Talk:George W. Bush

Template:Potuspov For older discussion, see: /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4, /Archive 5, /Archive 6, /Archive 7, /Archive 8, /Archive 9, /Archive 10, /Archive 11

My 2c

I haven't read the article in months, but my gut feeling is that in a long article about 2 average sized paragraphs about the election dispute would seem about right. If there was any more than this I could go and look at the detailed article, if there was any less I'd feel it was being glossed over and deliberately downplayed. Ben Arnold 04:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FYI, in every discussion I have read, I support V vs. Neutrality

Including everything I have read on this page, I support V's edits and positions, over N's. Also, please take note that Neutrality was warned this evening for making 9 reverts in 24 hours on John Kerry. As they were all pro-Kerry edits which he made, I suggest that this indicates there bias on his part on this page for Bush. Rex071404 02:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)\

I don't see how Neutrality's edits can be construed as pro-Kerry. Kevin Baas | talk 17:40, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Of course you do, Rex. Neutrality 02:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well Rex, it's reassuring to know that, since you're unbiased, you will not likewise use repeated reverts to make anti-Kerry edits. Gzornenplatz 02:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Neutrality made 10 reverts to John Kerry today and was the principal cause of that page getting protected just now. He also twice used vulgar language towards me on the Kerry talk page Rex071404 02:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Twice? Vulgar language? Explain. Neutrality 02:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To answer Neutrality, I count "twice" this way: #1) He characterized my objection to his edit as "BS" (except that he spelled this out). #2) After I replaced the "i" in "BS" with an "*" and explained my action, he reversed that edit with a bold type warning, re-inserting the term "BS" as a comment about my objection. That's twice. And I notice that he does not deny pro-Kerry bias, not does he deny being the principal cause of the page protection there tonight. Rex071404 02:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Assessment" section"

Is it really the job of an encyclopedia to "assess"? Even if the section stays, it has a POV problem. The section proclaims Bush as the "love him or hate him" president, then goes on to explain why people hate him, but not why they love him. I personally can't write the necessary addition for NPOV because I'm way too heavily biased. StellarFury 14:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

POV Paragraph

Regarding the newly added paragraph:

According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts from the year 2000 to 2003 have gone to people with the top one percent of income (who earn an average of US$1.2 million annually), and two-thirds went to the top twenty percent (who earn an average of US$203.7 thousand annually). The tax cuts have redistributed the tax burden such that higher income brackets have less burden while lower income brackets have more burden.

[1]

I say "so what?" Read this: How Tax Cuts Work and then tell me if it seems so outlandish that the rich get big tax breaks. They get bigger tax breaks because they have more money! The information in the paragraph, while technically true, is slanted POV. I vote to remove it. Just MHO... — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:38, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think you misread the paragraph. There are two issues at stake here, and neither of them involve absolute quantities of money. Tax is based on percentage of income, not raw quantity. Thus, your point is entirely moot.

The first issue is percentage of wealth, not raw quantity. regardless of how much money they make, a certain group of people give a larger percentage of their income to the government, while another group gives a smaller percentage of their income. The first issue is percentage, burden. Actually, this issue is the second issue listed in the paragraph. The second issue, listed first in the paragraph, is distribution. It's pretty clear cut. you don't have one third going to one third and two thirds to two thirds, in otherwords, this is not a flat tax. It is slanted in a clear direction. It is important to note, regardless of which direction it is slanted, that it is such.

Also, notice that the source is nonpartisian. Kevin Baas | talk 18:51, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Is there a graph somewhere of income vs proportion of income paid as direct income tax. I would personally be interested in comparing US and UK. If we could get data for lots of countries, we could even make an article out of it. Pcb21| Pete 15:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Forgot to mention we already have the data for the UK at income tax. Pcb21| Pete 20:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bush's purchase of Texas Rangers (current version)

(Group vote sought by Rex071404 08.16.2004)

Owing to what I consider a POV tone, no reference to actual facts, and no source links for these so-called "critics", I wish to delete this from the article:

"Critics of Bush allege improprieties in the venture, which earned US$170 million, including tactics in acquiring both the team and the stadium and land on which it played, as well as its later sale to a family friend who would donate money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush had earned US$15 million."

Agree - text should be deleted

Rex071404 07:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia | Talk 07:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Delete, or supply credible reference identifying who "critics" are and their allegations.
Timothy001 14:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disagree - (please cite requested facts)

Gzornenplatz 08:14, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) [2]
Style 08:48, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) - [3] [4] [5]. Please bother to google in future.
→Raul654 09:38, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) [6] - I've heard this claim on a couple of occasions. That makes me think that this is notable enough to be covered by the article.
[[User:Bkonrad|older≠wiser]] 12:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) [7] [8] [9]
Kevin Baas | talk 16:45, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) Keep status quo unless otherwise can be convincingly demonstrated, in order to maximize accuracy of article (litmus test).
David Gerard 21:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Those refs look mainly usable. CNN and WPost would be most credible, but the others could be usable as further supporting material. The mention is in need of rewording, but there's a there there.

Reply to: Kevin Baas: what are you referring to: "unless otherwise can be convincingly demonstrated"? How can my contention that it's POV and is missing citations be "convincingly demonstrated"?. What standard of proof would you accept?Also, my suggestion that it is POV does not bear on the accuracy ot lack thereof of the current version, wouldn't you agree? Rex071404 17:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A paragraph should only be removed if it is inaccurate/false. If it is pov, whether subtly or overtly, and/or lacks sources, it should be altered to be npov and to include sources. I agree that your statement that it is subtly pov and/or lacks sources does not bear on the accuracy or lack thereof of the current version, but your suggestion that it should be deleted does. This is what I was responding to, though, admittedly, I confused your verbal criticism with what I construed as your tacit criticism, based on the protocol I've just described. (The comment "please cite requested facts" encouraged this confusion.) I apologize for this confusion. I believe that the proper course of action, in respect to your verbal criticism, would be to modify the para, not to remove it. In any case, the vote was for delete or keep, regardless of stated reasons, and my comment was with regard to this choice. I apologize for any misappropriated criticism. Kevin Baas | talk 18:37, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Pedant:Paragraph should be kept with the minor nitpicks fixed:

I would prefer "Improprieties have been alleged in..." to "Critics of Bush allege improprieties" because

1), people other than 'critics of bush' have made those allegations, attributing it to only critics of bush is slanted...

and maybe more importantly:

2), "Critics of Bush allege improprieties" doesn't follow the policy Avoid statements that will date quickly as it is stated in the present tense, and in that tense is unlikely to stand the test of time.Pedant 20:11, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Undecided

Floorsheim 08:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) While I think the text reads suitably NPOV, apparently there is an issue as to whether this is a notable criticism or not. If it is, will someone please provide evidence to that effect? Also, can we get confirmation on the dollar figures? Details concerning the exact allegations would be beneficial as well.
V V 10:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) I was skeptical, but this seems to be a "real" criticism and not tabloid crap. Tweaking the wording to make the "subtle" charges ("... family friend who would donate money to the Bush campaign...", not hinting anything here) more direct would help. V V 10:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's written in journalist-speak, not encyclopedia-speak, and should be rewritten to state facts, not 'allegations'. If those changes are not implemented, then I would vote delete. However, I have little interest in political squabbles taking place in Wikipedia: take it elsewhere and let people get on with doing edits that will stand the test of time, folks. Noisy 11:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The fact represented is that the allegations have been made. The only question is whether it is a notable fact concerning George W. Bush. –Floorsheim 12:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Noisy's rewrite. Facts are presented in encyclopedias. - Tεx τ urε 16:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

With links to mainstream news sources, it should stay. Otherwise, delete. Neutrality 14:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Texas Rangers - Consensus building attempt: Please vote V.2 - 08.16.2004

Message from: Rex071404 15:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have read the "Disagree" citations and am not persuaded that "allege improprieties" infers the correct tone. Also, virtually every time a pro-sports stadium is built, there are those who complain. And, not all of Bushes critics have ever said anything about the ball team - very few in fact have. If we were to keep this section, I prefer we re-write it as follows:

"Some critics of Bush castigate him for this venture. Concerns cited include the acquisition of the team and stadium as well as the land for the new ballpark. [10] There was also criticism regarding the eventual sale to a family friend, who some time later donated money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush personally earned US$14.9 million (in total, the sale earned US$170 million)." [11]

Support changing to v.2

Rex071404 15:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Floorsheim 16:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Altogether a good fix, I'd say. Although I'd switch the references. I think [21] is more pertinent to the first sentence. Also, there's a tense shift in sentence two.

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Okay by me -- in fact way better than the one listed above (espcially cuz I'm tired of all this controversy) and why is it a problem that Bush sold the stadium? So what? It's a free market.

Oppose changing to v.2

Gzornenplatz 15:49, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Message to: Gzornenplatz; What is your opposition to v.2? Rex071404 20:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ilyanep's question actually proves what's wrong with your version: it makes it seem as if the critics somehow opposed the stadium deal as such (as if "acquisition of the team and stadium" is a "concern" in itself), when it's in fact the improprieties about it (the details of which are in the references). The original version is just fine. Gzornenplatz 20:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Tεx τ urε 20:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) - "Castigate" as an introductory sentence takes this to the same place as the last one. I'd say strike the first sentence and start with "Critics cited concerns about the acquisition of the team and stadium as well as the land for the new ballpark." That gives the facts and no leaning either way.

Pedant KEEP V. 1 above but change the first sentence to make it not present-tense/quickly-dated, we can't really claim in an article that's been days in the editing, what is happening in the present, unless it's something like "Earth is slowly spiraling closer to the sun"Pedant 21:04, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
Kevin Baas | talk 21:09, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) I am not opposed to changing the paragraph in principle, I am opposed to changing it to the suggested version for the reason expressed by Gzornenplatz.

Support other version (supply text below)

Oppose both revisions. Nothing POV in original phrasing. Plus, people have provided plenty of references. So, leave it alone besides adding a link or two.Wolfman 18:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Texas Rangers - Consensus building attempt: v.3's - 08.16.2004

To: Group From Rex071404 21:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Re: New version, please

Since it does appear that a majority of us are in agreement that the current version has room for improvement, I am asking one or more of you to re-write and place below, your suggested v.3 version. Those is favor of "no change" and who have already registered your comments to that effect, please allow this space for sample verions. Thank you.

Enter your suggestions for a v.3 version here:

v3.0

Critics expressed concern about the propriety of the purchase. Stated concerns include the acquisition of the team and stadium as well as the land for the new ballpark. [12] There was also criticism regarding the eventual sale to a family friend, who some time later donated money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush personally earned US$14.9 million (in total, the sale earned US$170 million)." [13]

v3.1

v3.2

I posted v. 3.0 but I'm holding my vote until I see the rest of the proposals.Pedant

I tried to merge all the different ideas people suggested, and also the original, then fiddled with it to make it not sound awkward. I haven't really thoroughly explored the content at those links, just a quick read of the page the link points to... someone may want to look over the whole site over there, or not. I'm not sure I expressed the pooint of what people thought was wrong with the purchase... if someone feels like it, I wouldn't mind hearing the full-on biased version of what this paragraph is getting at (on my talk page), I'm a little thick when it comes to politics, I'm not sure if the improprieties referred to are "get bush elected" type improprieties or "make bush some more millions" type.... I'd also like to see more proposals, even if they are just better versions of the one I posted. Pedant 10:29, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)

v. 3.0 looks good! Rex071404 07:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protected against destructive effects of a stupid revert war. It would appear as if all parties have violated the 3 revert rule...

Nuff said -S V 17:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not true. For example, Blankfaze, a "party", only reverted once. Likewise, Style only reverted once. Gzornenplatz only reverted twice. Neutrality only reverted twice. (this is all since the last page protection). The statement "all parties have violated the three revert rule." is objectively false. Kevin Baas | talk 18:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

The only one who is violating the three-revert rule is VeryVerily, and this is at least the third protection he has now caused. Gzornenplatz 19:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily is outnumbered here, so that form of measurement is not completely fair. Rex071404 20:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"That form of measurement"? Regardless of the measure used, each user is allowed only three reverts per day. If many others believe a single individual is wrong then they "vote" (in one form) by returning the text to the way it was. They did this properly. If he is outnumbered he needs to obtain concensus before proceeding. (Happily that is being attempted above.) - Tεx τ urε 20:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Everyone here is outnumbered. That form of measurement is completely fair because it applies equally to all people in equal circumstances. The form of measurement is wikipedia policy. If you want to dispute the three-revert rule, dispute it on the three revert page, and dispute it with respect to all similiar circumstances as this one, where I repeat, everyone is equally outnumbered. This, BTW, is why we build and respect consensus. One person, one vote. Period. Kevin Baas | talk 21:00, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

I actually believe we are capable of reaching actual consensus, which really would mean we don't need to vote or "win", we . This is a very noticeable discussion, let's use this as an opprtunity to show how consensus can be reached, even in the presence of our personal biases.Pedant 21:12, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

NPOV

Rex071404 23:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) says - We need to update the Texas Rangers (current version) because: The Neutral Point of View document says

  A lot of articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting
  both points of view; this is wrong. Even when a topic is presented in 
  terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an 
  implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or 
  more subtly their organization ...

What precisely do you regard as POV in the original phrasing? To me, it reports (but does not judge) a controversy.Wolfman 18:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's like asking me, what "precisely" is beauty? I think the newer versions I have endorsed on this page are less POV, don't you? Did you read all the above dialog on the subject? Rex071404 04:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes I read it. And no, I honestly don't think your suggestion is less POV. Partly, that's because I truly don't see anything POV about the original paragraph. If I understood more precisely what you see, it would be a bit easier. To illustrate, I'll give a couple examples of the POV I see in your suggested revision. First, you use the word 'castigate' which has a very negative connotation; that's a matter of tone. Second, your version leaves the impression that critics are just upset that Bush made some money; which makes them seem silly. (I have no idea what the precise criticisms are, or whether they are valid). The version by Pedant also suffers from this latter problem. The paragraph should at least mention what the actual criticism about team and land acquisition was. The original version at least offers the weak explanation of 'tactics'.Wolfman 06:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Baas | talk 23:48, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) says: Also, from the same document:

  Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, 
  is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so.
  If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or
  imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are
  just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact,
  and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of
  view. -- User:Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

I think that the two statements don't contradict each other, because they differ in scope. The second statement (actually listed first on the NPOV page) is talking about specific statements within an article. The first statement is talking about the general impression of the entire article. I agree with both statements. Kevin Baas | talk 23:47, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Request for feedback: Wiki branches/voting proposal (an alternative to page protection)

This is off-topic for this page, but on-topic for controversial/disputed pages in general, so I hope you don't mind this brief interjection. I'm looking for a few good veterans of edit wars on frequently controversial pages like this one, who would be willing to look over a design proposal for Wiki branches that I've written up and will probably attempt to prototype in the near future (not likely on wikipedia itself at first, but perhaps on another experimental wiki). The whole thing is long, but I'd be quite happy if you only looked at the much shorter section on "Branches", which is the most important part. I'm particularly interested in hearing whether you think such a branch mechanism (a) would improve Wiki workflow and consensus-building, by allowing alternative approaches to be developed and evaluated side-by-side more easily, or (b) would hinder consensus-building by making it less necessary for the majority to take minority viewpoints into account. But in general, I'm interested in any and all comments, preferably on my talk page. Thanks! - Brynosaurus 09:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Catgories

Can someone add him to the Aviators catgory when it becomes unprotected?

I am trying to add all the rated pilots on wikipedia to that catgory.

PPGMD

Bush's height/weight

At his August 2001 physical, Bush was 6 feet 0 inches tall, and weighed 189.75 lbs

Thats just some info I'm going ad when the page isn't protected. Sam [Spade] 03:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Education and Science?

Would it make more sense to have an 'Education' heading and a separate 'Science and Environment' heading? It seems to me that the Science content is more closely related to the Environment content (especially with the mention of the Union of Concerned Scientists). --neatnate 04:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Barney the dog

I intend to add a link to this

Rex071404 05:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why? Just mention the dog, it doesn't deserve a separate link. Rick K 06:05, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Why not? Including the link at the end of the page is not instrusive nor POV. Rex071404 05:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To be added in domestic, economy section

We should add a paragraph about the following, as it is a very relevant and very significant event.

(pdf) The Statement
(BBC) "Nobel winners attack Bush economics"
(AFL-CIO) Nobel Prize Winner Calls Bush Economic Policies ‘Worst in 200 Years’
[http://www.ufcw.org/worker_political_agenda/worker_issues/taxes/opposebushtaxcuts.cfm (UFCW) Nobel Prize Winning Economists Oppose Bush Tax Cuts: Economic Plan Falls Short on Helping Working Families

]

(Berkeley) 10 Nobel Laureates, four world-renowned economic experts, and more than four hundred and fifty economists from universities and tax-policy institutes criticize Bush's tax cuts.

First paragraph of the last link: "Ten Nobel Laureates Say the Bush Tax Cuts are the Wrong Approach" proclaimed a full-page advertisement in the Tuesday, February 11, edition of the New York Times. Paid for by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, the ad went on to say that "there is wide agreement that [the Bush plan's] purpose is a permanent change in the tax structure and not the creation of jobs and growth in the near-term…Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation's projected chronic deficits.

The petition prominently displayed the names of 10 Nobel Laureates and four world-renowned economic experts, among them three current UC Berkeley faculty members: George Akerlof, co-winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences and the Goldman Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley; Daniel L. McFadden, also a Nobel laureate in economics and the director of UC Berkeley's Econometrics Laboratory; and Janet Yellen, a member of Berkeley's Haas Economic Analysis and Policy Group and an economics professor. More than 450 economists from U.S. universities and tax-policy institutes also signed the petition"

Kevin Baas | talk 20:00, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Also, here is a report by the Commitee on Economic Development (nonpartisan): (pdf)

This should probably be mentioned.

Kevin Baas | talk 20:00, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Let's not link to sites that have an obvious bias, Washington Free-Press, AFL-CIO, and UFCW, are examples of sites with bias. The first paragraph of the Washington Free Press calls trickle down economics voodoo. They may disagree with it, but it has as many supporters in the financial sectors as it has opposition. Lets keep the links to non-biased sources such as house.gov, CSPAN, and various respected news sites.

Personally I think the politics on this article shouldn't be edited until well after the election, because elections brings out too many partisans.

PPGMD

Link to sites: We link to provide information, regardless of bias. I was indiscriminate in my list of sources. Those were off of google. If some news sources choose not to publish an article about an event, that's their loss - they choose to remain silent, and they have no right to complain about who published or did not publish an article. In any case, the best way to be NPOV is to be indiscriminate; to be scientific (empirical) about it: giving the reader a random (unbiased) sample of news reports, rather than a biased sample of purportedly "non-biased" news reports.

Regarding WFP: Trickle-down economics is central to Supply-side economics which is also known as Voodoo economics.

Regarding this article, election time: I think that, on the contrary, because election time is near, it is imperative for voters to be factually (non-rhetorically) well-informed. Wikipedia is a good source for such info, and we should strive extra-hard to provide, through encyclopedic articles, relevant information that is proportional to the facts and their significance, and is written from a NPOV.

A nuetral and informative section can be written in the following format:

Topic and issues
Views of both sides
relevant facts

Kevin Baas | talk 21:10, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

disenfranchisement

On an ex-post facto basis, this was done in USA only one time to a class of people officially: Ex-Confederate officers were barred from voting after Civil War.

Felons who lose the vote have that done to them as an individual sanction, not as a class.

Black who were hampered in their voting in 1920's-60's South, did not get "disenfranchised". Rather, their rights were infringed upon, not voided. One can argue as to their having been "virtually" disenfranchised - but that, though pernicious, is not the same thing.

Using the word "disenfranchisement" is simply too misleading to describe a Palm Beach Nebbish, Nyudnick or Schnook, who with the Meshugass of the Butterfly Ballot, couldn't vote right. The people who put that ballot together were all Kerry supporters. They did not have intent to mess up Kerry or cheat the voters. Disenfranchisement requires intent. So the Dems were ready to Plotz when they found out they lost the FL and USA election in Palm Beach dues to too many accidental votes for Pat Buchannon? Oh well, next time don't put a Shmendrik in charge of ballot design. Those supposed lost votes were not intended and they are not Bush's fault. There was no "disenfranchisement". It's the wrong word. Rex071404 05:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you may be in the wrong forum, and the wrong website altogether. But even if you do have something to contribute here (other than representing a narrow partisan partiality), the above bigoted little rant should not be considered among them. -S V 06:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why are you offended by Yiddish ?[14] You do recognize that Yiddish is spoken widely by many persons as an interesting slang, yes? Do you even know what "Meshugass" means? For years, the most popular morning radio show in the Boston area was called "big mattress meshugass" and it was not being used as a slur. And what's wrong with "Plotz"? As for those who claim they were cheated because they were unable to vote right, "Nebbish, Nyudnick or Schnook" are perfectly fair words (Schnook may not be bona-fide Yiddish). I did however, remove "AK" (literally means "old fart"), because that might be construed by some as derisive. Even so, I will not yield on the word "Shmendrik" to describe the ballot designer, it's very apropos Rex071404

And to clarify, - prior to being enfranchised by constitutional amendment, Black Americans never had the vote, so it's axiomatic that any efforts to claim "disenfranchisement" must refer to only post-Civil War era issues. Rex071404 09:20, 20 Aug 2004 {UTC)

"Disenfranchisement" means to be entirely stripped, by statute, of the right to vote. It does not mean running into a SNAFU. Southern Blacks in the 1920's-60's were often treated in a way that is tantamount to being stripped, but the US Constitution was never revoked in that regard. The Jim Crow era was pernicious indeed, but nothing even remotely approaching Bull Conner and his minions occcured in Florida in 2000. Using the word "disenfranchisement" in referrence to 2000 Florida vote SNAFUs is a gross exaggeration and demeans the struggles of the civil rights workers and protesters of the 50's and 60's. To use that word here is to lose all sense of proportion. Rex071404 09:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see the definition of disenfranchised (disfranchised). [15] Kevin Baas | talk 19:53, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

The operative word there is "deprive" see definition for that [16] and of course, "deprive" depends on the word "take" - see link here. [17] No voters in FL in 2000 had anything "taken" from them by anyone. But if there is blame to go around, it rests on the shoulders of the Democrat voting boards in Palm Beach and Miami - they created the SNAFU with crappy voting infrastructureRex071404 23:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is about more than "crappy voting infrastructure". [18] AlistairMcMillan 00:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Only in your own mind. Prove your case with facts, not with scurrilous and false "blog-cusations". Re: "The Florida Republicans wanted to block African Americans" - what a pile of crap! That blog-man you link to even ignores his own sources: "When Ted Koppel investigated voter theft in Florida, he concluded that blacks lost votes because they weren’t well educated, and made mistakes that whites hadn't" Rex071404 00:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about do you? Greg Palast is not a "blog-man", he is a journalist who has had work published in the Observer and Washington Post among other papers, he is a published best-selling author, presenter on BBC's Newsnight, etc etc. The actual article I pointed to is actually written by Liam Scheff and was published in a Boston newspaper, it is only posted on Greg Palast's site.

BTW The phrase you are searching for is "blogger" not "blog-man". AlistairMcMillan 00:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NAACP v. Katherine Harris AlistairMcMillan 00:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Presidential Election Lawsuit Ends Why would Florida choose to settle if they had done nothing wrong? AlistairMcMillan 01:19, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Threat to world peace

Yes, this will cause trouble, but should the fact that many around the world see him as a threat to world peace not be incorporated into the popularity section. Certainly in Ireland he is regarded as such, polls have been carried out on the topic. I believe that even in the UK, only Saddam Hussain was at the same level. (Not that that makes any sense, as he had nothing like the influence on the world that Bush does!). These attitudes towards Bush can certainly be verified, and do belong in the article. zoney ███ talk 09:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If we are going to include every world-wide complaint about USA and Bush, let's also include the reciprocal. Many in USA cannot understand why Ireland stayed neutral in WWII and refused to oppose the NAZIs... [19]. Perhaps that's why they don't like Bush - they have bad judgement? Rex071404 09:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re the Nazi/Neutrality thing, of course there are many valid criticisms of Irish policy (past and present), and I'm sure the Eamon De Valera article mentions his giving condolences to Germany after the death of their Fuhrer! (I kid you not!) If it doesn't, I suggest it warrants addition! Certainly I'm sure Ireland's "neutrality" in the war is discussed in the history pages of the country. Unlike you, I don't consider the discussion of actual real facts a slur to my country - and it's an incentive to do something about the issues! (Cause hey, there's a lot wrong with this nation of drunkards we have here) zoney ███ talk 14:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

perhaps.... you should give people (and yourself) a break. W is the single most hated US President in Europe ever, to such an extent that the popularity of the USA has massively deteriorated, and 'over here', that's beginning to seem like the principal characteristic of this president Dbachmann 12:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You suggest that this has come into play, but you are in error. No comparison is being invoked by me. Rather, I merely pointed out that Ireland remained as Neutral country during WWII and as such did nothing to oppose NAZIs. This is an irrefutable historical fact and is not a comparison. Using this fact, I pointed out the absurdity of the other editor's aim of inserting a reference to the so-called Ireland-wide anger against Bush. If we insist on stating what Ireland (or any other country) thinks, we should also look at the track record of that country and see if we should even care what they say. When Ireland sends substantial troops to help stop the genocide in the Sudan, then I will care more what they say. Until they prove themselves in that or a similar way, I will continue to credit their views with a ranking of zero Rex071404 16:33, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Last time I checked it's not a requirement for the US to pick a President that Europe likes. The President is there to protect American interests not to buddy up with Europe. If our interests coincide great, if they don't it's not our problem. PPGMD

Wikipedia is not a debate forum. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:58, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Regarding "If our interests coincide great, if they don't it's not our problem.": I beg to differ. If they don't coincide, it is our problem. Foreign affairs is imperative to the domestic well being. Also, as Zoney points out below (and meelar points out above), your opinion on the value of international relations, or anyone's opinion for that matter, is not relevant - the question is not one of "value", but rather of relevance and significance. The matter is clearly both relevant and significant. Kevin Baas | talk 20:24, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Our relationship with Europe has always been friend because of need. And it has been the same way returned to the United States, sure when terrible events happened it's human nature to attempt to help each other but over all foreign policy has been that way. France best demonstrated it when CDG pulled France for the most part out of NATO, revoking our base rights, after Marshall plan money helped rebuild his nation. Sure you can put that he is not as liked in Europe, but the very idea that he is a threat to world peace makes about as much sense as when it was said about President Reagan. Conflicts with NK, and Iraq would have happened even if Al Gore was in office (though I think the conflict wouldn't have happened until the death of Saddam, with a civil war involving outside parties). Iran would have also have been a problem, along with the possibility with Libya, all these would have happened no matter the outcome of the 2000 election. PPGMD

Europe's grievances are specifically with the president and the policies of his administration. This would have been different if the outcome of the 2000 election was different, in that there would be a different president with a different administration and different policies. Regardless, as I said before, that is not the issue. Kevin Baas | talk 21:54, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Fine - but if someone is widely (yes, this needs qualification) regarded as the single biggest threat to world peace, then yes, I think it warrants a mention in the article about them!!!!! zoney ███ talk 14:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

it will all cool down in a couple of months ;) take it easy, the elections will not be decided on wikipedia. Sure, a country's leader needs to think of his country's interests first. Not to the point of predatory imperialism, though (not implying that such a point has been reached yet). And going out of your way to piss off other nations certainly is not among such interests either (And certainly you're not implying every single president of the past has been guilty of sycophantic "buddying up"?) on-topic though, major impacts on international relations certainly deserve to be mentioned. 130.60.142.69 15:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unemployment Rate

In response to Rex's addition about the average unemployment rate during Clinton's term in office... "The unemployment rate was 5.6% in June, 2004, compared to 4.2% when Bush came into office, though it did average 5.6% across the full length of Clinton's terms in office. The unemployment rate at the start of Clinton's term was 7.3% and 4.2% at the end of his term. Just saying that it averaged 5.6% across his term does not give a clear picture. AlistairMcMillan 14:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Meant to say, I got these figures from http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/feddal/ru Not sure if this is a good source, but the figure seem accurate. AlistairMcMillan 14:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is referencing the unemployment rate during Clinton's term nessecary? Lyellin 16:39, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

IMHO I don't think so. I only put the above comments here to explain why I removed Rex's qualifier/spin/whatever. AlistairMcMillan 17:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Texans category

This is very minor, but should Bush really be listed in the Texans category when he was born in Connecticut? I've been under the impression that you're listed by the state you were born in, not the state you grew up in. Beginning 22:30, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

You are what you say you are. I'm not a Texan, but I was born there and spent the next 3 weeks there.

But is that how we do it on Wikipedia, or just your personal opinion? I know that he's culturally Texan -- my question is whether or not it's appropriate to list him in that category when it seems to be for people born there. Beginning 23:23, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

The category isn't "people born in Texas". Bush was governor of the state, I think that's more than enough of a qualification for the category. Gamaliel 23:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unfavorable ratings

Do we really need to characterize these strongly? Wouldn't it be more NPOV to just say his approval ratings are unfavorable abroad and then list some representative poll numbers? Wolfman 23:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to just get rid of that para (although it was much worse back then), but people wanted it, so I've had to settle for insisting it be written neutrally. V V 23:50, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[20] Kevin Baas | talk 01:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)