldn't wish to see a huge departure from the current policies of allowing everyone the opportunity to edit...that would smack of censorship...this medium is already dominated by predominately those who come from white, essentially middle class society (or societies based on that perspective) so to make it harder for voices from other less well heard peoples would make the entire enterprise a sham. On a lesser note, I probably shouldn't have brought all this up here, excepting that this article would probably be as good a candidate as any for some form of enhanced protection measures. I don't necessarily agree with this being a good point to "locate" vandals, but can understand that reasoning and again, I thank those admins that utilize their unpaid and underappreciated efforts to weed out those with a sole intent of making Wikipedia look unprofessional. I have argued that this medium is going to become more and more the manner of retrieving information for those doing basic research to people just interested in encyclopedic articles...so providing the best information available and doing so in an manner which reflects well on all of us, is very important.--MONGO 01:05, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
It seems that nobody so far is actually againsted semi-protection, except maybe Ryan Norton. Most people seems to want it for this article but they don't want to approval a system they know little about, a system that hasn't even been created. Nonetheless, the comments are promising for semi-protection as long as people are willing to go vote for it on the bug page.Voice of All(MTG) 01:28, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not against it, I'm just saying that it probably won't work as a long term solution. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
This is all moot for now, as such an option has stalled in the bug process. --kizzle 21:32, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
Conduct of Bush relatives
This article omits some fascinating details about members of Bush's immediate family. His brother Neil Bush was involved in the Silverado S&L scandal, which cost the taxpayers $1 billion; Neil was fined $50,000 and restricted from future banking activity. Bush's wife, Laura, ran a stop sign and killed a young man named Michael Dutton Douglas. Bush's daughters, Barbara and Jenna Bush, have both been busted for underage drinking.
I mention all this because there's a concerted attempt underway to include, in the article on Ted Kennedy, an account of the rape allegation against his nephew, William Kennedy Smith. Unlike the Bush daughters, who pleaded no contest to the criminal charges against them, Smith went to trial and was acquitted of all charges. Therefore, the case for including this datum in his uncle's article is even weaker.
My opinion is that the relatives' activities listed above are all too peripheral to be included in the article about a major public figure. I believe even more strongly, however, that Wikipedia should be neutral, meaning that Republicans' relatives should get just as much coverage as Democrats' relatives. If any of you agree with me that family gossip isn't a road we want to take, I invite you to express an opinion at Talk:Ted Kennedy#Questions as to Encyclopedic Relevance and help me try to nip this in the bud. JamesMLane 01:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- In response to the first comments by unsigned...not sure on Neil Bush (leaning towards no), yes on Laura Bush and no on daughters. My reasoning: Neil Bush is a brother and George apparently wasn't involved, Laura is his wife and though it was apparently a tragic accident, a person died, no on the daughters underage drinking...sounds like a typical teenage thing. Yes on William Kennedy Smith because that involves a rape allegation and Teddy testified and was with WKSmith drinking the same evening.--MONGO 07:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- To clarify the "unsigned", my post included all three paragraphs that begin this section, not just the last one. JamesMLane 10:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree pretty much with everything Mongo says, Laura Bush's tradgedy is important but perhaps it belongs on her own page? Yes/No? The underage drinking is as Mongo says, not very relevant. Banes 08:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- This incident is coverage extensively on the Laura Bush page and on the Michael Dutton Douglas (the man who died) article. I don't really know whether it needs to be on the Dubya page. Has he discussed it? Have he and Laura agreed to forgive each other for mistakes in their youth? This stuff would warrant a mention. We must always remember that the article is about George W. Bush, not the extended Bush family as they are related to him, but HIM. This must be uppermost in our thoughts when editing this article. Harro5 09:34, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Bush is not him self is not a culprit, why he became a cruel woolf is because he was born in USA, the world plice link title Anazcp
- Several of the comments above are accurate but are equally applicable to the insertion of the Smith material in the Kennedy article. I think you folks are missing the point. You can say what you like about the inclusion of the relatives' pasts here, but if that kind of thing gets into the Kennedy article then I don't see how the analogous material (for Neil, Laura, and the twins) can be excluded from the Bush article. If you agree with me that there should be one standard, regardless of party affiliation, then I suggest you go to Talk:Ted Kennedy#Questions as to Encyclopedic Relevance and make your views known as to which standard it should be. JamesMLane 10:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Naturally, the standards should always be the same....I guess it has to do with importance...which has got to be the most ambiguous thing I can claim and that's why I made the comment in my biased opinion as to what is and what isn't relevent. I am not sure how GWB has anything to so with Neil Bush money issues, Laura Bush running a stop sign or his two daughters doing the teenage drinking thing...so maybe all this needs to stay out. As far as Teddy, he was with WKSmith drinking the same evening WKSmith was alledged to have committed rape and testified in the trial as a witness to the events of that evening...GWB has no direct connection to the three events you cite (or four since the daughters count as two).--MONGO 10:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- MONGO, your attempted distinctions don't fly. The "direct connection" you cite between Kennedy and the rape allegation is vacuous. The fact that a person was at Au Bar on March 31, 1991, and gave testimony about what happened there, is not important in that person's bio just because a relative was accused of a crime. If the accused person weren't a relative, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Suppose Kennedy, while at the bar, had happened to see something occur between two people he didn't know, and one side wanted to get his testimony in a later proceeding about the incident. No one would think that belonged in Kennedy's bio. A different standard is being applied by some editors there because the accused person was a relative. That's taken as justification for all kinds of innuendo -- what I've called, borrowing your term from this page, "tabloidish". The issue of a looser standard for such material relating to an article subject's relative is very much in play, and I hope we can nip the idea in the bud. JamesMLane 04:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Again, what goes on over in the Teddy Kennedy article is of less importance to me than what goes on here...I am no fan of Bush, but even less so of Ted, so you won't see me editing there as I am probably biased and since there is less hope I can remain neutral there than here, I will not edit it. You're right...sleazy innuendos directed to either article are tabloidish...(should I call Websters and see if I can get that word made official?)...I'm not going to bang the drum anymore as this is my closing statement on the matter....in my opinion the events of the trial in which Teddy Kennedy testified on behalf of his nephew are noteworthy because the testimony contributed to WKSmith being exonerated of the rape charge....this is a positive, not a negative. Because Ted testified, in my opinion makes him a witness to the events immediately preceeding the allegations, although, of course, not a party to the alledged rape. I never heard that GWB ever had anything to do with the events cited regarding Neil, Laura, Barbara and Jenna Bush...aside from the fact that he is a part of their family. That's about all I can say...so at least our argument is about what is encyclopedic and what isn't...and that again does translate back to the Rfc on this article. Count me out on an Rfc for Teddy.--MONGO 08:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
- MONGO, your attempted distinctions don't fly. The "direct connection" you cite between Kennedy and the rape allegation is vacuous. The fact that a person was at Au Bar on March 31, 1991, and gave testimony about what happened there, is not important in that person's bio just because a relative was accused of a crime. If the accused person weren't a relative, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Suppose Kennedy, while at the bar, had happened to see something occur between two people he didn't know, and one side wanted to get his testimony in a later proceeding about the incident. No one would think that belonged in Kennedy's bio. A different standard is being applied by some editors there because the accused person was a relative. That's taken as justification for all kinds of innuendo -- what I've called, borrowing your term from this page, "tabloidish". The issue of a looser standard for such material relating to an article subject's relative is very much in play, and I hope we can nip the idea in the bud. JamesMLane 04:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- yup, someone's definatly missing the point, this is wiki, npov is generally accepted as pro-bush, and anti-people-who-aren't-bush.. therefore by the generally accepted definition of npov, only comments insulting to democrats, and praising republicans, can be considered neutral, anything else and they'll consider you part of the liberal media, which exists, somewhere, or so I'm told by all the republicans on my TV on a nightly basis--172.142.111.56 12:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, you're so right...this article is purely the work of right wing extremists, there is nothing in it that could ever be construed as bad news about Bush...everything here has been censored throughly to conform to the neoconservative standards in their neverending effort to whitewash history.--MONGO 13:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Right, the Bush article doesn't recive any special treatment, which is why an article about wiki cheese which was speedied hours ago is still sitting around unditrubed, where as even the slightest aumentation to the Bush article, is immedialy reverted on charges of liberal bias?--172.141.193.91 14:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous. There must be 500 editors that have this page bookmarked...it's hard to get political about cheese....I know I'm dealing with someone that is to the far left when they see this article as being pro Bush.--MONGO 14:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Right, the Bush article doesn't recive any special treatment, which is why an article about wiki cheese which was speedied hours ago is still sitting around unditrubed, where as even the slightest aumentation to the Bush article, is immedialy reverted on charges of liberal bias?--172.141.193.91 14:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, you're so right...this article is purely the work of right wing extremists, there is nothing in it that could ever be construed as bad news about Bush...everything here has been censored throughly to conform to the neoconservative standards in their neverending effort to whitewash history.--MONGO 13:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- yup, someone's definatly missing the point, this is wiki, npov is generally accepted as pro-bush, and anti-people-who-aren't-bush.. therefore by the generally accepted definition of npov, only comments insulting to democrats, and praising republicans, can be considered neutral, anything else and they'll consider you part of the liberal media, which exists, somewhere, or so I'm told by all the republicans on my TV on a nightly basis--172.142.111.56 12:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The article should discuss the actions of the person the article is about. Actions of his relatives are not relevant unless there was some active involvement by him. This article notes that Bush appointed a business partner to an ambassadorship, this is relevant because it describes a Bush action. Ted Kennedy did testify in the trial and was present, so a minor reference may be valid in his article. Neil, Laura, and the twins - I know of no action that Bush took in any of these cases. If he had made an "arrangement" with his daughters' judge, that could be included, but there is no suggestion of that. NoSeptember 14:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Bush raised his daughters; some would consider that relevant. He might have testified at their trials if there had been trials. There weren't, because they pleaded no contest. So, what we have is that when Bush's children are guilty, and don't even try to fight it because they've been totally busted, then it gets omitted from Bush's article; but when Kennedy's nephew (not child, nephew) is falsely accused, and fights the charge, and is acquitted, then the whole episode gets included in the Ted Kennedy article, because Smith's successful assertion of his innocence involved a trial at which Kennedy testified. Somehow, the logic escapes me. I've also commented at Talk:Ted Kennedy#Kennedy testified at the trial: So what? about why the mere fact of testimony is unencyclopedic. JamesMLane 15:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Teddy was with WKSmith the same evening of the rape charge...only a few hours prior in fact..."he was the last person with the defendent" as the legal mumbo would have it and therefore Teddy's knowledge of said condition, behavior patterns and incidents immediately prior to said event would make for crucial testimony...Bush's daughters, killed no one, harmed no one...so they have zero relevence...laura Bush's incident was, apparently an absolute accident...though she wasn't paying attention and the fault is hers, it deviates quite a bit from a deliberate act of violence as WKSmith was charge with....Neil Bush performs his actions apparently with zero involvement from GWB...so what's the link there? I haven't looked it over, but Bill Clinton's brother's actions and the subsequent Presidential Pardon he gave his brother did create a bit of a stir in the final weeks of the Clinton years...maybe it's noteworthy and maybe it isn't...seems to be to me. Now if you can find a link to Neil Bush, to Laura Bush, and to the underage drinking by the twins in which GWB is involved directly, then I say they should be here, but as the information stands now none of that information is equivalent to that compared to WKSmith and Teddy.--MONGO 20:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Kennedy's involvement in that trial had an impact on his effectiveness in the Thomas confirmation (he was quite quiet) and on his reelection in 1994. This was well noted in the media at the time. That is why it is relevant. NoSeptember 15:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I dont really follow politics, but hows this. If its true, then statr it as true, Just because its true doesnt make adding it an anti bush strategem, its simply addingthe truth. Gavin the Chosen 15:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
In response to JamesMLanes origional post, I would say that the Barbara and Jenna Bush DUI arrest should be mentioned as it does have to do with the president, as he is their father. The other issues should go in the articles of the people involved, such as Neil and what not.Voice of All(MTG) 15:41, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the Bush twins weren't busted for DUI, but for violations of the laws relating to underage drinking. Details are in the Barbara and Jenna Bush article. JamesMLane 16:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well noted, I had to resist the urge to go back and fix my post:-).Voice of All(MTG) 16:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Outside the United States Blair Bush relationship
I looked back six talk archives and figured that was far enough that this had not been brought up. Apologies if it has. My issue is with the following line:
"However, In 2005, British Prime Minster Tony Blair was re-elected despite his strong support of Bush, which his opposition parties thought would help them win votes. This suggests that many people who did not take part in these polls may not be as affected."
This line suggests that Blair's relationship with Bush did not reduce Labour party power. The opposition did win votes. From "United Kingdom general election, 2005" article.
"The results were interpreted by the UK media as an indicator of a breakdown in trust in the government, and in the prime minister, Tony Blair, in particular. As expected, voter disenchantment led to an increase of support for the opposition parties, and caused many Labour voters to remain home on election day. However, ultimately, domestic policy factors helped Labour achieve a historic third term in office. In this context, the new, reduced Labour majority of 67, (as it was before the declaration of South Staffordshire), was viewed by many across the political spectrum as a positive development, a counter to an alleged presidential style of government."
- That does sound a bit strange so it should be reweritten. How about just:
- "However, In 2005, British Prime Minster Tony Blair was re-elected despite his strong support of Bush, which his opposition parties used to garner votes."
- That should do it. The second sentece is just confusing anyway.Voice of All(MTG) 14:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- The problem with that change is it isn't true. The main opposition party didn't use his support for Bush to win votes, because they had mostly voted in favour of the Iraq war themselves. JW 21:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Its a small point, how about: "The unpopularity of the war in Britian and Tony Blaire's relationship with George Bush was blamed for a loss of 5% in the United Kingdom general election, 2005 for his labour party. Despite this he was re-elected, partly as the opposition, the Conservatives, where for the war."
Bush re-elected by largest margin in US history
Why is this the version that stays in the article: "Bush won a second term and an electoral majority by receiving more votes than any president in history"
..and this is the version that is removed? "Bush received a majority of the popular vote: 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%, it was —percentage-wise— the closest popular margin ever for a sitting President; Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916."
..when clearly the first version is spin, and verging on inaccurate--172.141.193.91 15:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- This should be reverted back to the percents and statistics other than the "spin" version, since Bush was not elected by any kind of overwhelming historical mandate as the article suggests.Voice of All(MTG) 15:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- When was the second statement removed? Both statements seem factually correct (although we would have to fact check that no one ever won reelection by less than 2.5%), which the earlier insertions by 172.141.193.91 were not (he asserted every President had a higher vote total than all previous Presidents - which is inaccurate). I am glad 172.141.193.91 is now discussing planned revisions here, including both of the facts above seems reasonable to me. He did receive a record high number of votes, so it is not correct to call it spin, and including the percentage closeness is not spin either, even though I am sure some would say that too. NoSeptember 15:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- This should be reverted back to the percents and statistics other than the "spin" version, since Bush was not elected by any kind of overwhelming historical mandate as the article suggests.Voice of All(MTG) 15:28, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- The huge size of the archives of this talk page is frustrating. This precise point has been discussed at great length, but I just don't have the patience now to dig it out. The fact is that more people voted for Bush than for any candidate in any prior election. The fact is also that more people voted against Bush than voted against any major-party candidate in any prior election. If we include one of these points, we should include the other. I favor omitting both. The population was up and both parties put a lot of effort into registration and GOTV efforts, so the total number of votes cast was significantly higher than in any previous election. Thus the comparison of the raw vote totals to the raw vote totals from prior years is a fairly meaningless statistic. Do you think that George McGovern was more popular than George Washington? McGovern got more votes. JamesMLane 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- That is why it is good not to edit on controversial points. The article as it is, is a consensus version (or as close to consensus as is possible), although it is clearly not perfect in anyone's view, and we all have a slightly different view of reality. NoSeptember 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Too late:). I already made NPOV fixes.Voice of All(MTG) 16:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- That is why it is good not to edit on controversial points. The article as it is, is a consensus version (or as close to consensus as is possible), although it is clearly not perfect in anyone's view, and we all have a slightly different view of reality. NoSeptember 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- The huge size of the archives of this talk page is frustrating. This precise point has been discussed at great length, but I just don't have the patience now to dig it out. The fact is that more people voted for Bush than for any candidate in any prior election. The fact is also that more people voted against Bush than voted against any major-party candidate in any prior election. If we include one of these points, we should include the other. I favor omitting both. The population was up and both parties put a lot of effort into registration and GOTV efforts, so the total number of votes cast was significantly higher than in any previous election. Thus the comparison of the raw vote totals to the raw vote totals from prior years is a fairly meaningless statistic. Do you think that George McGovern was more popular than George Washington? McGovern got more votes. JamesMLane 15:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
(continue discussion at left margin)
You are deluded if you think it will last. ;-) A true NPOV would admit both the closeness of the race and the record vote received, but will we end up with the consensus version - likely what was here before all of today's changes were made. I won't revert it because I only revert factually incorrect edits in controversial sections of this article, but someone else certainly will. NoSeptember 16:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- What record vote recieved? As JamesMLane said, the population goes up, so what? Off course its going to be the largest ever unless nobody votes or there is a population reducing nuclear war. What idiot would revert that statement back in.....oh wait, the anon army will. [SIGH].Voice of All(MTG) 16:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Population does not go up that fast. Reagan got 54 million votes in 1984, this record stood until 20 years later (2004), so a record vote received is of some noteworthiness. He was also the first to receive a majoity (>50%) since 1988, which is noteworthy. The closeness of the 2 candidates is also noteworthy, which is why I suggest both facts be included. NoSeptember 16:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wait, those are three facts, not two. The "greatest number" thing may have "some" value, but it is insignificant. The thing about getting more than 50% IS noteworthy so I will put that in.Voice of All(MTG) 16:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Population does not go up that fast. Reagan got 54 million votes in 1984, this record stood until 20 years later (2004), so a record vote received is of some noteworthiness. He was also the first to receive a majoity (>50%) since 1988, which is noteworthy. The closeness of the 2 candidates is also noteworthy, which is why I suggest both facts be included. NoSeptember 16:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Gezus, this is an easy fix: "Bush won a second term in an election that had the highest popular turnout ever at 122,293,332. With 62,040,610 supporters, Bush recieved the largest number of votes ever recorded. The election was also the slimmest percentage margin of victory for a sitting president - Bush recived 2.5% more support than Kerry; the closest previous margin was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916."Hipocrite 17:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- That's too much detail about the exact numbers, and there's still no reason to highlight only one side of the increase. I think the whole point about raw numbers could safely be omitted, but if it were to be included, what about: "Bush won a second term in an election that had the highest popular turnout ever at 122 million, with both Bush and Kerry receiving more votes than any previous candidate. The election was also the slimmest percentage margin of victory for a sitting president - Bush received 2.5% more support than Kerry; the closest previous margin was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916." JamesMLane 18:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Of course the absolute/raw numbers are meaningless. Would anybody want to state "Al Gore won the third highest number of presidential votes of any candidate in this millenium"? Gzuckier 20:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- But if you included that both candidates got more votes than any candidate in the history of presidnetial elections, then how can you make fun of kerry?? Isn't not making fun of the democrat considered pov here in this lovely brach of the 'liberal' wiki media??--172.128.124.231 20:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- The following paragraph provides raw numbers as it appears in the article: The 3.4 million jobs lost in the economic recession was the largest ever (since records begin in 1939), and the percentage drop was the largest since 1981-1983. Why is it okay to state raw numbers when the opportunity to slam Bush presents itself, but not okay to state the raw numbers in the elction returns? I don't get it. That is a double standard and I didn't have to go looking for another article to compare this one to...it's right here. Notice also, it states in 1939 when records began....so the great depression isn't even used as a comparison...nice. The facts on the "final" votes count for each election with a percentage of difference is all it should say, and I'm going to delte this comment in the article about 3.4 million jobs as that is POV if the same standard can't be applied to the voting totals.--MONGO 02:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- There must be an apples to apples comparison or it is simply POV spinning. Also, the "closest margin in history" is totally wrong, lots of sitting Presidents lost or did not run because they would lose. There is no other point for distinguishing the "sitting" part from any other election.--Noitall 02:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- All the article needs to state on the issue are the vote totals for each election and the percentage difference...no commentary on largest number of votes ever or anything like that as it is misleading...--MONGO 03:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- There must be an apples to apples comparison or it is simply POV spinning. Also, the "closest margin in history" is totally wrong, lots of sitting Presidents lost or did not run because they would lose. There is no other point for distinguishing the "sitting" part from any other election.--Noitall 02:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- yep, but as someone else already said, the instant this page passes on to archive, the "anon army" will return to slip the pro-bush slant back in, that's just the way it works,
- and for the record, I'm only a quasi-anon, I sign my past ips when I actually feel like taking the time to -(signed by
172.128.124.231/172.149.94.2), but frankly this starts to look ridiculous after I add a few dozen of these, and the formatting becomes unreadable, so for simplicity's sake, I'll just stick with the good ol' ~~ & ~, yours truly, some random person -- *anon* 03:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)- Pro Bush slant....really, where is that please tell me...I don't see it that way and I'm pretty much a centrist. Click me.--MONGO 03:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- A centrist? ok, but in my experiance, people who have to label themselves centrists are so hopelessly biased that there's no way to tell w/o them calling actually themselves a centrist--172.174.25.220 13:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Pro Bush slant....really, where is that please tell me...I don't see it that way and I'm pretty much a centrist. Click me.--MONGO 03:20, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Apples to apples analysis is fine if relevant. But the lowest vote margin for a sitting President elected in 2000 named Bush is meaningless and misleading. --Noitall 03:24, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Looking over your edits, most look fine, but the part about the polls as you word it is POV...Gallup predicted a Bush victory of 2.5%, plus or minus 1% on November 1...they didn't base it on exit polls. Polls are oftentimes much more accurate than you stated...I wouild eliminate that passage.--MONGO 04:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I used my edit not to say all polls are unreliable, but to show the potential unreliability of polls even when all care is taken and parameters are known (and, of course, there are many other examples, see Trueman). It can be modified to better reflect the point. --Noitall 04:21, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Just thinking some may find it to be POV...I agree that polls are not completely reliable...no biggie either way.--MONGO 04:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Right, see if the latest improves it. --Noitall 04:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- It just seems pretty obvious, that the second this talk page goes away, the origional statment is going to be magically reverted back into the article--172.154.221.179 13:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Right, see if the latest improves it. --Noitall 04:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Just thinking some may find it to be POV...I agree that polls are not completely reliable...no biggie either way.--MONGO 04:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Balance
To respond to what has been said, about this article being overly pro bush. Well if thats true then this article is definatly POV, perhaps some more balance is needed, but we would have to ask those who qare the patriotic people to suspend thier angry lynch mob reverting, so to speak, and try to remember NPOV doesnt mean "be really nice to bush". It means be objective, and without enough cons to balance the pro's, this article will and seems already to have a pro bush slant, which is, I think, against policy.Gavin the Chosen 16:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Just a note - User:Voice_of_All(MTG) 'corrected' this post's "Grammer". BTW, it's spelled 'grammar', and we don't usually correct other user's grammar on 'Talk' pages, especially when it's done incompletely/poorly. If you're not an expert, it's usually a good policy to let folks' posts stay as written. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yes its "grammar" but I usually don't care too much when explaining edits(since its supposed to a be super brief informal explanation, if there is one at all). Anyway there are still errors but at least its OK to read now. Please don't make personal attacks for no reason or be extremely arrogant, it is just annoying. Sorry I didn't fix EVERYTHING AS THAT WAS NOT EVEN MY INTENT. Oh oh, that trolling is giving me wikistress....Voice of All(MTG) 16:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I for one wuld have thakned you, and if you check your talk page I did apologize for my lack of good grammer ( hoever you spell it) I was unoffended, so how about we all just move on from the potential stress anurism(sp??)Gavin the Chosen 17:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- I found that post a bit amuzing, opps, I mean "amusing", because of the grammar. Quickly fixing it a bit was fun.:)Voice of All(MTG) 17:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- A user was blocked a few hours ago for making these minor edits. NoSeptember 17:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- I found that post a bit amuzing, opps, I mean "amusing", because of the grammar. Quickly fixing it a bit was fun.:)Voice of All(MTG) 17:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Personal attacks? Trolling? I see neither. Fixing grammar mistakes in articles is just fine. Doing so in Talk pages may get you thanks, but it may also be seen as quite rude, especially when you make so many mistakes yourself. android79 17:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- But not that many. A ratio of mabye 1:6 compared that post. Well, 1, 6, 9, 300 million, there all the same.:-). To bad I'm not a "grammar expert", just too ignorant and stupid....well actually I just write fast, but I guess that doesn't matter. Maybe "trolling" is a bit stong. By the way September, some of those edits by that guy were not "minor".Voice of All(MTG) 17:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- You described the prior author as having 'terrible grammer', spelled it wrong, and corrected his/her post _incorrectly_. Then you described my behavior as arrogant and a personal attack. Not the case. It was not intended as a personal attack, certainly it was not nearly so offensive as describing another user's grammar as 'terrible', wouldn't you agree? I'm sorry you took it so personally, and hope you got the message - correct other users' posts on 'talk' only if you are certain you're improving their grammar, and never in a way as to modify the meaning of their posts? -- RyanFreisling @ 17:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- see your talk mage, RyanFreishling, I posted a response there, so as not to take up space here.Voice of All(MTG) 18:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Saw it, thanks. By the way, that's "talk Page", and my name has no 'h'. Sorry to be pointing out these grammatical errors, but you started it ;) -- RyanFreisling @ 18:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thats mature.Gavin the Chosen 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- So we begin the personal attacks already? If so, you'll fit in well, Gavin. You may have noticed the ';)', indicating a joke. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, didnt notice it in fact, and had it beenserious, i thought calling attention to it would have been warrented, a thousand ( and two) pardonsGavin the Chosen 18:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- No problem, and thanks for the apology - it's all good! -- RyanFreisling @ 18:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, didnt notice it in fact, and had it beenserious, i thought calling attention to it would have been warrented, a thousand ( and two) pardonsGavin the Chosen 18:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- So we begin the personal attacks already? If so, you'll fit in well, Gavin. You may have noticed the ';)', indicating a joke. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thats mature.Gavin the Chosen 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Saw it, thanks. By the way, that's "talk Page", and my name has no 'h'. Sorry to be pointing out these grammatical errors, but you started it ;) -- RyanFreisling @ 18:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- see your talk mage, RyanFreishling, I posted a response there, so as not to take up space here.Voice of All(MTG) 18:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I did apologize for my aprently not so good grammer, and btw, im new,Gavin the Chosen 17:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- The ;) actually didn't work once? I am shocked, well I can assure you all that that almost never happens. This is a truly dark day for the ;),and his(and my) friends ;-),:-),:), and ;). Oh well, I've still got my friend MTG, Magic: The Gathering; and you can guess my favorite card:).Voice of All(MTG) 19:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- You described the prior author as having 'terrible grammer', spelled it wrong, and corrected his/her post _incorrectly_. Then you described my behavior as arrogant and a personal attack. Not the case. It was not intended as a personal attack, certainly it was not nearly so offensive as describing another user's grammar as 'terrible', wouldn't you agree? I'm sorry you took it so personally, and hope you got the message - correct other users' posts on 'talk' only if you are certain you're improving their grammar, and never in a way as to modify the meaning of their posts? -- RyanFreisling @ 17:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- But not that many. A ratio of mabye 1:6 compared that post. Well, 1, 6, 9, 300 million, there all the same.:-). To bad I'm not a "grammar expert", just too ignorant and stupid....well actually I just write fast, but I guess that doesn't matter. Maybe "trolling" is a bit stong. By the way September, some of those edits by that guy were not "minor".Voice of All(MTG) 17:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- I for one wuld have thakned you, and if you check your talk page I did apologize for my lack of good grammer ( hoever you spell it) I was unoffended, so how about we all just move on from the potential stress anurism(sp??)Gavin the Chosen 17:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry if i didnt write as well as i could have with that, I was trying to get a point accross thouh, and I believe in that i have suceeded. If you would like to know, I think I am much better when editing articles then talk pages. Feel free to look at my creation SAM2 broadcaster for proof. Anyone have any thoughts on what I said in the first post in this section?Gavin the Chosen 16:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Everyone sees what NPOV is differently. There are people that will proclaim this a pro-Bush article and others that will proclaim it anti-Bush. Look through the archives of this talk page (such as the big discussion on how to handle the Alcoholism/Drugs section). I think there are POV statements both pro-Bush and anti-Bush scattered throughout this article. We can only talk it out, we will never reach true NPOV perfection. NoSeptember 16:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Then why not put some pro and some anti bush into the article, and those who are offended, just try to remain rational... reverting, according to what I have read, is supposed to be a last step, unless dealing with vandals. Some of each would probably make a decent balance, wouldnt it?Gavin the Chosen 16:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think that is already how the article is right now, some pro and some anti. Each editor has a POV even if they think they do not. We must rely on consensus in hopes of minimizing POV, but will never eliminate it completely. NoSeptember 16:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think the problem is what's considered pro-bush and anti-bush, and unfortunatly, facts are usually considered anti-bush, and are usually met with pro-bush vandalism.. ie, george bush's gpa is considered anti-bush, even though it's simply his gpa, the addition of such information is met with either a glowing compliment of bush, or a petty insult targetting one of his opponents--172.141.193.91 17:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think that is already how the article is right now, some pro and some anti. Each editor has a POV even if they think they do not. We must rely on consensus in hopes of minimizing POV, but will never eliminate it completely. NoSeptember 16:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Then why not put some pro and some anti bush into the article, and those who are offended, just try to remain rational... reverting, according to what I have read, is supposed to be a last step, unless dealing with vandals. Some of each would probably make a decent balance, wouldnt it?Gavin the Chosen 16:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
well, If he , for exaple, tried to prohibit pagans from practising thier religion in hte millitary ( which he did) and we put that in here, and others try tyo say he didnt, ... since he actually did it, and if the wording is simply saying that he did it, without moral implication, i dont see what hte problem the others might have with it might be...Gavin the Chosen 09:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- You've made this assertion twice now. Care to provide a source for this claim? android79 11:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
... sources! http://www.necofwicca.org/newsweb/MC112202.htm http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/bushwicca.htm Gavin the Chosen 11:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- A single statement made during his first presidential campaign is hardly evidence that he's "tried to prohibit pagans from practising thier religion in hte millitary," something that would be disallowed by the Constitution, anyway. This issue is a non-starter. android79 12:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
--kizzle 04:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)== Civil Rights Issue ==
Categorizing same sex unions/marriage as a "Civil Rights" issue, not to mention leading off the Civil Rights section seems rather POV, I think it should be a separate section, futher is Bush's position any different than his predecessors?
- you mean his position that it needs to be made illegal with a consitutional amendment? um, yeah, that's a different position than pretty much any sane predecessors, I can't speak for Reagan though, he did have alzheimers, so you never know--172.147.127.192 19:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- You immediately weaken your argument with an ad hominem attack here. There's enough vitriol with the vandalism on the front of the page. With that said, yes, same-sex unions are absolutely a civil rights issue. Gay marriage, its proponents argue, is a right individuals should be granted by society; its opponents argue it should not be. Either way, it' well within the domain of civil rights. JDoorjam 00:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't really have a set opinion on this, but I think this line of reasoning isn't the best. Under it, issues from legalization of drugs to assisted suicide would go under the civil rights heading. -bro 172.130.229.221 01:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Civil rights means that all groups of a society share the same rights as everyone else. If only certain people were allowed to possess drugs or commit suicide, then yes those issues would be under civil rights. Thus, gay marriage/civil unions is a civil rights issues, as its singling out a minority group and denying them a right that the majority group has. --kizzle 04:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I stand corrected on the main point. But, related to it, only certain people -are- allowed to possess drugs or commit (the words I used in my first pose) assisted suicide. -bro 172.130.229.221 09:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't really agree with you on many counts, and frankly as the last election proves, there are far too many burnouts in this country, but, whether or not this is a civil rights issue, it isn't really, but it does come pretty close to meeting the definition, if you're a white, upper middle class, christian youth, living in the glory of middle american suburbia, you have a 0% chance of ever going to jail for drug use/sale, now let's see if you think the same thing can be said of a dirt poor inner city youth, or is he likely to wind up serveing time even if he doesn't comit a crime? I'd call that a different standard for different income brackets, I mean take Goerge Bush as an example, based on what he admits to doing before he became a "born again" can you imagine a person of lesser economic stature getting away with any of that?? no but I'm sure you could picture that person serving a few years for possession--172.174.25.220 13:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Possession of what? Bush was never arrested for drugs. He was for DUI. Considering he was almost famous when he got the DUI charge if you claim personal connections then the DUI charge wouldn't have happened either. What does he admit to doing that would have put him behind bars for more than a day or two? click me--MONGO 18:56, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't really agree with you on many counts, and frankly as the last election proves, there are far too many burnouts in this country, but, whether or not this is a civil rights issue, it isn't really, but it does come pretty close to meeting the definition, if you're a white, upper middle class, christian youth, living in the glory of middle american suburbia, you have a 0% chance of ever going to jail for drug use/sale, now let's see if you think the same thing can be said of a dirt poor inner city youth, or is he likely to wind up serveing time even if he doesn't comit a crime? I'd call that a different standard for different income brackets, I mean take Goerge Bush as an example, based on what he admits to doing before he became a "born again" can you imagine a person of lesser economic stature getting away with any of that?? no but I'm sure you could picture that person serving a few years for possession--172.174.25.220 13:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
2004 vote totals
There is no reason to have the comment that Bush got the most votes ever or that Kerry got the second most votes ever in the 2004 election summary. Perhaps the following wording: In the 2004 election, in which (blank) number of voters cast their ballots, Bush was reelected by (%), a difference of (3 million?) votes. Also, the comments about the number of states "won" and the difference in the electoral college figures should remain. This most votes won and plurality comments are POV...reasons: the population is bigger and lots of folks turned out after the fiasco of 2000. The plurality is also misleading because there was no strong third party candidate.--MONGO 10:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is important to mention the high turnout on both sides. I also understand the reasons, for the sake of readability, of not including all of the numbers. Could we make a Presidential election results page and simply link this (and other election pages) to that? JDoorjam 11:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think we already have such a page, that's probably where most of these numbers are coming from--172.174.25.220 13:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I guess I meant something more along the lines of adding numbers and percentages to a page like this one so that you could see at a glance who got how many votes, what the total turnout is, etc. Then we could make more casual reference to this election's stats and link to the more wonkish page there. BTW, this discussion has had five postings and there have been no personal attacks against anyone... I'm astounded. ;) JDoorjam 13:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think that making an article about the results could be a good idea. I also think that mentioning the amount of votes each candidate recieved, in terms of records and such, on Bush's page, is pointless. However, emphasis on the huge turnout would be fine, in my opinion. Banes 12:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
The economy been has creating xyz # of jobs for yzx length of time
Just noticed this little tidbit in the edit history, isn't this another one of those things where listing half the information slants the article, similar to the "Bush got more votes than ever before" thing, the economy has been creating jobs, but isn't it still creating them a rate that falls far below population growth?? making it a really one-sided/intentionally misleading statement?? like when newsprograms say things like: |the market had a strong showing today, the DOW rising ten points before falling 110 points and closing down 100 points for the day...| There are lines line this all throughout the article, but they only show up from time to time--172.174.25.220 13:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I tried to fix this to provide some balance. The discussion of the loss of jobs had previously been removed, leaving only a paragraph on the recent increase in jobs. This left a very inaccurate impression that there only had been an increase.
- The new version discusses both empoyment and unemployment levels. It discusses the job loss before mid-2003 and the job recovery that followed. It compares the current levels with the levels at the end of the Clinton administration.
- In restoring the deleted material, I left out the comment that compared the absolute employment level to historic levels. As pointed out in another section of the talk page, this was unfair. Only percentages are now used for such a comparison.
- The material on job increases subjectively described "steadily" decreasing unemployment. Unlike the employment numbers that have had 25 concecutive months of increases, the unemployment numbers have not been so steady. The adverb has been removed, and a graph makes clear exactly how steady or unsteady it has been. Also the comment on job increases "so far" in 2005, being something that will be outdated next month, has instead been replaced by numbers showing the change in job levels from the low in 2003 to a specific date in 2005 when the job level first exceeded the pre-Bush level.
- --RichardMathews 16:26, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Please note
If you are not already aware there is currently an active poll about this article at the "sentence poll" section above. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- now think about this very carefully, especially in the context of the Bush article.. now tell me who you think inserts the most incoherrent, random, vandalism to this article and why....ok, just so the point is made--anon 17:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm pretty sure it's angry left-wingers. There's really nothing to be gained by conservatives in vandalizing this page.
- Oh, give me a break. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- not conservatives certianly, but republicans, every time one of their edits gets rejected, a random vandal turns up, destroys any chance of maintaining neutrality, and someone else swings by and "saves the day" by inserting their previously rejected pov edit glorifying bush, to "stop" the vandalism--anon 20:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, give me a break. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I know for a fact there are, well, choose your own terminology, but suffice to say, Bush supporters, who intentionally vandalise pages like this to make their opponents look bad - since that's who everyone assumes would be doing it. I don't know any specific users, but I've seen it done before. So don't rule it out automatically. -Goldom 20:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that there are morons of all political stripes who enjoy vandalizing Wikipedia – their motivations really don't matter if the vandalism is swiftly dealt with. Right now we are giving them far more attention than they deserve (I know, myself included) so what do you say we stop feeding the trolls? android79 21:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Couldn't the vandals be more creative with their vandalism art? --Ted 06:57, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Superscript
I've noticed that the first link [1] in the article is superscripted, whereas the rest are not. Is there a reason for this? Or can I safely go ahead and correct it. Thanks. Ryguillian 20:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- It is standard in all articles that only the first word or comment that wikilinks to another article be superscripted.--MONGO 19:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Err, no, that's a footnote. That's a standard way to link to the Notes section in the same article. android79 21:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification! --Ryguillian 18:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
Pic of his signature
What is the reasoning behind the picture of Bush's signature underneath his infobox? I'm not asking for its removal, I just wonder why it needs to be in the article. General interest? To help people who want to Presidentally pardon themselves? This needn't become a big discussion, just a brief explanation confirming the validity of this pic in the article. Thanks. Harro5 09:07, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Proof that he can actually write his name? Sorry, that was a spoon-feed. NickGorton 10:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I put the signature there - I don't have a reasoned argument. It's like putting his picture in the article. Why do that? I have a thing for signatures lately, putting them in articles. I believe they give information about the person's personality, even more than a picture, but I have no scientific evidence for that. My favorite so far is the Mae West article. You might say she's just advertising, but then I would say bingo! - so is everybody. Also, check out http://www.annakoren.com/signature1.html. PAR 15:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Saw the Mae West signature - wow thats formatted way too big on the page. A small 100px thumbnail might be an appropriate addition, but since everyone has a signature, I dont think its all that illustrative. The one exception may be John Hancock, since his signature has become part of common vernacular. My thoughts...Barrettmagic 9:50 14 August 2005
Someone replaced the entire article with a Mandy Moore biography. Can someone fix it? 134.210.83.146 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)