Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 43

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Discussions on the Movement to Impeach section

Can we PLEASE just impeach him already? He doesn't care about protectong U.S. citizens from nuclear attack or he would have done something about North Korea instead of wasting resources on Iraq. North Korea could hit our west coast with nuclear warheads TODAY!!! We need new leadership, he obviously can't be trusted.

  • Next time please add your comments to the bottom of the section and also please sign your comments, especially the un-American ones. Thankyou. --mitrebox 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


This whole section seems week, illsupported, pointless and links to an article that states There are no impeachment hearings nor is an impeachment vote scheduled. Retaining this section would be like mentioning Cidny Sheehan's demonstrations against the president, or mentioning the names of celeberties who stated they would move to Canada if the President won reelection. While it maybe something to be linked to at the bottom of the page its not worth a paragraph in this article. --mitrebox 03:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It disgusts me that it's in there at all, the next time the article is unprotected I'm remving this liberalou... libelous filth!--64.12.117.13 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It seems worthy of note to me, whereas mentioning Cindy Sheehan does not. I think most presidents have probably had people demonstrate against them, so that is not particularly noteworthy, unless there is something really exceptional about the demonstrations or demonstrators. However, for there to be a movement to impeach is much more unusual (unless past movements have been underreported?). Schizombie 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no actual movement. The artice that this section links to lists people who are puported to have given off hand comments and 'what if' scenarios under which they would consider impeachment and it lists these persons as "Endorsements" of the 'movement'. Furthermore the 'movement' largely seems to exist only on wikipedia article. Mentioning polls in this manner is akin to using a list of "If the election were held today (and all the people we polled voted and were the only ones voting)..." polls to not only determine national opinion on a hypothetical situation but to determine the factuality of historical events. Furthermore the section in this article seems to confuse and combine the polls mentioned in the movement's main article.--mitrebox 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe "movement" isn't the best word, though at the same time it doesn't seem altogether inappropriate. There are people and organizations calling for his impeachment; I'm not sure why you think it is limited to the wikipedia article (maybe I misunderstand your comment) - follow the links, or search the web on your own. Honest question: was there as much talk about impeaching former presidents as there is about Bush? I don't recall anything like it for Carter or Reagan, but maybe there was. Anyway, I think there should be some mention of it in the article; but I'm by no means beholden to what is specifically written there at present. Schizombie 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually there was huge talk about possible impeachment of Reagan during the Iran-Contra affair(what did he know and when did he know it sort of thing), there may have been more if Oliver North had talked. Reagan apologized to the public (something rare in politics) and there was much less support for impeachment after that. I may have mispoke on only existing on wikipedia, but I feel that the 'movement' only exists on a few websites and takes most of its facts from 'what if' and 'under what conditions should' questions from the media and purports them as 'Endorsements'. While there have been protests where people have called for impeachment they often call for a lot of other 'probally not going to happen' things too. This presidency is certinally marked by low support numbers and I would feel fine about mentioning that but I don't feel there has been any sort of real impeachment talk. I do find 'calls for impeachment' more accurate though looking between the two articles I still feel one or the other has the afterdowningstreet and the zorgby poll confused. --mitrebox 14:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry some of you are so disgusted about the topic of impeachment. I know it's horrible to think that the constitution must be upheld. Anyhow, there is definitely a movement to impeach this president, and I'll even link to the more conservative press [1]. You can only imagine what the disgusting, horrible, America hating, commie liberal press is saying about it. Also, I enjoy that this article is locked down "temporarily-permanently". It's like anything else that deals with Bush and his administration; all freedom of expression and free will is locked away, but that is just my .02 - don't hate! Last point on this comment though. I can assure you that the "gay" wiki, and the wiki's of many other popular icons get vandalized as much this one, yet there's no censorship. This is a free country with freedom of speech right? Billions of dollars and the lives of our children go to defending this freedom, right? So why suppress it? Nicholas 04:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Your little rant is a reason why the page is locked down. And there is a limit to freedom of speech. You can't say "shit" on TV (broadcast), and you can't yell fire in a theater. What is the purpose of some random person deleting the entire artice and replacing it with the word "douche"? Regardless of what you think of the man, he's still the President and by default has more to say about him besides an immature one word insult. Millard Filmore was a pretty crappy President, but still a President. In any case, he's not loosing sleep over it. Squiggyfm 04:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Since when are opinions rants? Anyhow, I do agree that there's no point in someone doing as you said and deleting the article and writing in random crap. Regardless though, many other wiki's are targeted on a consistent basis with idiots making derogatory remarks, yet they're open. But the closing of edits was obviously a choice of a few that "run" this wiki, so be it. Nicholas 04:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Main Entry: rant
Function: verb
Etymology: obsolete Dutch ranten, randen
intransitive senses
1 : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
2 : to scold vehemently
Which is what you did...anywho...if you think other articles aren't fairly protected, you should bring that up on the respective discussion pages of those articles. Because unlike Sean Penn's addiction to smoking, the bashing of gays in wikipedia isn't Bush's fault. Squiggyfm 05:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
actually, there is no specific law against yelling fire in a theater. And if there is a fire in a theater, you should yell it. But who goes to the movies anymore, now that they cost so much and everyone leaves their trash on the floor, talks the whole time, etc. Getting back on point, eventually, when the final, neutral article on our 43rd President is written there might be a section on the movement to impeach him, or there might not. For the meantime, there is a vocal, if disenfranchised, portion of our citizenry that would like to impeach him, and including current events in an article on the current president should be allowed. Dmcg 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

semi regular?

Bush attends services at St. John's Church (Episcopal) on a semi-regular basis

Doesn't he go to church almost every week? That seems like a regular basis to me.--Hbutterfly 05:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As President, I'd favor a guess that he is often unable to attend that specific church. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that's true. He's not always in DC.--Hbutterfly 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's a member of a Methodist church, but St John's is sort of the traditional "presidential" church. --Charlie (Colorado) 17:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

quotes

  • Quotes!--205.188.116.138 00:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this a request for George W. Bush quotes??? --LV (Dark Mark) 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I didn't create the header, just responded! Quotes!--205.188.116.138 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Presidential Style

"Alternative Style: Excellency"? Huh? Presidents were forbidden from being reffered to as "His Excellency" I think that this is a thinly veiled criticism.

No they weren't. It is standard diplomatic language used for US presidents in the most formal context (though the times it is used these days are few and far between. It has gone the way of presidents wearing white tie and top hats, ie, very rare but still happens). It was certainly how the likes of President Lincoln was regularly referred to (ettique books of the day reminded people to use it) and is the formal style still used for US ambassadors. In the 20th century "Mr President" replaced "Your Excellency" as the normal style used, just as White House replaced Executive Mansion. However "Your Excellency" is still occasionally used: I heard it being used to President Clinton once. Nowadays even diplomats tend to use the "Mr President" variant, just as, for example, Irish presidents tend to be called "President" rather than "Excellency" though both are correct. It hasn't gone the way of "Your Grace" for British monarchs, which died finally around 1707. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

People rarely criticize the president in person. Maybe its D.C., maybe its the house, maybe be its the hevily armed expert marksman secret service agents. :)--mitrebox 01:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people respect the office more than the person and would not disrespect the president in person no matter what they think of his politics--Looper5920 12:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You obviously didn't see Coretta Scott King's funeral yesterday Squiggyfm 17:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
More right-wing nonsense. Coretta Scott King would hardly have been offended at the political issues closest to her heart being mentioned at her funeral. Her late husband frequently used eulogies to bring up political subjects. This is just another way to hide from what people are saying, and pretend it's the rest of the world outside of the right-wing Christian fundamentalist American wankcircle that's wrong, and not just you idiots. - 146.87.193.90
Stange, the above comment ^ was deleted as being a rant, oddly enough, the person who deleted it is the person whose been making sarcasitic trollish jabs all over this talk page--152.163.100.74 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course I have, every major news channel has taken the opportunity to politicize the issue, and demonize the Democratic Party, pretty much like any other time I turn on my television--152.163.100.74 04:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

War President

Any reason why the picture of Bush made from a montage of the war dead is on the page? Squiggyfm 15:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it (again). I can see a possible case for including it in the article, but only if placed in the proper context. It is unacceptably POV to imply that Wikipedia holds Bush personally responsible for the dead, and including the picture without explanatory context does exactly that.
I have also removed "and Iraq" from the end of "Bush proposed tapping the oil reserves in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge", simply because it does not belong in the "Energy and environment" section. As far as I know, there are no environmental issues regarding tapping oil in Iraq. --Ashenai 11:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary of presidency in the introduction

I would like to see a few lines about his presidency (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) in the introduction, which I consider far more important than this: Among his family, he acquired the nickname "W" (for his middle initial; later Dubya, a literal spelling of a colloquial pronunciation of the letter), which has become a common public nickname, used both affectionately and pejoratively. MartinHagberg 17:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why no War President?

I'd like to know why the War President portrait is constantly being removed.M.Kris 11:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

By posting that picture, I don't think Bush would be held personally responsible for te war. But he is the man who decided to go to war in Iraq. Hence, he should be held responsible for the dead there. Just saying, though. M.Kris 11:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are no similar pictures for the other American war presidents. By including it for Bush and not for, say, Roosevelt, we would be implying that Bush is to blame for the Iraq dead, while Roosevelt is not similarly culpable for the dead in World War 2.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'd note that I'm not an American, and I'm highly opposed to Bush's foreign policies myself. But Wikipedia must remain NPOV. --Ashenai 11:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Sorry, then. I was just wondering. Thanks for clearing this up. M.Kris 11:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize; glad we could work this out amicably. :) --Ashenai 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, something Bush related that didn't degenerate into a shouting match. I'm impressed! There is hope for the future!Squiggyfm 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just would like to state, that Roosevelt did not start World War 2, unlike Bush who started the war in Iraq. So, having started it, he would be to blame for the dead in Iraq.

Note taken, and thanks for not signing your name by the way...anywho, its from michaelmoore.com and is therefore automatically against the NPOV. Squiggyfm 21:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Right, of course, because all the supporting links, they're all NPOV, right?--152.163.100.74 21:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Huh?Squiggyfm 21:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I think 152.163.100.74 means the external links in the article. External links do not have to be NPOV. Ideally, they should be balanced; that is, there should be both pro-Bush and anti-Bush links. But the only real requirements are that the links be relevant and notable. --Ashenai 21:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't there at least be more of an indication that the Iraq war has been extremely controversial? Regardless of anyone's personal view on the war, the fact that it has provoked extremely contentious and divisive debate is objectively true. The current writing about the war mentions facets of Bush's policies and statements that have been controversial, but doesn't describe them as such. Freddie deBoer 19:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it does say as much in the third paragraph on the article: In the aftermath the U.S. and a multinational force took military action in Iraq, overthrowing and capturing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The war proved controversial both in the United States and internationally. --Ashenai 19:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How often does this page get vandalised and what kind of vandalizations are there

How often does this page get vandalized How is it vandalized For what reason And how do you fix it And how do you tell what is vandalizations and absolut fact, for example some people might call him a murderer which he ofcurse he is. Millions of bakteria get murdered by his immune system each day ;)

Deng 11-02-06 12.30 CET


You can get a rough measure of the history of vandalism on this article from this link. Vandalism is recognised by people using their commonsense. It's difficult to describe the distinction between opinionated statements and vandalism, but in practice the more outrageous expressions of opinion do seem to be intended as damage or at least a test of the wiki principle rather than a serious wish to make the article more useful to the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Text of template

I think we should change the text of the semi-protection template (for this page that is, not for the entire wiki) from "As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled" to "As a result of vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is disabled". That is, take out "recent" and "temporary". I think this would more accuratly represent the state of this article. Oskar 18:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Silly me, I just realised that it was un-semi-protected. Well, sorry then, feel free to ignore me :P Oskar 18:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the page should be protected from anon edits again

Looks like mass vandalism from anons has returned ever since the protection was removed. - Damicatz 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway has already semi-protected it again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes. Interestingly one of the few productive edits during the whole period was this one by someone who wasn't logged in. There were about three vandalism reverts per hours, which is comparable with the level of vandalism we had in December before semi-protecting. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

pointless

In what may be seen as an unofficial international take on opinion, a multitude of website editors have participated in a so-called "Google bomb", which returns the official biography of Bush on the White House website, when the phrase "Miserable failure" is typed into the Google search engine.

I really don't see the point of including this. A relatively small number of people can make this happen. This seems like someone trying to get their opinion in the article.--Hbutterfly 19:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who added it. And for the record, I myself do not think Bush is a "miserable failure". I am no supporter of him, but I would not describe him as such. So you can see that this is not just "someone trying to get their opinion into the article".
It is entirely NPOV - it's simply stating the facts. If there had been a similar Google bomb for the most popular president ever known, which linked the phrase "fabulous success", then this would be worth including also. You say that you think it's pointless to include this, because a relatively small number of people can make this happen. While that is true (it only takes, I think, a few hundred to do a Google bomb), this particular example of George W. Bush is a very famous one - I believe, the most famous of all google bombs. It's even got its own Wikipedia article! I think it's a bit silly for something so well-known, which is directly related to Bush, to be omited from his own article's section on "public perception". It could be argued that the removal of this information would only be done by a supporter of Bush, wishing to censor criticism.. but I won't accuse you of that ;) EuroSong 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think a "see also" pointing to "Miserable failure" would suffice. It doesn't really say diddly squat about Bush. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I would agree. It is notable, but the MF article does a better job of describing it, so a see also should suffice. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Mention of the Google bomb is forbidden original research. Rjensen 01:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that it is a notable Internet meme and very verifiable. The facts hold up and since it has been mentioned quite a few places, meets the notability requirement. However, i do not think that it deserves more than a see also link. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, I do not think YOUR edit was very encyclopædic! In fact that itself was quite childish. If you disagree with the GB mention, then as I said, it can be discussed here. But to change it as per your edit was just silly. As for "original research" - I think you should go and revise the WP definition of that. Reporting a verified and well-reported fact is in no way "original research".
Ilyanep, your edit is absolutely fine: the wording of the paragraph doesn't really matter (as long as it's not silly). Or jpgordon's suggestion is also decent, with a "see also". What would the "see also" be exactly though? "See also: Miserable failure"? Hehe... that looks a bit strange :) EuroSong 01:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
See also: "Miserable failure" Google bomb. Simply as that. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Date format

What is the proper date format for this article. I see a lot dates in international format like 1974-9-4 instead of Setember 4, 1974. Which format is appropiate? I started changing to the latter, but I thought I would ask before I changed all of the dates.

The software is set up so that things like [[1974-09-04]] are rendered as set in your preferences. Example: [[1974-09-04]] will be rendered as [[September 4]], [[1974]] for me, and perhaps [[4 September]] [[1974]] for others, depending on their settings. Now, this works anyway no matter which style you use, which is why I had to nowiki those - the second one looked like the first one when it's wikilinked. However, ISO format is not only neutral, but it's shorter. I consider it still a work in progress, so you can switch them back as far as I'm concerned, and wait until some official policy develops over them. --Golbez 23:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Policy is quite simple:

  • Keep the one style all the way through the article.
  • Remember that you have to set your preferences to see the date in a chosen format. So new visitors who may not have done that will see the numbers are written. (In other words, they will see a mess if different formats are used, whereas we might not if we have set our preferences.)
  • If the topic is US, use mm/dd/yyyy, if UK/Ireland/Commonweath, use dd/mm/yy
  • elsewhere, use the form used by the original author of the article.

The problem with the ISO form is that few ordinary people use it and know what it means. For that reason I think it should be avoided completely. I'd hate to see some kid writing an essay about about something he read on Wikipedia and, not knowing if 1974-09-04 meant 9th of April, or 4th of September, losing marks in an essay for getting it wrong. IMHO we should stick to a format that readers will clearly understand, where the month is spelt out. And as this is a US topic, all dates should be in the mm/dd/yyyy form (even though that is a form most non-Americans normally do not write in). FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tenth Crusade

on the Tenth Crusade page it refers to a speech given by President Bush, who is this not an appropriate See Also. When you talk about any Crusade you're reffering to the Medieval ones unless there was another one I don't know about.

When you're referring to " a crusade" it does not necessarily imply The Crusades. Try looking at a dictionary.--Hbutterfly 01:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Second that opinion. Shall we add an infinite amount of See also's based on every negative comment used by opponents and journalists. Especially ones based on the use of a single word?--Looper5920 01:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So far as I can tell, he only used it one time at that. After the decisively negative reation its use received, it looks as though he was smart enough to never use it again in public. – ClockworkSoul 01:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I did look at the dictionary it means a war undetaken with a papal sanction, and since that only happened 9 times before I think it is safe to assume that it was meant to invoke feelings about the Crusades. GamerVer05

Lead section rewrite

I reverted User:Jtdirl's lead section rewrite. Not saying the current lead is ideal, but it was a problematic change to a highly visible article. My issues:

  • No reason this should be the second sentence of the article: "He is only the second son of a former president to become president himself, and the most recent to be elected by the Electoral College to the presidency having received less popular votes than his opponent." Immediately takes a negative approach.
  • "al-Queda" misspelled
  • Intentionally uses the POV "War on Iraq"
  • Same sex marriage has not been a defining issue for the Bush presidency. Neither has Kyoto.

Rhobite 02:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Most of that stuff was more trivia-type issues, not lead information.--Hbutterfly 03:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The above is mindboggling. Do you actually know how to write an encyclopaedic article. A lead section in any article is supposed to contain a quick snapshot that if nothing else was read would give very elementary facts.

  1. That he is the second son of a president to become president will feature in the opening section of every encyclopaedia article on the planet. It is very noteworthy.
  2. That he is the latest to be elected by the EC while receiving less votes than an opponent is also going to feature in the first three lines of every major encyclopaedic article. It is not taking a negative approach about him. If it is negative about anything it is the system. He was validly constitutionally elected.
  3. That spelling of "al-Queda" simply because that is the spelling used in the article. It was done through a copy and paste from lower down.
  4. If War on Iraq is POV that is unintentional. Correct it.
  5. It never said that same sex marriage was a "defining issue" of the presidency. Read the sentence. It said it was an issue during his period as president. It was, just as Kosovo was during Clinton's. It was and is a very controversial issue about which Bush has taken a stance, though arguing that marriage should be gender-specific.
  6. If you don't know that Kyoto has been an issue you must be Rip Van Winkle. Even Blair has come out and criticised Bush on the issue and said the President is "mistaken". Others have been less polite. The Dutch prime minister said he was an "idiot" on the issue. The UN has said he is "illinformed". Republican congressmen privately say he will be condemned in history for his handling on the issue. The Russians have questioned Bush's policy. Clinton has said he is wrong.

How anyone could regard a shoddy substandard opening that in the first paragraph mentions such irrelevant stuff as his involvement in sports ahead of 9/11, his method of election, his family relationship, the issues that were on the public agenda, is astonishing. If someone wrote an article for Brittanica or World Book with such a fourth rate amateurish opening they would be sacked from the project for incompetence. Opening a major article with the standard of a poor school pass level just shows how far from encyclopaedic standards Wikipedia is in some areas. The shoddy writing, the inability even to use a single date format throughout the article (which the version I wrote fixes) is the product of shoddy substandard amateurism. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jtdirl, please refrain from personal remarks and try to remain civil and calm. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

When users insist on using a fourth rate substandard unencyclopaedic heap of rubbish as the opening paragraph of the major article it makes my blood boil. The irony is while the rest of the article is pretty good, all that work was being let down by rubbish at the start. As this is the most read article, the least we need to achieve is that when people read the first lines of their first experience of Wikipedia they are not faced with substandard drivel but properly written, encyclopaedia-standard text. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 04:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why continue to make controversial edits without even discussing them here first? A few people now have reverted you. I personally would appreciate it if you would use this page before making bold edits like these. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 04:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I like most of the new edit but the opening paragraph just does not seem right. I would not call his 2004 reelection easy and the whole second son thing is not important enough to be in the very first paragraph of the article. There has to be a better opening summary, not saying I am the one to provide it but there is definite room for improvement. On another note, It might also help if you weren't so condescending to everyone in your discussions/rants.--Looper5920 04:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe both leads pocesess valid points in constructing an great opener. Perhaps there could be an agreement to somehow merge the two. -ZeroTalk 04:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The back-and-forth editing is getting a little annoying. Just pick something already...and make it NPOV. I support President Bush but I agree, his re-election was not easy.--Hbutterfly 04:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The facts that are there are pretty much okay, they are just porly organized. How about something like this, bascially a mini version of the main article.

George Bush is 43 president...

(History) Elected govenor. Elected pres in 2000, controversy. Elected pres in 2004.

(Foreign/Military Issues.) Sept 11. War on Terror-Afganistan-Iraq. Palestine. Iran.

(Foreign/Other Issues). Aids. Kyoto.

("Domestic Issues.) Energy. No Child Left. Gay marriage, inteligen design, faith-based initiatives.

Basically, I'm looking for almost a simple listing of the presidential "accomplishments"Ehlkej 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kyoto has not been a major issue for Bush in the U.S. Social Security was a medium-sized misstep last year, but it really didn't get much coverage outside of the few months after the 2005 State of the Union. If someone wants to work Social Security into the intro, I'm fine with that. Same sex marriage has been completely off Bush's radar - he throws in some remarks here and there to placate the religious right, and that's about it. It is a non-issue at the federal level right now.
I don't know why people are getting angry here. If you write something that is wrong in the lead section of this article, you will be reverted. If that hurts your feelings this is the wrong article to be working on. I hope my latest changes are acceptable. If not, let's talk. Rhobite 05:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You are completely missing the point. That is never how a professional opening paragraph is written. Never. It is written in discursive style, never ever in chronological order. And again you don't seem to grasp that the issue is not what is on Bush's radar but what are contemporary issues of debate in a state during a particular period. You are completely mixing up contemporary reportage and long scale analysis. Social security is in terms of impact a massive issue. So is Kyoto. Same sex marriage, and the whole issue of definitions of marriage is a debate going on throughout the US, with demands for a constitutional amendment, illegal marriages in California, laws passed on civil unions up and down the US. Bush has taken a clear stance on the issue.

When historians look back on the period, the issue of how the US dealt with, or didn't deal with, these issues will feature and it is vital that they are mentioned as contemporaneous issues of the day that occurred on his watch. So issues like same sex marriage, environmental protection and global warming, social security reform, etc are absolute necessities in the opening section. They are all issues that either appeared on his watch or became big on his watch. Even if he did nothing about them they would still have to feature because the issue would be why didn't he do something about the issues that were featuring in the period of his office. But he has taken stances on each of these issues.

re the reversion - the problem was not the screwing up of an opening paragraph that was being worked on. The dates in the article were all over the place: some using international dating, some US dating, some ISO dating. It was a farce. Your reversions wiped out all the corrections all the way through the text and returned the article to the garbled rubbish that was the dating beforehand, where sentences would say "Bush did x on 21 October 2003. Meanwhile on 2003-11-01 he announced Y before saying on November 2 2003 z."

BTW Sorry guys for being techy earlier. I had a major problem with an internet connection — it crashed after spending 30 minutes correcting the date forms and doing a draft rewrite of the opening paragraph. Rather than risk losing it again I posted it in directly (and inadvertently marked it as minor. That is the default on my system). When I went to explain the edits here the net link crashed again. I can be a bit techy about standards in articles, I'm afraid. I am a bit of a perfectionist for academic standards. I guess I was so busy on occasion dealing with vandalism here that I hadn't a chance to examine the text. It was only when a friend of mine, on his first visit, read the opening and emailed me to say it was, in his words "absolute shite" that I looked at it and concluded that his description was an understatement. An opening section, as with an opening of an essay, or a newspaper, should give a sufficient overview to mean that even if the reader reads nothing else they will have got what we Irish call "the gist of it" (a quick summary).

Re the second son thing: I understand the point. But historically it will be a big thing in articles on him, and will always feature up front. Long after people have forgotten the minutæ of Bush's presidency facts like that will still be referred to. (It is already asked in quizzes). Having written for encyclopaedias in the past my guess is that it will be in the first three lines of every article. That is the sort of "unique fact" that is always included up front, as is the method of his election and 9/11. They are the three things that will be his place in history, just as Kennedy's is "first Catholic", "Cuban Missile Crisis" and "assassination" or Clinton's "Monica", "impeachment", "comeback kid", etc. It may seem trivial but it gives a human context to the man, and some unique human feature always gets an upfront billing, like Reagan the Actor, FDR's disability, Lincoln the loner, Grant the general, Washington with Martha, etc. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Utterly mindboggling. How on earth can you put stuff about Bush's career before becoming president into the opening paragraph when it barely qualifies for inclusion and not put the date for the end of his term into the opening paragraph??? It is practically a classic example of how never to write an opening to article. If someone did it in a school essay the teacher would put a red line through it and write irrelevant. There is no need to go into detail at the start. A professionally written opening contains one sentence about each topic not quoting details, footnotes and references (they go in the body text), never chronologically but thematically. It is so amateurish it is appalling. Please learn how to write an opening section it is simple. Paragraph one: name, dob/dod, key fact. Unique fact(s). Key date. Paragraph two: a sentence without debate on key issues, following a thematic structure. Contemporaneous issues during the period. Final paragraph: minor information. Then detail and references in the main text. It is perfectly simple to do. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
1. If you'd bothered to look at the diff you'd notice that I kept all your date fixes, despite the fact that Mediawiki's local date formatting makes them irrelevant. 2. I now question the ability of this Irish person to judge what is an important issue for a U.S. president. I mean, you don't even seem to know how we elect our presidents (hint: it has nothing to do with "a plurality of the popular vote"). It is not this article's job to decide what historians will probably think is important about the Bush presidency. 3. I think you're forgetting who signed the defense of marriage act (hint: not Bush). 4. You didn't even bother to use an edit summary on your initial edits, and you marked them as minor. This is basically deceptive. 5. For all your ranting about who is qualified to write what professionally, I can't see how your intro is any more focused than mine. We just disagree on which issues are important to the Bush presidency. Anyway, I agree with you that social security should be mentioned. However I assure you that Kyoto and same sex marriage have received almost no coverage at the federal level in the U.S.
And if you want to convince us all that you're a professional writer, you're going to have to find some adjectives other than "shoddy" and "mindboggling". I'm going to take a wild guess: Sci-fi? Rhobite 06:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A historian. Author. Political scientist. Novelist. Journalist. Advisor to politicians. And calling it "shoddy" and "mindboggling" was being polite. Another description would be "amateurish, unencyclopediac, poorly structured, with an evident inability to assess the importance of structure and to convey it in the standard form used in encyclopaediac writing." If an opening paragraph of a major essay or exam question was written that way it would, if the former, be returned to the writer with the request "Please rewrite in a professional manner". If in the latter, it would get a pass grade. Pass grades are given to people who can do nothing but list facts without the ability to judge their importance and thematically explore them. Honours grades are given to people who know the difference between parroting chronological listings without understanding relevance, and being able to assess importance and thematically explore the issues on that basis. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we'll just go with sci-fi. Hint for future flamewars: Think about toning down the "look at me guys I went to school" bit. It isn't that endearing. Rhobite 06:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Substandard writing at pass level in an encyclopaedia is not merely not endearing but also not professional. An article written that way for Brittanica would be binned on sight. And you still have not offered any justification for your desire to treat professional writing as an optional extra rather than a professional requirement in this article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 06:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm sorry for joking about your word choices, but I was offended by your personal attack "Do you actually know how to write an encyclopaedic article" and your repeated suggestions that I'm somehow not schooled properly. I am sure that as a writer you understand that there is no single definition of correct style. I apologize for my snarky responses, and welcome any suggestions you have about improving the lead section. Rhobite 16:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any offence. Users of Hiberno-English use sarsasm in a way that it meant to be ironic, not literal. Irish users regularly find that what is a standard form of language used in Ireland and the UK is not understood by other English speakers on WP and is taken literally, not ironically.

Re the article - the key thing about an opening section is that it needs to give three things:

  1. A quick resume of facts
  2. The content
  3. Personal details.

Writing things chronologically should be avoided because often that means that less important information gets in ahead of more important things that happened later. Writers use a standard thematic structure which links issues, not timeframe, allowing less important facts to be moved to later on. The reader needs to be presented with key facts first. Writers also tend to put unique features (which are often the things that people remember more than detailed minutae of facts) up front.

With Bush, the key unique facts are

  1. That he was/is president;
  2. The controversial manner of his election in 2000;
  3. That he is only the second son of a former president to become president;
  4. The 9/11 attack;
  5. The Iraq war;
  6. The date his term ends.

So all of those need to go in the top two paragraphs. Numbers 1 and 6 are musts for the first paragraph. Number 2 is also IMHO a must even if just mentioned in one sentence. (It can then be explored in a further two sentences in a later paragraph.) Number 3 is a quirky but important fact that will be referred to by presidential historians for centuries to come, but does not need explanation, so can be slotted into the opening paragraph. If necessary it can be augmented by a later paragraph on family background. Numbers 4 and 5 are big issues that are linked. Though all they need is a line or two of explanation in the opening, the fact that they are linked means that they can probably get a paragraph together.

The basic rule is that opening paragraphs should be no more than 3 or 4 sentences long, with the meat in paragraph 2.

It is also important for a longterm leader of a state (ie, someone who is there for 3 years or more) that the cultural issues of the day are mentioned. That is not to say that they were big issues for that leader, but that they were big issues in what are often called the 'culture wars' (left—right; rural—urban; secular—religious; societal definitions, etc). The fact that a leader didn't take sides in major debates in his era of governance is itself a fact that needs to be registered, not in terms of criticism but simply in terms of "that is how he dealt with the issue". In Eisenhower's time, for example, the 'mom and apple pie' image of American life introduced a degree of civic and communal stability that was absent in the upset of the war years. Ike in many ways embodied that. Kennedy embodied an era of youthful radicalism that everything from Martin Luther King in the US to Wilson's "white heat of technology" in the UK, Vatican II in Catholicism, The Beatles in music, etc. Carter was a reaction to the scandals of Nixon and a type of wiping the slate clean. For Bush, the culture wars revolve around controversial evolving concepts of family law (same sex marriage), environmental concerns (Kyoto etc), the need to reform social security amid fears that the system will go broke otherwise, the rising power of the neo-cons, the clash of cultures between the religious right and the liberal left, the changing concept of America's role internationally in the aftermath of 9/11, etc. So a paragraph needs to explain that Bush's presidency has to be seen against the cultural context of the issues of the first decade of the 21st century in the US.

All these impacted on Bush, even if he did not explicitly follow through on a policy about them. For example, issues of marriage definition energised conservatives which aided his election and affected his choice of judges. Environmental issues impacted on Bush's policy platform and impacted on his international reputation, which in turn impacted on his reputation come the Iraq War. Social security was explicitly part of his policy programme and in what appears to have been their mishandling, may well cost the Republicans heavily in this year's mid term elections. 9/11 effectively killed off the conservative belief in American isolationism.

Bush's family background also needs a line or two, as does his status as a governor of Texas, though that matters less since he became president (hence it needs to be after mention of his presidency, not before it). The stuff on his pre-political career jobs is personal information that can be tagged on at the end.

The point about an opening section is that it needs to give the bare bones (stressing the bare, hence no footnotes, references, specific references to specific aspects of policy) in a way that is in effect a very short self-contained essay that doesn't go into detail. A reader should be able to read the section and nothing else and still get a feel for who Bush was, when he was, the unique facts about him, a general gist of his policies and a general feel for what the world was like, and his country was like, in his era. All the detail, the who, what, when, where and how, belongs in the body text and there needs detailed citations, footnotes, and explicit factual details. The article body text itself here is quite good, but the opening is below par in delivering a good overall resumé of Bush, his life and times.

Good feature articles have strong opening paragraphs, not weak ones. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we take the debate out of the lead. The rest of this article is really well done and I applaud all those who have worked on it. I see it as a good summary of the presidency of Bush with links to pages that go to other articles in depth. So why not make the intro a summary of the rest of the article. If something is to be mentioned in the lead, make sure it has at least a prominent mention (I dunno, several sentences at least?) in the main article. If you think a particular topic is important to include in the lead, then add text in the main article. If something is mentioned in the lead without being "flushed out" in the main article, something is unbalanced. Like I tried to propose above, the intro could follow the flow of the main article - with maybe a paragraph for most 2nd level sections. Sure it'll probably be dry, but it'll remove the debate about the lead, make anyone who wants to add something they think is important provide mroe info in the main article (with references), and better isolate the debates about whats important or not to the subsections of the article. 136.182.2.222 05:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
136.182.2.222 is me. Ehlkej 05:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing from treaties

Is it just me, or is this a blatant euphemism? You can withdraw from a room, or a club; but a treaty is an agreement, and if you don't abide by its terms, you violate it. Did Hitler 'withdraw' from the Treaty of Versailles?

Paul Magnussen 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a euphemism. Kyoto was never passed by Congress (a DEMOCRAT Congress) and was never close to passing. Therefore, the treaty was never legally binding by law of the United States.--Hbutterfly 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If the treaty had been enacted, the proper term would be "abrogating", and the proper remedy would be impeachment, IMHO. Kevin Baastalk 01:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Support of Sodomy Laws as Texas Governor

I personally think it deserves mention that Bush supported Texas's sodomy laws as governor, arguing that they were "symbolic of traditional values" and publicly opposed attempts to repeal them.[2]