Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm removing "his pronunciation of the word "nuclear" as "nucular"" for the second time. This seems extremely irrelevant to me considering the fact that nearly every US President in the last 30+ years has done the same thing.. Including Clinton, Reagan, Carter and Kennedy. Should we add this to all of their pages with questions about their intelligence? -jazz77

I am planning on restoring that passage. I should point out that you not only remove Bush's ignorant-sounding mispronunciation, but you also remove the reference to "misunderestimated". The only other president that I am aware of who consistently misprounced the word was Eisenhower. And the mispronunciation of nuclear is part of a pattern of verbal gaffes, not an isolated incident--he also has come up with words like "misunderestimated", which you also have been deleting. soulpatch
Soulpatch beat me to the save button, but I was going to restore the whole thing. Even if the criticism had absolutely no validity whatsoever, it is still a common criticism. It is not Wikipedia's place to judge which criticisms are valid and which are not. If you, jazz, would like to add a qualifying sentence explaining that every president in the last thirty years pronounced it the same way (and cite sources), that would be better than deleting the whole sentence. Tokerboy 23:11 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)
ok, I'll add it to Clinton, Reagan, Carter and Kennedy's pages as well.
If you add something equivalent to what was in this article (i.e. "Carter was criticized for mispronouncing "nuclear"), I will delete it if you don't provide sources for the existence of such criticism. If you have a grand desire to write info on how various presidents spoke, that would be fine too, as long as it is also done neutrally. For the record, I hate GWB but I don't think he is stupid, and I don't think his pronunciation has anything to do with anything. If I had my way, people would criticize his (warning, unsubstantiated, exagerrated POV ahead) belligerent warmongering, outright lying, bigotry, tendency towards fascism, unbridled corruption and political opportunism and not his linguistic tics and idiosyncracies. Tokerboy 01:14 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)
Tell us what you really think, Tokerboy. -- GABaker

I think it could be appropriate to mention Bush's mispronunciation. Bush himself joked about it during one of his debates with Gore, when he said, (if I remember right) "I have been known to mix up a syl-LAB-le or two." Bush's intelligence has been an issue from early on. During the debates, the pressure on Bush was to demonstrate his ability to speak about politics with intelligence. For Gore, the pressure was to not act like a robot. Some have pointed out their expectations that Bush, like Reagan would grow into the position. Bush does not like to read anything really, while Gore is a published writer. Labelling Bush as outright "stupid", though is something for late night talk shows (who find a stereotype they can use and stick with it) and extreme anti-Bush people. Bush's intelligence, rather than being book-based, is in management, delegation, looking at the big picture, coming across as a genuine, likeable human being, etc. For describing this, I'm not sure that "nuclear" is the best example, for reasons pointed out above. -Q

One comment: Stupid people don't fly the F-102 or the F-106 interceptors. Whether or not Bush finished his hitch in the Texas Air Guard, he did manage to qualify to fly, or the Air Force would have washed him out. So his intelligence is of a different quality than Gore's cerebal style.--GABaker

mispronouncing things is certainly part of who Bush is and should be mentioned, but with the "nuclear" thing.. it doesn't make sense because it's so common. We might as well make fun of him because he wears suits.

You are missing the point. We are not making fun of him. It is a fact, however ridiculously unfair, that people do make fun of him for allegedly mispronouncing the word "nuclear" and that fact deserves to be in the article. Specifically, his pronunciation of that word deserves to be there (IMHO) because it seems to be the most frequently cited example of his mispronunciation--I've heard it on countless talk shows, late night comedy shows, etc. Tokerboy 02:42 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)
No, I'm not missing the point. I understand completely why his use of the American language is included in the article. But the example that is used is not the best example that could be found is it? My point it, if so many people mispronounce "nuclear" - including, as Webster's points out - educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members.." Is that really a "good" example of how he mangles a word or two here and there? I'd say if "nuclear" is mentioned we should include the information from Webster's to be fair... point out that he is certanly not alone and that the criticism is plain silly and partisan.

The article is not meant to show how GWB mangles the language. The article is meant to show how many people criticize him for mangling the language. As I've said twice now, feel free to include a response to the criticism by quoting from the New York Times, Webster's or any other reputable source.

To illustrate my point, you said:

But the example that is used is not the best example that could be found is it?

You are totally correct. With that said, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show continues to tease GWB (last week or so, I saw it) for this mispronunciation. You should write him a letter. I agree that politically, morally and intellectually it's a stupid, elitist criticism, but it is also common and should be included. Tokerboy 03:18 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Reread what I said. I said to provide sources that people criticized Carter et al for mispronouncing the word. I don't think a List of famous people who mispronounced nuclear would be terribly useful, but if a famous person is frequently criticized for mispronouncing it, that should be mentioned in the appropriate article. It's all rather moot anyway; you just provided a source below for both the existence of his mispronunciation and the criticism thereof. As I said, feel free to incorporate the fact that it is a common alternative pronunciation in the article. Tokerboy 02:42 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)
I also provided a quote where other presidents are criticized for the same thing. So I guess it does make sense to include it on all of their pages.

I don't see any quote in the below article which mentions that Eisenhower, Carter or Clinton were or are criticized for mangling any word, "nuclear" or any other. Safire claims that such criticism is silly because the others did it, and the pronunciation appears in the dictionary, and Safire doesn't criticize Eisenhower et al himself, and doesn't mention anything about others having ever criticized Eisenhower, Carter or Clinton for that. As a matter of fact, it seems as though one of the central themes of the article is that Eisenhower, Carter and Clinton were not criticized for the pronunciation, but GWB is and the unfairness of it all. Tokerboy 03:18 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Having reread it, I may be misreading the article. Did Safire write the whole thing, or was the article a response to Safire's column? If it was the former, the above applies. If it was the latter, I would not support its inclusion in the articles on Eisenhower, Carter and Clinton because it's a criticism from after the administrations in question and seems to be limited to one person, plus the source is a summary of a different article. This is vastly different from the copious amounts of criticism Bush for the pronunciation while he is president. Tokerboy 03:18 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Take a look at this quote from an article on the decidedly left leaning "Slate":
"Bush isn't the only American president to lose the "nucular" war. In his "On Language" column in the New York Times Magazine in May 2001, William Safire lamented that, besides Bush, at least three other presidents Eisenhower, Carter, and Clinton have mangled the word.
In fact, Bush's usage is so common that it appears in at least one dictionary. Merriam-Webster's, by far the most liberal dictionary, includes the pronunciation, though with a note identifying it as "a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable." A 1961 Merriam-Webster's edition was the first to include "nucular"; the editors received so many indignant letters that they added a usage note in the 1983 version, pointing out its "widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president." They even noted its prominence among "British and Canadian speakers." (Why does Bush go "Nucular"?
I'd suggest using a different example of his mispronoucing things. And include sources if you demand it of others. -jazz77
I remove the apology for Bush's mispronunciation of the word "nuclear" from this article. The fact that other people also mispronounce it is irrelevant. As I've stated before, Bush's pattern of ignorantly mangling the English language is a consistent pattern; however, I have removed his mangling of the word "nucular" from the article as well. soulpatch

I see you updated the article while I was writing the above, and I like the changes and even added a bit more criticism of the criticism. All I wanted was the fact of the criticism mentioned, even if it is clearly and immediately proven silly, partisan and unfounded. I have no problems with the article as it stands now. Tokerboy 03:18 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

Ok, I was gonna but you beat me to it. The only part I deleted was the word "overly" because that is a POV, and some people might think the media is quite justified for making the criticism. Tokerboy 03:23 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

A long-winded defense of Bush's mispronunciation of a word is not appropriate for this article.
It is appropriate *if* a criticism of his mispronunciation of that word is included in the article.
There are also otherwise "educated" people who use the word "irregardless", but the encyclopedia should not be in the business of defending people who can't speak English well. Webster's defense of their inclusion of "nucular" is based on the fact that lots of people objected to their inclusion of that pronunciation, and their philosphy is to include any pronuncation that exists out there, even those by unintelligent yokels like Bush. soulpatch
... or Clinton, or Carter...
It's an ignorant mispronunciation no matter who says it. In Bush's case, it is part of a massive pattern of ignorant speech. soulpatch
Soulpatch, look down two lines to my comment. BTW, I happen to think that Bush isn't that bright, but not for this reason. --Dante Alighieri 23:07 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, "Nuclear" is a bad example because it is not unique and descriptive of President Bush's pronunciation. Many interesting facts are mentioned above, but they belong in the article Nuclear. Among other things, he did waffle on the pronunciation of "Milosevich" during one of the Gore debates. -Q

Incidently, Bush can pronounce "nuclear" quite well. He has done so on several occassions. I would imagine that he continues to pronounce it "nukyalur" when it suits his purpose, i.e. to seem "folksy". Seeing as how most of middle-America pronounces it "nukyalur", I don't think that it's unlikely. --Dante Alighieri 22:56 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

What is missing on the discussion of Bush's pronounciation idiocycracies is one of his positions as he first ran for president, which was, now wait, PHONICS. He made many speeches paroting the idiotic conservative position that lack of teaching phonics is the liberal cause of reading problems. Of course, liberals as well as any serious teaching professional teaches phonics to the degree that it is suited to English, a partially phonetic language. So, this is why Bush's cute pronounciations isn't so cute, it is another example of the lack of cognitive connections that he cultivates in spite of his high normal I.Q. Arodb 20:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Do environmentalists really criticize Bush for '"Proposing more money for researching alternative fuels for automobiles, like hydrogen and fuel-cells."'??? -Q

However, critics would claim that these numbers are somewhat misleading, since at least one poll also showed that a minority of the electorate would vote to relect him, thus suggesting that the support is more for his office than for him as a leader.

Got a link to this poll?

According to a poll in the Wall Street Journal, last month (I think October 25--I'm still looking for a link), only 45 percent said they would "probably" vote for Bush again. soulpatch
I removed it for now since it's so contradictory to every other poll I've seen, I don't think it should be in the article unless we can confirm it with a source/date/etc.
I am really curious to see who did the poll, specifically what question was asked, how many people were polled, etc. I watch various news channels all day long (because I can't stand sitcoms) and I've never seen this reported. I can't help but think that something this huge would have gotten a lot of coverage - especially during the recent elections, unless of course it was a biased or slanted poll of some kind. (I added the entire paragraph above, so it can easily be reinserted once we've established a source/date/etc).
Well, here is a (admittedly anti-Bush) secondary source that refers to the poll data and which also quotes from pollsters: [1]
Ok, that's similar to other polls I've seen (like these [2]) If it's included in the article, it needs to be reworded a bit. As it is, it gives the impression that most of the people answering the poll are saying they would not vote for him - what it's leaving out is that the majority of those polled will vote for him over a Democrat. There's a difference there. 30% or so are "undecided" in the polls I linked, which sound very similar to the Wallstreet Journal poll. The Salon article says (of the WSJ poll), "nearly half either say they'll likely back a Democrat, or that their choice 'depends' on Bush's rival" - which means that the "undecideds" and the strictly democrat voters almost equal half of those polled - combined. Bush will most likely get some of those "undecideds", especuially if his rival is a dud. So, it doesn't seem really fair to point to this as a sign of his "unpopularity". Especially if you consider the fact that this particular poll shows Bush with less support than basically any other poll on the page I linked.
Well, this seems like a pertinent quote right here from the Salon article: "Democratic pollster Peter Hart and his Republican colleague Bob Teeter agree that if the presidential election were held now, Bush "could face as competitive a race as the one he faced in 2000." Considering that a majority of voters voted against Bush in the last election, this substantiates the point that Bush's actual support in an upcoming election is much less than his approval ratings might indicate, which gets back to the point that his approval has more to do with his office as Commander-in-Chief than for him personally. For that reason, I stand by what I added to the article on the issue of the polls. soulpatch
I think that's an unfair conclusion. Presidents rarely get 50% or more in an election. Bush got more votes in 2000 than Clinton did in '96 (47,402,357). Does that mean Clinton was extemely unpopular? Of course not, Clinton was one of the most popular Presidents in recent history, was he not?
Not a good analogy. Clinton got a plurality of votes in both elections, but Bush got fewer votes than his chief opponent in the last election. And the electoral college vote was almost a dead even split. If both the Democratic and Republican pollsters conclude that "he could face as competitive a race as the one he faced in 2000", then clearly both party's pollsters know that his support, as it now stands, does necessarily translate into votes for reelection. soulpatch
I think it's safe to say that Bush's popularity has increased since the 2000 election, even if only by a little bit. Most people barely knew who he was in 1999 - me included. Even some of Gore's campaign workers have went on record saying that they think he's a better President than Gore would have been. This poll has nothing to do with popularity. It doesn't make sense to me to put so much importance on this one poll, when there dozens of others that contradict it. You also ignored the last part of my last response.. only about 20% say they are going to vote Democratic. Should we mention that? If this poll tells us that Bush is extremely unpopular, it also tells us that any Democrat that would run against him is even less popular than Bush is. (I personally don't think it says either one).
It's also not fair to assume that all of those undecideds would vote against Bush. If the election were held tomorrow I would vote for Bush, assuming his opponent was a dud. However, if you asked me how I'd vote two years from now, I'd be reluctant to say. A lot can happen in two years. If you take this poll as it is, only 20% will vote Democratic. Should that be mentioned too?
You also have to consider the other polls on the page I linked where they put Bush up against other likely Democratic candidates (Hillary, Gore, etc)... Bush won them all by a fairly large margin. -jazz77

Someone cut

"However, critics believe that the frequency and nature of his verbal gaffes far exceed those that a person of average intelligence and intellect would commit."

asking "which critics". Well does Michael Moore count? He's a critic of GWB, and has called him a functional illiterate on many occasions -- User:GWO

Calling a person stupid because you disagree with what he's saying is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.

No its not (or rather, no ones calling him dumb because of his policies, but because of his gaffes). To say that Bush's policies are necessarily wrong because he's stupid is an ad hominem fallacy ("Against the man", rather than the policy). To say he's stupid because he says stupid things is not a fallacy. You might not agree, and its not necessarily good politics, but it isn't logically fallacious. (Moore criticises his policies too, and doesn't make the mistake you assume). Similarly, to say that Clinton's policies were wrong because he like boffing interns is ad hominem too, but to say that he was immoral because he enjoyed blow jobs from women-who-weren't-his-wife is not an ad hominem attack.

I'm always happy to hear Democrats criticize Bush's gaffes, etc., because it indicates to me that they have no grounds for criticizing his policies --

The Democrats don't criticise his policies because most of them are the same. -- User:GWO
Excellent point. The Democrats are almost identical to the Republicans on the issues anyway. It's funny, though, but Republicans constantly brought up Clinton's personal qualities when they criticized him, and consistly brought up "character" as a political issue, and yet Bush's personal qualities (mainly, his stupidity) suddenly are off limits as a topic of discussion. A president is not just a bundle of policy statements; he is a flesh and blood human being who has a job to perform, and his intelligence is definitely a valid topic for discussion for his competence to do that job. Bush's apologists seem to think that the question of Bush's intelligence was just concocted out of thin air, as if his opponents sat around one day and said, "Hey, let's invent a personal flaw that we can use to tar Bush with!" The stupidity problem arose precisely because he has exhibited such incredible ignorance throughout his national political career. soulpatch

otherwise they would stick to those grounds. Arguing their points on the merits is the worst tactic the Democrats, multilateralists and environmentalists could try. :-) --Ed Poor

the person that cut it out has cut out other anti-bush/negative things buhs has done before. - fonzy

Well, thanks for cutting my argument into shreds <sheepish grin>. If only we could solve all the world's problems with logic, I'd go out to K-mart and buy an Occam's Razor :-) --Ed Poor

Biting commentary on GWB's intellect or lack thereof: "The Bumbling Communicator" by Jack Beatty. The Atlantic Monthly, 6 Sep 2001. http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/polipro/pp2001-09-06.htm (based on The Bush Dyslexicon by Mark Crispin Miller) (I quote here under Fair Use guidelines.)

"In father and son alike poor speech betrays a certain weightlessness of character, reflects lives so gilded that neither man ever had to worry about how he came across. ... what it really betrays is the psychology of the aristocratic slacker: a "Grand-daddy earned the money, I don't even have to try" contempt for earnest striving. ... he is, of course, flaunting not his costly education but his disdain for it — much as some feckless prince, with a crowd of beggars watching from the street, might take a few bites from the feast laid out before him, then let the servants throw the rest away."

From Bushisms Talk:

"A Bushism is a public verbal gaffe by United States President George W. Bush." -- Misleading; the term was first used in reference to his father George Herbert Walker Bush. The earliest Google hit I find is from 5 Aug 1992.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bushism&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=7&as_maxm=11&as_maxy=1995&start=60&sa=N

The term was used as the title of a 1992 book by the editors of New Republic magazine.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1563053187/qid=1036706624/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-8714274-3771321?v=glance&s=books

Amazon.com books on Bushisms by *both* Bushes

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=s_sf_b_as/102-8714274-3771321

The last two paragraphs in the foreign policy section seem out of place.
-Tubby

Theres a lot in this article that seems unecessary and non-NPOV. Maybe all Presidential pages should have a separate page for "criticisms of policies" for all of the negative stuff. I'm not against negative segments to the articles, but it doesn't seem appropriate that the majority of any President's *encyclopedia* entry should be focused on how much libral or conservative groups hate them. We have a hell of a lot of that here. I've tried to balance some of the negative stuff by adding in conservative group's views - but then it just becomes a "This person that is irrelevant hates it, this person that is equally irrelevant loves it. On the other hand this meaningless poll shows that a lot of other people hate it. But then again, this meaningless poll shows that others loves it" kind of thing.. which really isn't a lot of fun to read. We couldn't fairly strip out one side and leave the other, but it seems like the wrong place for arguments on issues to take place. I'm not saying that the criticisms of a President shouldn't be a part of the article - but maybe they should be on a separate page (with a disclaimer that says that they are partisan views, both in opposition and in defense) and leave the main article just a simple bio, with very *brief* mentions of criticisms? Any other opinions? -jazz77
How about articles like Carter administration, Reagan administration, Clinton administration & Bush administration to distinguish between the man and his policies? The bio can go in, e.g., George W. Bush and the politics (including the campaign to get into office) can get shoved into George W. Bush administration. --Ed Poor
I strongly disagree with that proposal. Are we going to start separating all the articles on political people into two? Should we have an article on Hitler's bio and one on his policies? One on Stalin and another on his policies? I would argue that you can't separate the moral implications of policies of a politically significant figure from the article about them as people--are we supposed to separate discussion of the holocaust from an article on Hitler? For the most part, it is the existence of the Presidents qua President that distinguishes them, and is by far the most important part of what makes them historically significant and thus warranting an encylopedia article. Let's not start creating new articles when they aren't needed. soulpatch
Okay, then, how about an article on the Democratic Party platform, with special attention to how Democratic ideas differ from those of Republican Party in general, or Bush in particular? --Ed Poor
I'm not sure I understand your proposal. I don't see this as having anything to do with the Democratic Party platform or its positions with respect to Bush. I personally don't pay much attention to the Democratic Party platform anyway, and I have little interest in what they have to say about most issues. In my view, the issue here is not partisan loyalty, and it isn't about being a Democrat or a Republican. You don't have to be a Democrat to criticize Bush on a particular topic, and you don't have to be a Republican to like him. In my view, Bush's actions and their consequences deserve a place in this article, and I believe they should be evaluated and discussed on their own terms, not in the terms of a particular political party. soulpatch
and yet, your criticisms come right out of the DNC party script. The average person does not have these criticisms of Bush, only *some* partisan Democrats. That's exactly why I don't think they belong - or at least, shouldn't be the focus of the article. All of these issues can easily be argued in both directions - and those arguments shouldn't be happening on his bio page. I could easily go dig up a bunch of partisan criticisms for Clinton and make his page the largest on Wikipedia. But just because I could do that, that doesn't mean it would be right, does it? That's not what *any* Presidents page should be. -jazz77
To the individual who goes by jazz77 but who repeatedly refused to sign in as a user to this project:
Just for the record, I do sign in every single time I begin to edit pages. Sometimes it sticks, sometimes it doesn't. Half of the time I am signed out by the time I submit the page. I've been trying to figure out why my computer does this since I started working on pages here. -Jazz77
I don't know what Democratic Party script you are talking about. You certainly aren't refering to the Democratic Party of the United States--maybe you mean some other Democratic Party in some other country. The criticisms of his violations of civil liberties, for example, have nothing to do with the Democratic Party.
Sure they do. The average American does not even see his "violations of civil liberties". That's the point. We're putting way too much importance on the criticisms of a few - that will *always* be critics, I might add. I don't know a single person that is worried that Bush is violating anyone's civil liberties. I think the only person I've heard mention this is maybe Al Gore, or maybe some far left politician on a news talk show. -Jazz77
You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you claim that the criticisms of Bush's assault on civil liberties is the official party line of one of the two major political parties in the US, and on the other hand you claim that hardly anyone criticizes Bush on this issue. Well, which is it?
No, I'm saying that both is true. The majority of the Democratic party is not criticizing him on these issues, but the only people that I hear that are - are extremely partisan Democrats like Al Gore, Jesse Jackson or Tom Daschle. Hardly a mainstream opinion. -Jazz77

Tom Daschle? Give me a break. Daschle hardly ever criticized Bush about anything. Try again. It was the leadership of the Democratic Party that has been the most unwilling to criticize Bush, which is hardly consistent with your absurd claim that criticisms of Bush came from the "DNC script".

Well, I agree that they've been scared to criticize too loudly. But, if you haven't heard Gore or Daschle criticize Bush recently then you've been living in a cave.

As for the "only people that you hear" criticizing Bush being those three people, you obviously don't get around much. Try reading some newspapers some time. Read the op ed section, letters to the editor. I don't know what sort of redneck pasteur you hang out in,

(more of that NPOV attitude that you use while writing additions to this article.) People that disagree with you are not automatically rednecks. I am certainly not one. (see Discrediting tactics )
You are correct that my use of that phrase was inappropriate. My inappropriate reaction was based on the ignorant reasoning you were using. You said that you don't know anyone who is concerned about Bush's human rights violations. From this scientific sample of people you inferred that the American people as a whole don't care about this issue. This was the basis of my reaction to that statement. soulpatch
By the way, you seem to be confused. This is not the article. It is the talk section of the article. Having a POV is perfectly appropriate in the Talk section of an article. People can and should hash out issues and be honest and above board about their POV in the Talk section. It is in the primary article that the POV doesn't belong. Big difference. Accusing people in the talk section of the article of expressing a POV in the talk section is, well, a little nonsensical. soulpatch

but I know a lot of people personally who are deeply concerned about what Bush is doing to civil liberties. So your attempt to draw some sort of broad conclusion about how many people object to Bush's attacks on civil liberties based on personal experience is just plain nonsense. So how many is a "few", anyway? You claim that only a few Americans criticize Bush over this (as if the legitimacy of human rights is determined by how many people care about it), and since you seem to be such an expert on how many people care about this issue, maybe you should tell us just how many "few" is. .0005%? 20%? 45%? Really, you are truly clueless if you think that only a few people care about this issue. soulpatch

YOU are the one that said the majority of Americans didn't agree with your position - not me (see below). I believe you're correct though, at least according to polls I've seen and everyday discussions with people at work, etc. The average American is not concerned with it, because they don't see any of it as an attack on civil liberties.

Furthermore, and this is a key point, you continue to introduce the Democrats into this issue, and I have repeatedly pointed out that the Democrats have nothing to do with this. You accuse others of being partisan, but it is you who have taken the position that there are only two ways of viewing Bush--the Rebublican way, and the Democratic way, and thus if anyone criticizes Bush it is just the Democratic party position.

No, that's not the case. THere are definitely criticisms that would fall into other categories. But with a lot of these criticisms that you have included in the article - they *are* politicial issues. The abortion debate, for example, is not going to be settled in the George W Bush article, nor should it be. It's fine to mention that he stopped funding to that organization I guess, but your original wording of the paragraph was intentionally trying to make the reader draw a certain conclusion. ANy balance is there because I put it there - although not without some difficulty, as you kept inserting words like "right winger" and "small" to discredit the supporters I mentioned. (more on this below)

This is utter and complete nonsense. There are actually some people out there who criticize people of either major party if and when they see fit. It's a matter intellectual integrity, as opposed to the partisan politics where people refuse to criticize the beloved leader of the party they identify with.

Not once did I say that criticisms shouldn't be included.

THAT is partisan politics. I have no identity with the Democratic party, I in fact mostly have nothing but contempt for it. I will criticize any politician from the Democrats or the Republicans if and when they deserve it. This issue here is not the Democrats, but Bush. soulpatch

Exactly. THink about it like this. I watched a biography special on Clinton a few months ago. Nice documentary.. told me a lot about the guy. Things I never knew. The hour long documentary spent maybe 5 minutes *at the most* on Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, and any criticism by republicans, conservative groups or whoever else disliked the man. Why is that? Because it was about him. It wasn't about Rush Limbaugh or the republicans. The bio didn't hide the scandals or criticisms, they just put them in perspective. They didn't spend 65%-75% of the show focusing on them. -Jazz77
In any case, just because you don't hang out with people with sophisticated political knowledge who care about civil liberties,
This is exactly the kind of attitude that SHOULD NOT be in this article. People that disagree with you are not less sophisticated or less intelligent. They have a different politicial slant, nothing else. The negative crap you're trying to fill this article with is just that - a political slant, which this article should be free of. Unless of course we're going to abandon the NPOV stuff at wikipedia. -Jazz77

Apparently you think that parroting the Bush party line is somehow POV, that we should not ever introduce any facts that might embarass him, and somehow you think that THIS is NPOV? I can imagine a Wikipedia article on Hitler in 1935, and someone points out the human rights violations by Hitler against his people, and good old Jazz77 complaining that such information is merely "partisan crap". It is no more a "political slant" to point out Bush's civil liberties violations than it is to point out Hitler's. What you call "political slant" I call telling the truth, even if it is embarassing to the glorous leader in question. User:soulpatch

Well, you mentioned Hitler first. I win.
This isn't about winning or losing. It's about understanding the issues involved. Human rights violations should not be ignored even if the majority of people don't care abou them. You don't like my Hitler analogy? Choose another one. Allende? Mussolini? Napolean? Choose the analogy of your liking. It's a forest and trees thing. soulpatch
What I'm saying is this. Include the facts (He did this, on this date) without drawing a conclusion for the reader (it will hurt the environment, it is an attack on our civil liberties, etc). -Jazz77
that hardly should be the basis for defining policy on this encyclopedia. And what matters is not the "criticisms of a few", but the facts. If the facts show that Bush has attacked civil liberties, then they are important and deserving of mention here.
But that's just it. It's not the "FACTS". It's what a small part of the country sees as the facts, but that doesn't make it correct or even the "popular" view. The people that say this crap are generally looking for any reason they can come up with to criticize Bush. Just like many of the criticisms that Clinton got durring his terms. They weren't all legitimate criticisms, many of them were twisted and blown out of proportion by people that were out to get him and bring him down because he was popular. Same thing is happening with Bush, and you're trying to put it in an encyclopedia. -Jazz77

Excuse me, but the facts were presented in this article. If you have reason to believe that any of the facts that I presented are incorrect, if the examples of Bush administration policy and actions did not actually take place, then correct them. However, I doubt that you can, because all of the items that I identified are actually true. (And you continue to claim that a "small part" of the country views it this way, without defining what you mean by "small part".) I presented the facts about Bush. If you choose to dispute that they are true, then do so. Put up or shut up. soulpatch

Again, you are the one that first said a majority of the country disagrees with you, not me (see below). I'm not arguing that criticisms shouldn't be included, I'm only questioning whether or not they belong in the main article. If you made an article about criticisms of the Bush administration, you could put anything you want in it. I wouldn't care the slightest bit. Or "criticisms of the patriot act" or whatever. As it is, it just seems like theres a lot of clutter to his page. -Jazz77
No, you were the one who claimed that "very few" people cared about the issue. I was addressing the fact that this argument is irrelevant to what goes into the article. soulpatch
Whether a few people are aware or care about them doesn't matter. This is not an encylopedia to cater to majority interest or the standard propaganda line of a ruling official.
How about the propaganda lines that you're trying to fill the article with? Neither have a place here. -Jazz77

Telling the truth is not a "propaganda line". User:soulpatch

It is when it's slanted.
To simply parrot what the majority or the government thinks would render this encyclopedia worse than useless. We must report the facts as they stand, and the facts on Bush's attack on civil liberties are a critical and important part of his administration. soulpatch
I'm not saying we should parrot anything the government says. I'm saying we shouldn't just parrot what a handful of non-mainstream left wing Democrats are saying. It's NOT a fact that Bush has made an "attack" on civil liberties. That is an opinion that the majority of the country disagrees with. We shouldn't list that kind of crap here as if it's encyclopedia worthy. And if we do, it should be in it's place. Listed as "partisan criticisms" and nothing else, so people know what they're getting when they read it. -Jazz

This has nothing to do with the Democrats, as I have stated over and over again. The fact that you keep bringing up the Democrats illustrates your partisan view of things. The facts speak for themselves; it has nothing to do with any political party. I have also pointed out that what the "majority" (according to you) of people believe is irrelevant, just as it was irrelevant to any record of Hitler's human rights record in 1935 to consider what the majority of Germans thought at that time. It is no more a partisan criticism to point out Bush's actions in the civil liberties arena than it is to identify any other leader's human rights record. This encyclopedia is full of information about the human rights records of world leaders. Take a look some time. soulpatch

Again, I'm not asking for anything not to be mentioned. Just that it be mentioned in it's appropriate place - like a page devoted to it alone. It also shouldn't draw the conclusion for the reader that they are in fact "civil liberties violations". This is very different than Hitler. There is really no comparison. -Jazz77
The Democrats actually joined in with Bush in a lot of his violations of civil libertiesm, including voting for the PATRIOT act. To restrict any criticisms of Bush to those that might come from the Democratic Party is to narrow and limit the scope of criticisms to just one partisan point of view,
Go back up and reread what I wrote. I do not want to leave out criticisms, or limit them in any way. But, the problem is this, no matter what politician we're writing about, there is going to be half of the country that disagrees with almost any criticism we mention. Like abortion for example. It doesn't make sense to fill up a third of the Bush page with arguments for and against his policies on abortion. The issue is too big for that, and I'm sure it has it's own pages. -Jazz77

You didn't understand my point. I stated that the problem is that we should not restrict criticisms of Bush to just those that come from the Democratic Party. The criticisms that come from the Democrats is a limited perspective and reflects their own agenda and priorities. soulpatch

You're right. And I've heard all of these criticisms coming out of the mouths of Democrats, and very few others. Watch any news channel. The only people saying what you're saying will be the Democrats.
Heres a question for you. If you're not a Democrat, and have an equal hatred for both major parties. Let me ask you this. Why on earth, were you so reluctant to include the word "bipartisan" in the following sentence?
His justification came from a bipartisan group of antiabortion members of Congress
Because the word "bipartisan" is irrelevant, and the word "bipartisan" in those sorts of contexts are almost always used as a propaganda word to make somethign sound better than it is. soulpatch
Not only did you delete it several times (leaving the rest of the sentence in tact), but once you even replaced it with the phrase "right wing". In truth, we know that it was a bipartisan group. So, if you don't care about either party and only want to present the "truth" without slant, why did you object to a bipartisan group being called a bipartisan group?
No, I used the word "right wing" to describe the small extremist group that came up with the unsubstantiated and unconfirmed video that Bush used to based his policy on, rather than the results of his own factfinding commission (which he ignored). They *are* a right wing group.

No, you used the word to describe the members of congress that supported the President. That was a bipartisan group. Middle of the road Democrats are not usually called "Right Wingers".

Wrong. Go back and check the article as it was writen after my modification on November 11. The sentence that you objected to at the time read as follows: "after being urged to cut funding by a group of antiabortion House members and a right-wing antiabortion organization called The Population Research Institute." As you can see, I did NOT refer to the members of Congress as right wing. I refered to the PRI as right wing. I did not refer to Congress members as right wing. soulpatch
Having just checked the history, you are correct. I apologize. But, the fact remains that you removed "Bipartisan" several times, which is the most "balanced" part of the paragraph. "Right Wing" is still generally a negative term, used to discredit people. By your own words in this talk page, that seems to be your motivation for wanting to use it. That shouldn't be happening. Now, read what I wrote below, which begins "Look. We're getting off topic." -Jazz77
You claimed that it was only an "opinion" that they are right wing, which I decided not to fight you on and left it as it was, but in fact it was not an opinion that they are right wing. My objection to the word "bipartisan" is that it is a loaded term.

I think "Right Wing" is a much more loaded term than bipartisan is. "Right Wing" is a negative term and is usually used to discredit people.. people's views are frequently dismissed as being unimportant because they're supposedly extremist "right wingers" or "left wingers". And it IS a matter of opinion who is "Right Wing" and who is "Left Wing". If you lean to the right, you're unlikely to see many as "right wingers", if you lean to the left, you're unlikely to see many as "left wingers". It's a term that always used negatively. I've never heard it mentioned in a news article to give more credibility to a group of people. -Jazz77

Well, we obviously disagree on this subject. soulpatch
People almost always use it in a postive context, to try to make something sound better. If it is a "bipartisan" anything, then it must be better. Loaded words should be carefully applied, if and when used in an encyclopedia article. In this case, it was inappropriate, in my view. soulpatch

"Bipartisan" refers to people of both parties. Nothing else. It is the correct way to say that congressmen from both parties supported something. I've never heard the word "Bipartisan" used in any other way. Every news article that I saw about on this topic described it as a "bipartisan" group of members of congress. "Right Wing", on the other hand, implied that it was only extremist Republicans that supported the President on this issue, when in fact it was members of both parties. I think that's relevant.

Look. We're getting off topic. Not once did I say that criticisms didn't belong. Not once did I say I had a problem with the whole civil liberties thing as it exists in the article (I only had a problem with the way you characterized it in the talk page, which isn't important as long as it doesn't creep into the article itself).

THe thing I was asking was this: Does it belong in the main article? Read (if it's easily found in all of this) what I said about the Clinton Bio I watched. I seriously think it's more interesting to spend less time on criticisms (in the main article) and more time on who the person is. People coming to this site to read about a President are not normally coming here to read what people don't like about him. They're coming to read dates, education history, military history, about legislation signed, campaign info, etc. The criticisms are a side issue. They should be mentioned and linked - but I think the details of the critisisms should be in a separate article. Like the environmental criticisms. If the main article gets too much negative stuff in it, it becomes lop sided. There shouldn't be more negative content than NPOV content in any Presidents main article. -Jazz77

and it is to narrow and limit the scope of understanding of what Bush had done during his administration. For the most part, the Democratic Party has been too timid and too morally bankrupt to criticize Bush on a whole host of issues, so to claim that the bulk of criticisms against Bush come from the Democratic Party platform is actually pretty laughable. And really, who cares if a majority of Americans are unconcerned with Bush's assault on our civil liberties?
Because, the majority of Americans fail to see it as "an assault on our civil liberties". We shouldn't take the criticisms of a small group and make it the focus of Bush's bio. -Jazz77

We should tell the truth about Bush's human rights record because it affects all Americans, regardless of how they feel about it. soulpatch

We should tell the truth about his policies and let the reader decide if it's a "human rights violation" or not. We shouldn't tell them it is. Especially when so many people don't believe that it is. -Jazz77
Your "majority rule" concept of encyclopedia writing is bizarre, to say the least. This encyclopedia should be devoted to telling the truth, not catering to the majority of Americans. Bush's assault on civil liberties is an important element of his administration, and should be addressed. soulpatch
You're missing my point. I'm not saying we should say one thing or the other just because a majority believes it. What I'm saying is, these supposed "facts" that you're talking about are NOT believed by the majority. They're typically only believed by left-wing partisan Democrats that often criticize everything that the President does. Doesn't that call into question the validity of these so-called "facts"? Present the facts of what Bush has done, but don't draw conclusions about it. Leave that to the reader. -Jazz77

Once again, I challenge you to identify any of the examples I cited in the article of Bush's human rights violations, and if they are untrue, then correct them. But since they aren't untrue, you claim that the majority doesn't believe them to be facts is irrelevant. The majority of Americans may also believe in creationism. None of that is relevant. What is relevant is the truth. As for those so-called "left wing Democrats", that is nonsense. I am not a Democrat, and it is offensive for you to make that association,

I guess I could have said you were a red-neck...
I'm still waiting for you to identify any of the examples I cited in the article as not being factually accurate. soulpatch

especially since it is not true. But when you say that we should present the facts of what Bush has done, I totally agree. That is why I offered some facts about Bush's human rights violations. There they are, for all to see. The reader can see them for themselves. soulpatch

Just don't tell the reader that they are "Human Rights Violations". Let them make up their own mind. (No, I'm not saying you're doing that in this article.. again, my main point is that I think it should be an article of it's own.) -Jazz77
The fact is that a significant number of people ARE concerned, and to whitewash the facts of his administration simply because a large number of people go along with it would be like refusing to offer criticisms of Hitler just because most Germans at the time went along with what he did. The majority opinion at a given time doesn't have anything whatsoever with anything. This article needs to report the ways in which Bush has attacked human rights in this country, as well as his other activities, and to refuse to do so would be to simply turn this encyclopedia into a mouthpiece for his administration. If you want that, there's always the Fox News Channel. soulpatch
No, the place for that is an article devoted to attacks and defences of Bush's supposed "Attacks on human rights". We are trying to be NPOV, aren't we? We shouldn't state that he attacks human rights as a fact, especially if, as you pointed out, the majority of the country disagrees with that assessment. This bio/history page should not look as though it was written by Tom Daschle. -Jazz77
I am not "stating it as a fact". All we need to do is state the record, the facts, and they will speak for themselves. But to censor the record on this issue is to whitewash the facts and to censor information that may be embarassing to Bush or make him look bad. And that is what you apparently want this encyclopedia to become. (And I would hope that this encylopedia doesn't look like it was written by Tom Daschle, since he has been complicit in the Bush administration's assault on civil liberties.) soulpatch
I'm not wanting anyone to whitewash anything. If you can present "just the facts" and leave the opinion aside, go ahead. So far, I haven't seen you do a lot of that in this article. It's ok to list something he did, but to then go on to say how horrible it was, or that it's going to destroy the earth, or that it's attacking our civil liberties is drawing a conclusion that the article should not make for people. -Jazz77

Excuse me, but I made no such claim. I specifically attributed the criticisms of Bush to "civil libertarians". I did not say that Bush is horrible (although, of course, he is), but I did say that civil libertarians objected to some of his actions, and I identified what they were. soulpatch

"Horrible" is subjective, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Likewise, "going to destroy the earth," because such a statement is conjectural. "Attacking our civil liberties," on the other hand, is objectively verifiable by simply comparing current policies with the Constitution of the United States. Such a comparison should be allowed to stand, as a neutral point of view. Hephaestos

But, not everyone agrees that any of these policies are actually attacking our civil liberties. There is debate on the issue, and as soulpatch pointed out, most people do not think that the Bush administration is attacking our civil liberties. That proves that it's opinion, depending entirely on the political perspective of the person viewing it. Policies should be mentioned, but they shouldn't be characterized as "attacking our civil liberties", or "attacking the environment", etc. There is room for the criticisms, but in my opinion, not in the main bio page - the specific criticisms you're refering to would seem more appropriate in an article about the Patriot Act -jazz77

I'm sorry, Jazz77, this argument is fallacious. It's based on an appeal to the consequences of belief. There is, indeed, debate upon the issue, between those who know the facts and those who do not.
Straw men such as the environment and abortion rights aside, it's fairly clear that a simple comparison of the provisions of the Patriot Act, and other acts backed by this executive, with the provisions of the Fourth Amendment and others, make it abundantly clear that the U.S. Government is currently in violation of the rule of law.
Further, an encyclopedia article about a president should logically include information about the functioning of the executive branch of the government, while said president is in charge, simply because the function of the presidency is to guide the executive. Scholars don't include information about the corruption during the Grant administration, or electoral irregularities in the election of Hayes, just because everybody involved is dead of old age; they include it because it is a verifiable fact. Facts don't have a time-stamp.
Hephaestos
First of all, the abortion issue and the environment was the main thing I was talking about from the beginning. Someone else brought up the "civil liberties" criticisms first.
"There is, indeed, debate upon the issue, between those who know the facts and those who do not."
I assume by this you're saying that those that do not see these things as "civil liberties" violations are the ones that are not "in the know". That is an elitist, arrogant view of the issue. The fact is, there are a lot of very well educated, and intelligent people on *both* sides of this issue. It is being debated and argued, and will continue to be debated and argued for years to come most likely. Unless the supreme court or someone steps in and declares them unconstitutional or something like that, they will continue to be debated. Not everyone that disagrees with you is a dumb, uneducated redneck.
But, as I've said a million times. This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. My suggestion is that these criticisms would be better off in a separate article - possibly as part of the Patriot act article. I never wanted them deleted completely, or altered. -Jazz77

I never pointed out that "most people do not think that the Bush administration is attacking our civil liberties." You claimed this to be the case. I don't know whether most people feel that way or not. As I have stated elsewhere, I strongly disagree that the essence of Bush's policies should not go with the article on Bush. An encylopedia article on a President must necessarilyl evaluate his policies. soulpatch

You said the following in one of your first messages, which I took to mean that you believed very few people agreed with you and that you didn't care;
I reviewed the history of the discussion on how most Americans feel about Bush on the question of civil liberties. It was you, not me, who claimed that the majority of Americans don't agree with this position. The statment from jazz77 was: "The average person does not have these criticisms of Bush, only *some* Democrats". This was what started the whole debate about the relevancy of what most Americans think with respect to this article. What I said was not that most disagreed with me but I didn't care. You missed my point. What I said was that what the majority of Americans feel about this issue is irrelevant to what goes into this article. soulpatch
No, I don't believe that very few people agree with me, and if I gave the impression that I thought that, I either expressed myself poorly or you misinterpreted what I said. I don't know how many people agree with me. I was responding to an argument that you seemed to be making, which was that the number of people who care about civil liberties issues is relevant to whether something belongs in an article on Bush. My argument is that the number of people who care about Bush is irrelevant to whether it belongs in the article. soulpatch.
"Whether a few people are aware or care about them doesn't matter. This is not an encylopedia to cater to majority interest or the standard propaganda line of a ruling official."
I'm curious; if one were to cite the political pressure placed upon Congress by the executive branch to pass the Patriot Act before many members even had time to read it, would that, in your opinion, belong in this article, or in Patriot Act? (Likewise with Homeland security, etc.) Hephaestos
I'd say in the Patriot act article. These are side political issues that are really not helpful in telling people who George W Bush is. I'd say that the patriot act (and other policies) should be listed, along with a brief mention of the critics, with a link to a more detailed article. That way, if people want to read about the Patriot act or the criticisms/defences of it, they can click on the link and go there, but the pros and cons of the bill have little to do with who George W Bush is.
By the way, the main part of the article that I was talking about were things like the abortion crap under foregin policy. That is a debatable issue that shouldn't be debated here. Some of the other segments that bothered me have been moved already. -Jazz77

By the way, I could also dig up some criticisms of Clinton, and if it were a higher priority issue me at this time, I would do so. I have added criticisms of Carter and Ford to those articles, although I haven't devoted much effort to either, since their presidencies are part of history now, while Bush's presidency is part of the current day reality. The things that presidents do, for good or ill, belong in articles on presidents. soulpatch

Okay, soulpatch, you've convinced me you're not a Democrat. I guess your a civil libertarian. So what do you want to do with the Bush page? You want to add a section on Bush and civil liberties? Would you like to describe the details of the Patriot Act? And how civil liberties groups fear it will (A) be ineffective against terrorists, while (B) needlessly curtail the civil rights of innocent people?
Or maybe you'd like to describe the perspective of other groups, such as the several different flavors of anarchists. Please go ahead and write. No one wants to stop you, least of all me. --Ed Poor
Mention of the Patriot act is essential here, because (fair or not) it has influenced many people's perception of Bush. A brief description belongs here, while extended details belong there. Quintessent 05:45 Dec 4, 2002 (UTC)
which is exactly what I'm saying. A mention belongs here, extended details (including in depth explanations of criticisms) should go there. -Jazz77

There is a NPOV policy here at wikipedia. A more subtle way of violating this is writing a considerable amount of text on a rather trivial matter. The information about GWB calling Jean Chretien a "dino" and Times reporter Clymer an "a**hole" is interesting and true, but does it belong in an encyclopedia? Not really. A biography, yes, but not here and not in that detail. Discussion of the foreign policy of GWB is not much longer than the whole "nickname" thing (besides, GWB was not "nicknaming" Clymer an "a**hole"--he was calling him one. There's big difference.

Not really. Foreign policy depends on relationships, and to call the most senior G8 leader a "dino" such that everyone knows about it shows a lack of judgement that is quite important to know about. It illustrates a flippant style that might well cast light on other things. Likewise, domestically, to be so careless as to have everyone hear you call a reporter a name, also shows a certain attitude. These are style points and a couple of them belong here. They're in context saying it's about style. Other articles can comment on US foreign policy direction of Bush, but only this one can comment on Bush as a person.

Perhaps we should reduce that discussion to one line: "A noted idiosyncracy of GWB is to bestow sometimes flippant nicknames on people."

Add "including even senior G8 leaders, and respected reporters, causing some to question his judgement in letting these nicknames be so widely known." Then we're fine.

I replaced the picture with a more recent one just now. There was the original (a decent photo but Bush looks about 35 - it must be really old), then an anon stuck in one with a really silly look on his face, which was promptly reverted. Meanwhile, I trawled around, found a suitable recent shot at www.whitehouse.gov, pasted it in. Two questions: (a) It is OK to use stuff from there without copyright problems, yes? (b) should I trim the attribution at the bottom and move the information in it to the image talk page? Tannin 12:47 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we can put the old picture back in ???????????????

I made a bunch of edits to this page, mostly to expand on some important areas that deserved a more encyclopedia-ish description, and to remove what I saw as a lot of blatantly biased anti-Bush sections.

It seems to me that an easy way to dance around the NPOV rule is to tack a grand lists of "criticisms" to a page of a poltician or idea you do not agree with. While explaining the existance of criticism and popular opinion is important, I think we should all remember that an encyclopedia is not a college thesis paper or a trial. The purpose is not to convince the reader to think a certain way, or view events in a certain light, but rather to present the facts and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.

If there are a *lot* of facts, though, they must be all dealt with.

I thus removed and revised some of the "lists of criticisms" mostly because I felt they were either not sufficiently countered by an "other side" or presented in anything close to proper context.

I could see that work went in to them, and certainly I believe they have a time and place. I am not convinced, however, that they belong here. Perhaps a "Criticism of George W. Bush" page could provide a sufficent forum for people to raise their concerns?

user:J.J.

I very much agree. This page is getting a bit cluttered, and anyway should probably focus more on biographical information and summaries of what Bush has done in office so far, instead of analyses of his actions. Since everyone has much to say about his policies, a separate article (or articles) is probably necessary and inevitable. -- Minesweeper 04:09 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Bad title idea. If you put "criticisms" in one place, then the article on Bush quickly becomes advocacy, and we quickly become Bauder's project.
I agree now and retract my previous comments about creating a separate article. However, as this article currently stands, it might be mistaken as an article of criticisms. --Minesweeper 11:05, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, the first few pages I'd found before all had "Secretary of Treasury", e.g. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html , but there are a fair number of places that say "Secretary of the Treasury", too, and that's where we already have an article, so I'll leave it with "the" in there. I wish they could at least be consistent with themselves about these things! -- John Owens 03:45 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

The Treasury Dept's website has "the" in it, so we should stick with it. Leaving the "the" out probably isn't incorrect, but having it there is definitely more correct. -- Minesweeper 04:09 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I re-instated "asshole" (instead of a**hole), as per Wikipedia:Profanity. Evercat 23:09 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If its good enough for the President, its good enough for me....er Pizza Puzzle

The recently added stuff solely on the USA PATRIOT Act needs to be moved to that article. It is not about GW Bush. --mav 23:45 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I informed User:Ryenwah and will move it myself later tonight if he doesn't. Pizza Puzzle

I removed "., who can target students least likely to succeed and convince them to join the armed forces." from education has the miltary announce a plan to "target" bad students? is it as likley they would target smart kids? Anyway it seems to draw a conclusion without any support. Smith03 21:27, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, that belongs back in. This is the actual policy: recruit those who are flunking out. They did not "announce" it but they are not hiding it either, and some teachers' groups and civil rights groups have complained about this - look it up. Smart ones? Why would smart ones want to go to fight losing wars for oilcos? That's insane.

Does anyone have the name of the German offical who made the comparison? plus do we have a source to verfy the quote ( the full quote) plus also to verify the quote about dismissing the protestors as a focus group? My concern not just for the Bush article but for every article regarding topics that people have strong feelings about is that we make sure we include a full quote and documument were the quote came from. I am not disputing any quotes in the article but it seems very easy to put in a quote that sounds like something the person would have said, but may not have said or said it differently. Smith03 16:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Hitler comment was made by a high German official who later ended up resigning because of it (which should probably be in there also). Her name should be easy to find and verify. The other quote I have no idea when it was made or any sourcing. I just moved it to the place where the protests were discussed instead of the end of the paragraph and removed the characterization of the protest. The numbers of protesters speak for themselves and do not require any opinions or other characterization.Ark30inf 16:45, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[3] This may or may not be the same comment. Maybe it not a huge different but was German minister comparing Bush to Hitler or Bush's policies to Hitler's ? Smith03 16:54, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Methods, and it is a pretty big difference actually. Herta Daeubler-Gmelin was the Justice Minister.Ark30inf 17:03, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Much better I think. The whole incident and result is now covered.Ark30inf 17:13, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree Smith03 17:30, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agree small groups but a think more than a few dozen Smith03 19:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Within the article as it nows stands we have para dealing with drilling in the ARtic, the Kyto (sorry if my spelling is bad) treaty. Why not move this any thing else in the article to under envornment? Smith03 15:18, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I restored the Environmentalism section after seeing that it was deleted without comment (I assumed minor vandalism or a mistake). However I looked further into it and realized there was a bit of an edit war over Bush and Environmentalism. At first, the environmentalism text was part of the George W Bush entry. Then, it was moved to a separate article. Then, that article made it to the Votes for Deletion page because of NPOV questions. The participants in the VfD discussion did not reach a consensus, but the article was turned into a re-direct to George W Bush.

I have undone the deletion and redirect while the discussion participants come to some consensus. --Zippy 15:19, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Meow

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_2&oldid=432655589"