Talk:George W. Bush

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, /Archive 12, /Archive 13, /Archive 14, /Archive 15, /Archive 16

Jeb reference

I don't think it is the proper scholar way to refer to a person by his nickname alone in an enciclopedic entry. I'd suggest "John Ellis (aka. Jeb)".

I don't think he even calls himself John. Almost everything I have seen from the Governor's office either referrers to him as Governor Bush or Jeb. Heck I didn't even know his middle name until you posted it. PPGMD

Missing a related article

The google bomb of George Bush for Miserable Failure is not listed. It is well documented and already has an article on wikipedia. Miserable_failure. I think it should be listed under related articles, with some mention of it in section 6 Public perception and assessments.

I'm not sure that's going to fly with everyone. Being the president of the U.S. means a lot comes up with your name on it, and I don't think we should link to every single thing, especially a subject as peripheral as what you're proposing. --kizzle 10:02, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Unprotect page after seven days

It's been seven days since my proposal to protect this page. I didn't think the protection would actually last that long. :) Now, shall we unprotect the page, or do you want it to remain protected indefinitely? --Modemac 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you add a section titled "controversy" where such ideas as to whether or not Bush lied to the American public to start the Iraq war, etc can be analyzed? Exam his words and his deeds. Was he mislead by the CIA? --Gilgameshfuel 10:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, this page wasn't protected because of controversial material; it was protected because of stupid vandalism -- ranging in the hundreds of edits per day. --Modemac 11:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So there lies the truth of this whole thing, wikipedia is not a democracy any longer. Silence anyone that wants to voice their distrust of king george, it's a damn shame --Gilgameshfuel 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is there some way to protect the pages against anonymous users with IP addresses only? Otherwise I would support to create a special page "Masturbation arena for anti-Bush bigots" where the critics could display their skills. ;-) --Lumidek 00:59, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know you're joking, but I rather dislike seeing "anti-Bush bigot", as it seems to imply being anti-Bush is a form of bigotry rather than sanity ;-) Sanity is no excuse for vandalism though.Wolfman 01:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nope, Wolfman ;-), your analysis is paranoic. The statement meant that the page would be for those bigots that happen to be anti-Bush, but it does not imply that all anti-Bush people must necessarily be bigots. :-) --Lumidek 02:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bush is an asshole fuck him. Liking Bush is closer to bigotry, as he himself is a member of the bigot party.

Another factual error

George W. Bush's predessor was William Jefferson Clinton, 'Bill' Clinton is a nickname. Clinton's full legal name should be used. Revmachine21 03:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the name by which a person is most commonly known. That's why Clinton's article is at Bill Clinton. In fact, if you look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), putting Clinton's article there instead of at [[William Jefferson Clinton]] is one of the examples given. JamesMLane 04:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Information about the individual elections does not belong in the intro. What does it matter if the popular vote margin was 3%? These trivial details are out of scope. Very Verily 02:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An argument for including that information in the page is this (the elections) is a recent and significant event. As time passes it would be more appropriate to remove it. Mir 03:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does this apply to the 2000 elections? Anyway, the popular vote is just trivia; it's of no legal significance and questionable significance of any kind. Very Verily 06:09, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is there a policy for what goes into the introduction? I personally would suggest keeping it as short as possible because while there is a lot of significant information about his presidency, not all of it can go into the intro (for example starting a war is just as significant as election results). The 2000 elections results are significant because it was one of the few times the president came into power with less votes than his opponent, but again I dont know if this belongs in the intro. While the popular vote has no legal significance, it better shows how much support the president hads. However saying 286 to 252 instead of 3% would also be appropriate. Mir 00:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Unelected judges". Why is this a POV?

Please can someone explain why the phrase "unelected judges" can be anything other than a fact, and therefore not a POV? Thanks, --Rebroad 11:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A minor point is that Justices of the Supreme Court, although unelected, are chosen by elected officials. By comparison, CEO's of major corporations are "elected" by stockholders, but the public has no vote, and even shareholder democracy is pretty tenuous in practice. So, if your view is that any fact is not a POV, we could call 2000 "the first election decided by judges who were not directly elected, but were instead nominated and confirmed by elected officials, and who, in the event of gross misconduct, were subject to being removed from office by elected officials". Does all that belong in the lead section of a George W. Bush bio? No, (Hoho. Just inserting "indirectly" suffice? --Rebroad 17:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)) which brings me to my major point. The NPOV principle breaks down somewhat when we come to questions of organizing the presentation of neutral facts. Everyone may admit that something is true, yet how important they think it is depends on their POV. In this instance, the selection of the fact of "unelected judges" to go in the lead section seems to me to be based on POV. It emphasizes a fact that's pointed to in attacking the legitimacy of Bush's (s)election. If I try to put aside my own POV (which is that Bush is a liar, a cheater and a war criminal), I think the notable points distinguishing the 2000 election from others are the inauguration of the candidate who finished second, and the long delay in establishing the official outcome. (In answer to VV's point above, I think the Gore plurality is notable, and it seemed both logical and fair to note Bush's margin when he had the plurality the next time.) Your insert made a good point about the historic role the Court played in the election, though, so I included that later, under "Political campaigns", with a link to Bush v. Gore. JamesMLane 17:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rebroad, one of your edit summaries asked, "Please explain how facts can be POV. Thanks." My explanation wouldn't fit in an edit summary; it's above. As for your question about guidelines, I'm not sure which ones you mean, but here are some links you can try:

The question of what should go into the lead section goes beyond the NPOV policy. You can't simply say, "This is a fact so it's OK to put it in the lead section." I think the "unelected judges" business is clearly inappropriate for the lead. With regard to election results, I agree with Mir that it makes sense to include a summary at this time. Some people will come to this article having heard about an American election, having heard there was some sort of controversy about it, and maybe a little hazy about the fact that Bush was elected twice, with much more controversy the first time around. After he's inaugurated the intro will have to be changed anyway, but for now I prefer this version (without the Rebroad or Jewbacca changes). JamesMLane 20:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks JamesMLane for the detailed reply! I think the intro should contain the kind of info you'd expect to read in 100 years time, but I agree that perhaps a "Latest News" section, near the top would be useful for things such as the latest election results, or whatever. --Rebroad 17:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

spending bill

I have been keeping up on the $388 billion spending bill that has been shuffled around in congress over the past week in the article George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States. However the section is getting to be less and less about Bush. Does anyone know the actual name of that bill is or if there is already an article on wikipedia about it so I can move the information out of that article and to some where more relevent? I've placed this information in Talk:2004 congressional spending bill for the time being.--The_stuart 18:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

page protected

I've protected the page because of the current revert war in which both parties have violated the 3 revert rule. Please hash your differences out here on the talk page. Gamaliel 20:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although you refer to "both parties", my understanding is that there are actually three different views of how to word the lead section. Jewbacca has multiply reverted to a version that doesn't mention the 2000 election controversy. Rebroad has multiply reverted to a version that says the election "was effectively decided by the Supreme Court". The version I favor was, I think, last seen on the page at 18:28, 24 Nov 2004, when Whosyourjudas reverted to it. (I posted here in favor of that version without joining in the revert war.)

Why not Jewbacca's version: I previously stated my agreement with Mir that more information about each election should be included at least for now; this article is mostly a bio but partakes a bit of "In the news" aspects. Why not Rebroad's version: I don't think it's NPOV to say that the Supreme Court effectively decided the election, as if the voters had nothing to do with it. The role of the Court was more nuanced than that. Explaining it later in the article is fine (and it's thanks to Rebroad's edit that I noticed we didn't even have a link to the Bush v. Gore article), but it doesn't belong in the lead. A further reason is that the Court's role was less important than the other unusual features of the election, that the candidate with the second-most votes won and that there was a long period of post-election uncertainty. JamesMLane 22:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have a quick look at [1].

The voters had something to do with it in that it was a close call, but at the end of the day, if the result went one way but the Supreme Court chose the other (albeit sneakily), surely that's headline news? --Rebroad 17:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is even more surely headline news that Bush launched the invasion and occupation of Iraq (whether you call it a powerful strike against terrorism or an act of imperialist aggression, it was an event of some moment). Other examples could be adduced. The point is that the lead section cannot immediately tell the reader everything important about the subject of the article. Incidentally, even as to the point you mention, it can't be stated as fact that "the result went one way but the Supreme Court chose the other". Bush partisans would argue that Bush actually received more votes in Florida than did Gore, so the Supreme Court didn't go the other way. In general, the subject can be given only a glancing reference here, with full details developed in U.S. presidential election, 2000#Florida election results. JamesMLane 18:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some good points. Is it not true that had the Supreme Court not stopped the count then Gore would be president now? --Rebroad 18:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Few of the "what-ifs" about the 2000 Florida recount are that simple. If the Court had acted differently, which of the recounts then in progress have been completed in time? What standards would have been applied to various disputed issues? (News organizations examining the ballots at leisure found assumptions that could lead to a Gore win and others that could lead to a Bush win. Ironically, it turned out that the campaigns, in their legal papers, weren't always pushing for the ruling on a particular issue that would have aided them, althought they presumably thought they were.) Different possibilities for different Supreme Court actions at more than one point generate more "what-ifs". Gore's concession was prompted by the final Court ruling, but a good argument could be made that the Court's key partisan action was the earlier preliminary injunction. There's also the even more cynical (but quite possibly correct) view that a change in court decisions, shifting several hundred votes to Gore, might have been countered by Republican theft of additional votes elsewhere. Katherine Harris didn't exactly display a dispassionate commitment to an honest count. JamesMLane 23:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure why my change is being reverted. I am keeping to facts only and not stating any opinions. Originally I'd used the term "9 unelected judges" instead of the "US Supreme Court", but changed it because someone said it was POV. I started a discussion with them on their talk page, asking why it is POV but they haven't responded yet also. I have also a section on my talk page about this as well, and am waiting to hear people's reasons for objections. I certainly understand that some people feel passionately about this, in the same way that many people would feel protective of Tony Blair's reputation, and some people may also feel protective of Saddam Hussain's reputation, but at the end of the day, I don't believe an encyclopedia is supposed to show favouritism based upon popular opinion. Popular opinion by the way differs greatly depending on the country. In the UK, our introduction to George W Bush was largely surrounded by the controversy of the 2000 elections and the fact that the judges did not declare their conflicts on interest. As far as I can tell there was relatively very little media coverage in the US regarding this, so I can understand why US citizens might find the concept of having this in the intro as inappropriate. But shouldn't it be remembered that Wikipedia is globally available also? --Rebroad 21:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can predict people having objections to me mentioning Saddam Hussain, or Adolf Hitler. But remember that the reason for these objections would be for POV reasons. People based their opinions on what they know, and their perspective. The majority of the German populartion would have defended Hitler's reputation in exactly the same way when he was in Power in the early days. People were blind to the bigger picture. Please note I am not expressing an opinion regarding the actions of any head of state, past or present. But they should all be treated by the same rules - the rules being to document the facts surrounding them. --Rebroad 21:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to take sides here, but I do want to point out a few things. When editing, our concerns are not limited to whether or not a piece of information is factually true. The manner in which that fact is presented is also important. For example, the choice of wording "9 unelected judges" instead of "US supreme court". Both are factually accurate, but the former is clearly chosen to forward a particular POV: the opinion that officials who were not elected and thus unaccountable to the public overruled the opinion of the public. Whether or not this issue should be in the intro is to be decided by consensus, but it's clear that in the interests of NPOV those "9 unelected judges" should be referred to by the proper name of the "US Supreme Court" regardless of our opinion of them. Gamaliel 21:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm starting to understand now that the "POV" phrase can be used even when something is still a fact. The reason I originally used the "9 unelected judges" phrase was due to that being the phrase used in the news article. It is relevant to the point being made, and so can understand the reason to include it. If they are both factual, and the intention is to keep the intro relatively short, then isn't the "9 unelected judges" the more efficient of the two for getting the actual information across to the reader? --Rebroad 21:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. The phrase "9 unelected judges" tells you nothing about who those judges are and what powers they have, while the phrase "U.S. Supreme Court" tells you everything you need to know, and if you don't know it, then you can just follow the link to the article on that subject. The former phrase is only more efficient in pushing a particular POV. Gamaliel 09:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we need a version of Godwin's Law for Wikipedia. Namely, when you give analogies to Hitler as a reason for an edit, you are probably working outside of NPOV. Gazpacho 00:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

':)' I had head of Godwin's Law. I rarely mention Hitler in any debate, but when talking about articles that are difficult to remain NPOV, I find Hitler a good example that most people can relate to. --Rebroad 17:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As a side note, have a read of this. I'd be interested to know what you think of it.

Can I also ask that people take this as an opportunity to educate me if I appear to be miseducated. I would like this discussion to be a learning experience for both sides of the dispute, and I will be happy to provide sources to any of the facts I have stated and will state as part of the discussion. Cheers, --Rebroad 21:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The judges are appointed by elected officials. Te people indirectly vote for the judges when they vote for president. Using the term "unelected judges" implies they came to power through undemocratic means, which is not true. Mir 23:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're all in agreement about using "The Supreme Court" instead of "9 unelected judges". --Rebroad 17:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would accept (tentatively) "...the election of 2000, the first time that the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in a presidential election." I'm not sure what country you're in Rebroad, but you seem to have a distorted view of the significance of this event in the larger scheme. The US did not fall apart after the "corrupt bargains" of 1824, or the impeachments of the 1860s and 1990s, or the election dispute of the 1870s, or Watergate, or the party splits of 1860 and 1912, etc. (well OK, 1860, but only for a while) Gazpacho 12:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gazpacho, can we keep this discussion within the context of George W Bush please? Thanks, --Rebroad 13:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The bigger picture is that none of this about the Supreme Court or "9 unelected judges" belongs in an intro of a biography article on George W. Bush. The election and the supreme court are discussed later in the article and wikilinks are provided to the relevant articles where discourse on the matter occurs. Wikilinks are provided in the intro that I wrote to U.S. presidential election, 2000 and U.S. presidential election, 2004 where this information appropriately belongs. Step back for a moment and realize the bigger goal here of assembling a well-written encyclopedia and that requires knowing where information belongs. Jewbacca 14:06, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Opinions aside, the currently protected version is accurate. Your suggested version not. --Rebroad 21:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually my version is accurate. I ask you to put forth here what is INaccurate about it. Jewbacca 22:51, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

And, while you're at it, please let me know if you see anything inaccurate in the version I favor. JamesMLane 23:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nothing immediately strikes me as inaccurate with your preferred version, JamesMLane, but my point remains about how much attention is given to the circumstances of the elections in the intro to an individual's biography, whereas more central facts to the individual, such as his political party affiliation, is omitted. My version provides links to the elections (U.S. presidential election, 2000 and 2004) where these details are provided in excruciating depth and writes instead about who the individual, George W. Bush, is and was, as any biography should (IMHO). As I think it was you who mentioned earlier, we could just as easily make a case for discussing the Iraq war in the intro, but why stop there? We can also talk about the various public perceptions of him, his Texas Air National Guard service, his choking on pretzels, etc. Seems to me intros are to be concise definitions of the individual that are likely to be as relevant today as they will be in 50 and 100 years. Jewbacca 23:15, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with your last sentence; to a limited extent, the lead section of an article about a current political figure can realistically take account of what will be on the minds of people who open the article now. I'd incline to go with something like your version in a couple months. The lead will have to be rewritten after the Inauguration anyway. JamesMLane 00:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting you say that James. Your argument that the intro can be topical. In that case, why can't we have a topical picture for the John Kerry article, rather than that rather drab picture you keep insisting on just now?! --Rebroad 00:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rebroad, still waiting for you to actually substantiate your allegation that my version is INaccurate. Unless you concede that it has been accurate all along. Jewbacca 02:03, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia is not: "A news report....When updating articles with recent news, authors should use the past-tense in such a way that the news will still make sense when read years from now." We should put our best effort forward and not defer to "in a couple months". Jewbacca 02:03, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue of that picture on Talk:John Kerry and not here. Gamaliel 00:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rebroad, you cannot come in here posting political agitprop and then complain when I respond to it. Gazpacho 04:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What with everyone propsing their own intros, I can't currently see how this debate is going to be resolved.... :-s --Rebroad 12:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You stated that my version was "inaccurate". I asked you to detail the INaccurate elements of yet. You have not yet obliged. Jewbacca 15:09, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Not many users will follow the links to the election pages, so its nice to summarise the results of the 2000 elections (istead of stating he won, which may be considered POV if its not explained). Mir 18:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a wiki -- users follow links. It's also discussed in the article, or do users not read past introductions so we need to put everything on your agenda in the introduction? ..

He had the majority of the electoral ballots cast as counted in the House and Senate; this being the only criteria to have "won" by United States Constitution and United States Code, Bush won exactly as every other president that hasn't succeeded to the office upon the death of his predecessor or had the House cast ballots in the case of a plurality. Let's stop this nonsense of "multiple truths". --Jewbacca 19:38, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I know what a links is. A lot of users wont follow them if its not explained why the election was significant. Considering this is a big article, a lot wont read the part about the elections. The 2004 election results aren't that important and could be removed. Im personally not sure about including the info about the 2000 election. I am for mentioning that he recieved less votes than his opponent and still winning (this being very significant because its undemocratic). Also, wasn't it the electoral college that gave bush the win, and not the supreme court? from my understanding, the supreme court stopped the recount, which may or may not have give busy more votes. Or am I wrong. Mir 04:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mir, please provide statistics to back up your claims about "a lot of users wont [sic] follow them [hyperlinks] if its not explained" and "a lot wont [sic] read part about the elections". Bush didn't receive less votes than his opponent; Bush received 271 votes, Gore 266, with 1 abstention (0 for all other candidates) (271 > 266 >> 0). See U.S. presidential election, 2000#Introduction and summary results. You claim the 2004 election results "aren't that important" but somehow the 2000 election results are. This seems to me to be a very POV claim, exactly the type of thing we try to avoid in writing articles. I, and the contributors at U.S. presidential election, 2004 could make a case for the most recent presidential election results to be more "important" than those from 2000. Finally, yes, you're correct that the electoral college voted a majority for Bush, and thus gave him the win (not the Supreme Court). --Cheers, Jewbacca 04:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, according to the United States Constitution that you speak of, he has not "won" until Janurary 6th, and only if there was no fraud (in which case, he may indeed not have gotten the majority of electoral votes) and the Equal Protection Amendment was followed (if it was not, then there was not popular suffrage; not a constitutionally legitimate election). Whether he will win on Jan. 6th is open to dispute, and in the present case is especially controvertible on both grounds, given the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. Kevin Baas | talk 04:19, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

And regarding the 2000 election, it has been determined that had the supreme court not stopped the recounts, Gore would have won. Thus, if one considers a legitimate president to be one that was elected by a legitimate election, and a legitimate election to be one where the votes were properly counted, then Bush was not the legitimate president in the 2000 term. This simple logic is why a large portion of the American populace refused to acknowledge his presidency in the 2000 term. Kevin Baas | talk 04:28, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Actually, see U.S. presidential election, 2000#The Florida Ballot Projectrecounts. It is not the case that "it has been determined that had the supreme court [sic] not stopped the recounts, Gore would have won." Thus, your conclusion is unsound. Jewbacca 04:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I was talking about the 2000 election (January 2001 having passed and the electoral votes from that election counted in Congress). Sorry for the ambiguity. Jewbacca 04:31, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

(resolving edit conflict) The point is that whether or not he won a legitmate election is in fact disputed. It is therefore POV to say simply that he won a legitimate election. Kevin Baas | talk 04:28, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

No one disputes that more electors cast their ballots for George W. Bush than for Al Gore (271 to 266, 1 elector casting a blank ballot). Thus there is no basis for a dispute of the fact that George W. Bush won the electoral college legitimately, and therefore by the U.S. Constitution and the Twelth Admendment, that he won the election. Jewbacca 04:40, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

The electoral college votes have not been offically counted yet. Kevin Baas | talk 04:46, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

We're still talking about 2000, when Bush won 271 votes and Gore won 266 votes in the electoral college. Those have been counted. Jewbacca 04:48, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Opps, sorry, I'm having a parrallel discussion on john kerry. The dispute is that those ballots were not cast legitimately. Kevin Baas | talk 04:51, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

They weren't? That's entirely news to me. There was no problem with the electors casting their votes (other than one elector casting a blank ballot), let's not be disingenuous. Jewbacca 04:55, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I am not being disingenuous, I am being misunderstood. Let me put it simply: Our government is founded on the Lockean principle that "Just powers are derived from the consent of the governed." If the governed did not give consent, the powers are not just. Many of the governed believe that consent was not given, and, not acknowledging unjust powers, do not acknowledge him as the president. Kevin Baas | talk 05:01, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

You two seem to know more about this than I do, but let me clarify, what I mean. Democracy is about representing the wishes of the greatest number of people and thats why the % of the vote stat is more relevant than number of seats stat. In the 2000 election, Bush recieved less popular support than his opponent and still won, this being undemocratic. This is not the case with the 2004 election as far as I know, which is why I said its worth mentioning the 2000 election and not the 2004 election. But this is in addition to all of the other contraversies about the election. Mir 18:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As someone pointed out on a related Talk page, since the election isn't based on the popular vote, the popular vote stat cannot be used as a basis for discussion. Allow me to explain. New York has a very large population and in that state it was a forgone conclusion before Election Day 2000 that Gore would win the most votes in New York. Therefore many people that would have voted for Bush in New York may not even go to the polls since they may consider their vote "meaningless" especially if they had more pressing things to attend to. Since large urban centers (L.A., NY, Chicago) are often in these so-called "non-battleground states" and the states tend to go toward the Democrat, many Republican voters many not vote (as well as many Democrat voters may not vote as well in the same situation). If the election was based on the popular vote, you would see a much larger turn out in states like NY and California from both Democrats and Republicans. So yes the candidate with fewer popular votes won the election in 2000 (Bush), but this very well could not have been the case had the popular vote actually have been what decides U.S. elections. In sum, we cannot draw any conclusions about the "will of the people" based on the popular vote under an electoral college system. Jewbacca 18:12, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

It is just as likely that some Gore supporters didn't bother to vote because they knew he would win in the democrat states. There is also a flipside to this, the Republican states, but these are less populated. However I see your point, and the popular vote results of the 2000 elections is not significant enough to go into the intro if the goal is to keep the intro short. The popular vote adds to the other issues of the election, at the very least stating they were close. However, I am not familar enough with the other issues, so this should probably be discussed with other users. Mir 19:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree the concept of electoral college affects the turn out for all non-battleground states. However it probably doesn't affect them equally, and regardless, as we both now agree, we can't draw conclusions about who the people wanted in the electoral college system. As for stating the election was close, the numbers are analyzed in U.S. presidential election, 2000. Close is subjective and putting it here would definitely be POV. --Cheers, Jewbacca 19:18, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Close is "relative", not subjective. That is, it is a statistical statement. The election in question was the closest election ever, so it surely is statistically close. But if someone still disputes this, then one can use instead the word "closest", which is not subjective, but strictly factual. Kevin Baas | talk 20:02, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

The 2000 election was NOT the closest election ever. See The 1876 election results in which the victor won by 1 electoral vote (whereas Bush won in 2000 by 5 electoral votes). Next. Jewbacca 20:25, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

When I say close, I'm talking about voting theory. Kevin Baas | talk 15:22, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)

I am a first-time user of a Wiki - and am prompted to comment by the apparently partisan character of debate over what 'belongs' in the introduction. Please excuse any formatting or etiquette errors I make on that basis. My intent is to step in between and give a fresh perspective on the issue of what makes sense in an introduction. Right up front I want to say that the introduction is a poor place to start a discussion of controversial matters, and that a substantial portion of the first paragraph contravenes this notion, as follows:

He was elected to two terms by defeating Vice President Al Gore in 2000 after several weeks of legal challenges and by defeating Senator John Kerry in 2004. He was sworn into office on January 20, 2001 and his second term is scheduled to end at noon on January 20, 2009. (The U.S. Constitution currently prohibits him from serving a third term.)

I see two problems with this statement, and thirdly, I believe that it should be entirely excised, so that the introduction is more anodyne, in keeping with the style of introductions to Presidents Johnson, Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush, and to a lesser extent, Clinton. Several of these Presidents were and are notably controversial figures, yet their introductions do not reflect that notoriety. My conclusion about what 'belongs' is based on the most popular style, e.g., if the majority of introductions mentioned controversial aspects, then I would expect to see the same with regard to the G.W. Bush entry.

Parenthetically, you may note that Presidents Nixonand Carter are absent from this list. In my view, the introduction for each of these men should be substantively reworked to bring them into line with the majority.

The two problems with the excerpt above are 1) that it is overly dense and difficult to comprehend, and 2) contains irrelevant detail, such as the bit about expiration of term and the bit about prohibition of a third term. As regards 1), the first sentence should be split into separate discussions of each term. The way the excerpt is written now is confusing. That said, I would prefer to see it struck from the introduction entirely, and discussed elsewhere in the biography.

So, to sum up, I believe introductions should be short and sweet, that this introduction fails on that count, mainly on the basis of the excerpt above. This is not to say that controversial material should be absent entirely. Au contraire. I believe this biography is far too bland in the later sections, and needs a massive injection of lively material. A section about ongoing controversy and Bush's widely-discussed divisiveness (as a characteristic of his administration contra his reputed vindictiveness) would be entirely welcome. Given that a sitting President & Vice President are distinct in kind from former executives, perhaps the biographical format can be distinct as well. A kind of 'current issues' approach deserves a place. [no name yet] 07:57 GMT, 3 Dec 2004

unprotected

I'm uncomfortable with leaving this article locked for too long, so it's open for editing again. The three revert rule will soon be in effect so play nice everyone. Gamaliel 21:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pending Ohio Recount

Should an entry be made concerning the pending recount in Ohio initiated by the Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates? The recount of all 88 counties is expected to begin next week once the Ohio Secretary of State certifies the original results (which is expected on Monday). Senator Kerry has recently joined the suit stressing that he has conceded the election but wants every vote counted.

At this point, this has nothing to do with George W. Bush himself (in a biographical sense). That should be in the 2004 U.S. presidential election article. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well in any case, the intro needs to be changed: the part "defeating Senator John Kerry in 2004." is factually impossible, as the electoral college has not voted yet. One could say that he is expected to defeat, but not that he has defeated. And, if Ken Blackwell & associates would stop obstructing the U.S. Government, there is a decent probability that the election will, in fact, be overturned; i.e. it is not determined that Bush will be elected president by the electoral college, and it is not determined that Bush has won the popular vote in Ohio. There are numerous irregularities, violations of electoral laws, and spoiled ballots, enought to push Kerry over the top with only 70% of the uncounted vote (which is not unusual given the demographics and ohio's election history), and that's not including the corrections from overvotes and undervotes. The election is not over yet. Stating that Bush "defeated kerry" is premature; non-factual; POV. If we want to be an encyclopedia, let's be rigorous about the facts. Kevin Baas | talk 06:39, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

And who put "(The U.S. Constitution currently prohibits him from serving a third term.)" is that in all presidents who served two terms, or is there something special about Bush? If anything's irrelevant or not belonging in the intro, it's that. Kevin Baas | talk 06:40, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

The statement that Bush is prohibited from serving a third term is false. Scenario: In 2009, Bush is elected as Vice President. Immediately after the inauguration the new President resigns. Bush would then succeed to the presidency and serve a third term. (You may dismiss this as crazy but, a year or two ago, I actually read a suggestion that the Democrats pull this stunt for the 2004 election, with Bill Clinton on the ticket as VP with a running mate who’d pledged to resign. The argument was that Clinton was the only Democrat who had the national constituency to beat Bush.) Anyway, I changed it to the accurate statement that Bush is constitutionally prohibited from being elected to a third term as president. Jewbacca changed it back to the false statement with no explanation, and it's now vanished in the revert war over reporting the election results.

As to whether the term limit belongs in there, a lot of readers already know it, but a lot of others, especially non-Americans, don’t. Because Bush is the incumbent, it would be natural for someone who didn’t know about the term limit to wonder about Bush’s prospects for continuing in office past 2009. I think it should be added if we refer to his term ending in 2009, but it needn’t be added to other ex-Presidents’ articles.

VeryVerily added the new assertion that Bush “is considered moderately conservative”. By whom, Pat Buchanan? I ran a Yahoo! search for sites containing “Bush” and the phrase “extreme right wing” and found more than 40,000 hits. Obviously, not every one of them represents the POV that Bush is from the right wing, but that’s a serious POV, expressed by the head of the Log Cabin Republicans (Bush is “pandering to the extreme radical right-wing of the party” [2]), Jesse Jackson (“The extreme right wing has seized the government.” [3]), etc. Whether you agree with them or not, we clearly can’t state as an undisputed fact that Bush is considered moderately conservative or moderately anything. I'm deleting that assertion. JamesMLane 07:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Effectively the statement that a U.S. President (not Bush in particular) can only serve two complete terms (s/he can also finish out up to two years of another President's term--10 years total) is true. The scenario put forward for Clinton by some Democrats and others was essentially bogus, because a nominee for Vice President must be eligible for President, and Bush is not eligible for another term. The only example I can think of where a President could potentially regain office after serving two elected terms would be if a former President was elected to Congress (it has happened, but not recently) and became President pro tem of the Senate or Speaker of the House or became a cabinet officer in the line of succession, and all those above him in the succession were killed or incapacitated. Now that scenario may not be impossible, but it is a long-enough shot that it should not interfere with the simple statement that "President Bush's term will end in 2009 as the U.S. President is limited to two full terms in office." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That aspect was addressed in the material I read about the suggested Clinton candidacy, though I didn't bother going into the detail here. The argument is that a former two-term President would be eligible to serve as President (for example, in the scenarios you mention) and would therefore be eligible to be elected as Vice President. In a quick cruise through Article II, the 22nd Amendment, and the 25th Amendment, I didn't notice anything that would clearly prohibit this scenario. If, as is probably the case, there's a colorable argument to be made for each side on the question of legality, then I don't see what's lost by using instead the indisputably true statement, "He will be ineligible for election to a third term." (Incidentally, the 22nd Amendment says that no one "shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It could be argued that many Democrats, to be consistent, would have to say that 2000 doesn't count because Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed by the Supreme Court.) JamesMLane 08:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it appeals to me that if a former President ran as Vice President, it would prompt a visit to the Supreme Court right then and there, a distraction (and delay, and certainly a campaign issue in itself.) I can't believe any campaign would want. Now take it a step further, if the former President won the Vice Presidency and then the elected President stood aside for him, what would you have? The only President to resign was Nixon, and we know why. What reason would the new President give for his resignation? "I decided being President wouldn't be as much fun as I thought?" This would certainly be called conspiracy to subvert the Constitution and I think the new VP turned President would be impeached faster than you could say "Pork Barrel."

Another interesting scenario would be a former President's spouse becoming President. Would the new President truly be independent or would s/he be a front for a third and fourth term for the former President. This could come up if Hillary runs, though I think she could overcome it. But this isn't a far-fetched question. George Wallace was limited to two terms as governor of Alabama or what did he do? He got his wife Lurleen to run for governor and win and everyone understood ol' George would still be Governor, but noone cared. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Spouse, son -- what's the diff?

That's a fair enough question, and without going into interesting (IMO) side issues like the role of political dynasties in a republican democracy, I'll try to give you an answer.

The diff? None necessarily, since the problem is a matter of intent. If it could have been reasonably proposed that Bush Jr. ran with the intent of being a simple surrogate for his father (i.e., the real decisions would be made be George H.W. with George W. simply being a conduit) that would have been, at the least, a disturbing trend, and (again IMO) cause to consider impeachment. Would/will Hillary be a conduit for Bill? I don't know—at this point I'm not alleging that, since she doesn't have the appearance or temperament of a political meat-puppet.

But all things being equal, a spouse is more problematic than a child. Being someone's child is an involuntary relationship, and children are famous for setting a different course, or even rebelling against a parents ideas and policies. In Bush's case, some of the same faces are in his administration as in his father's, but that is not extraordinary, since most of the same go back to earlier Republican administrations. What is remarkable to me is how politically different Bush Jr. is from Bush Sr. Bush Sr. was no conservative, though he played one as Reagan's successor. He was a centrist Rockefeller Republican while Bush the younger is a socially moderate Neocon. Colin Powell fit in well with the former, but was on a different path from the latter.

Now, the spouse. The Bible says that husband and wife form "one flesh" (Ephesians 5:31), not to mention Hamlet's note of the same, and that is often more true than many (especially the unmarried) realize. Remember when Bill was campaigning in 1992 and presented himself and Hillary as a "two for the price of one" deal--almost like co-presidents? Married people share more of an intimacy than the bedroom. Or to take it off the Clintons, many thought Nancy was the power behind Ron. If she had run for President in 1988, effectively continuing the Reagan presidency, it may have satisfied the letter of the Constitution, but not its spirit. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, there are a lot of secularists here. If you want to be taken seriously by them, it behooves you to avoid phrases like "the Bible says". To a secularists, this is appeal to authority logical fallacy and worse, a red flag that they should expect the same kind of argument/thinking from the espouser, and therefore be unable to communicate with them regarding empirical matters. In other words, it's a good way to make a secularist stop talking with you. Kevin Baas | talk 19:46, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

LOL! Out of all that, all you can comment on is to lecture me on how to talk to "secularists"? *Cough* I am a secularist, though I would prefer "free-thinker." I have an ingrained distaste toward describing myself by any "-ism," including atheism. I consider the Judeo-Christian Bible quite a practical document in most cases and was using it to establish context, in that in the instant case, it expresses the antiquity of a truism. I thought my reference to Hamlet, who used the same concept sacastically, would clue you in on that; the mistake mine. I am not telling you this so you will continue speaking to me; it is your adult choice to speak to me or not, but I will note that one of the great failings of modern secularism and liberalism is the tendency to consider the intellect of people of faith worthless, to talk down to them, or not speak to them at all. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, yes spouses of presidents have the potential to act as conduits, we don't necessarily know since to my recollection its never happened before. We do not need to include in every president's page that they are limited to 2 terms by the constitution. Point made. Now lets focus on other things. As for the tendency to dismiss faith-based intellect, I agree that it is rampant. While I do not think it is correct to practice such discrimination, it is hard to consistently trust a form of thought which by definition must exclude reason. People believe in God because they do, no reason need justify such a worldview. This however gets you in trouble when trying to formulate arguments, codes, ethics, or really anything that requires reason. You are right though, in that this still does not justify excluding the intellect of faith, as there are gems of wisdom here and there from our religions. And someone who is a self-described secularist sure knows the bible pretty well ;)... by the way does that mean Karl Rove and W. are of one flesh? (no gay joke there)--kizzle 23:44, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Not unless you're writing a cookbook. I understand your point, and Kevin's as well, however it goes too far. If someone counters an argument by quoting the Bible as fact ("Men can fly without instrumentality. The proof? Jesus ascended bodily to heaven") or say "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it", then obviously you are right. But I used the quote about "one flesh" to illustrate that a point which might be observable in modern psychology was recognized as true (if allegorically) two thousand years ago. But when you say that "it is hard to consistently trust a form of thought which by definition must exclude reason" you are simply mistaken. Where do you think philosophies comes from? They come from humans. Humans who write bibles and humans who write philosophy and humans who write polirical tracts. Most religious Americans do not take the Bible literally, and you can find churchpeople who will not contend that, as one put it, "God is a nice old man with a beard." I think the issue is how an intelligent person approaches an ideology, not necessarily the source of the ideology. I have had perfectly intelligent, lucid friends, who would be appalled if I referred to Biblical verses as roots of everything from pure food administrations to labour laws, turn around and quote to me from Engel's The Dialectics of Nature or Lenin's Volume 38. Or to put it another way, not all Gods are in heaven, some are pickled in tombs. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Two terms occur to me. "Grasping at straws" and "Poisoning the well." The nation short of a corps of zealots believes Bush defeated Kerry fair and square. The hypocrites who hounded Bush for four years as having "lost the election by 500,000 votes" now fantasize that Kerry would be welcomed on more court-powered vote conjuring losing the election by more than 3,000,000 votes. The same bean-counting that imagines that Kerry "lost by 80,000 votes" (i.e., if 80,000 votes in Ohio shifted from Bush to Kerry) could also give Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes vs. Ohio's 20) to Bush, where Bush lost to Kerry by fewer votes and a smaller percentage than Kerry lost Ohio. You can't recount just what you want to recount and make it stick. If worst came to worst this would be thrown to the House of Representatives, where Bush would be elected anyway. And this is another brick in the wall that will keep Wikipedia from ever being accepted as a citable NPOV encyclopedia. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Provided you keep your rhetoric on the talk page, I don't think Wikipedia will have that problem. Joe Lieberman stated clearly the reasoning for popular sentiment regarding the current election [4], no one ever complained that the 2000 election was illegitimate because of the popular vote count. Nobody is claiming now that the current election is legitimate because of the popular vote count (unless some republicans would like to be first to make that claim?). Recounts are pending or have been done in both blue and red states. The states that have been selected for recounts have been selected because of irregularities and violations, not because one or another candidate won or lost. If you think that there were sufficient problems in other states to justify a recount, then by all means, go for it. We won't object. We put a high priority on free and fair elections, and yes, we are willing to spend millions of dollars every four years if that's what government by consent costs. Our ancestors have paid a much higher price for it, and we consider it a good investment. Kevin Baas | talk 08:18, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Well evidently we disagree on a key point—that of motivation for recounts. I don't think anyone really believes that the election will be overturned. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some people do believe that that is a possibility. Jesse Jackson, for instance, wants Ohio to "put aside" the purported outcome, and count all the votes fairly and accurately first, before declaring a winner. You can read on the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy article, as well as directly from the sources such as Cobb, Badnarik, Kerry, etc., the motivation for recounts. Don't take my word for it - I would be disappointed in you if you did. Kevin Baas | talk 08:34, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

I see Ohio, New Mexico, Nevada and New Hampshire being challenged at the instigation of Nader and some others. Only New Hampshire (with four whole electoral votes) went for Kerry. Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (31 e.v.) gave Kerry a smaller margin than Bush won by in Ohio (Wisconsin by fewer than 12,000 votes). MI, MN and OR Kerry won by slightly more than Bush did in Ohio. Of the unchalleneged "Red" states only Iowa (7 e.v.) was that close for Bush. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, challenged by Nader -- not exactly a big friend of the Dem's now is he?

Cecropia, I seem to have forgot, what did I say the motivation for recounts was? Did I say it was close elections? I don't remember that, maybe I was drunk. Kevin Baas | talk 17:09, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

the paragraph on the jury questionaire should be removed

This is an insignificant event that should not be included in the article. We are compounding the error by including the speculation about Bush's motives in the article, and casting innuendo because the questionaire and the attorney did not disclose Bush's past DUI issue. The innuendo is unjustified, since the attorney worked out a get the govenor excused from Jury duty for a conflict of interest, there is no indication that anything proceeded to the point where there would have been a duty for the attorney to disclose this, if he even knew about it. There is a statement by Bush spokesman that Bush did not fill out the questionaire, a Bush aide did and also left a lot of innocous things blank that he had no personal knowledge of, so focusing on this one non-disclosure is also speculation. In addition, the article reports that not completing the form is not unusual or an offense of any kind. Even the quality of the speculation in the article is poor, with the prosecutor only partially quoted by the reporter and those speculations about motives are contradictory, with the first allegation of misleading being to avoid jury duty, not the later allegation of being to avoid disclosing information. It is no surprise that a busy sitting governor wants out of jury duty, and the possible conflict of interest relationed to pardons is a conveniently sufficient excuse. While having to make these disclosures would have been very embarrassing for Bush, avoiding jury duty was likely to be so certain and easy, there is no reason to think the issue even rose to a level where Bush might have started thinking about deceiving.--Silverback 09:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's your interpretation that the prosecutor meant that Bush was sleazily trying to get out of jury duty. Because the prosecutor referred specifically to the new information (the DUI that he hadn't known about), I'd interpret him as meaning that Bush's chief motive was concealment. That's also the opinion of the defense attorney, whom we didn't quote. The current wording gives the prosecutor's opinion, quotes verbatim the Bush campaign's response, and lets the reader decide whether "the quality of the speculation in the article is poor". In addition, the lawyer who represented Bush in this episode has now been nominated to be U.S. Attorney General. I don't think that fact is worth mentioning in this paragraph in the article but we should be aware of it. JamesMLane 09:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation, the first line of the article ends with this "he was purposely misled by Bush and his attorney in an effort to avoid service". But the whole allegation that if true could make the paragraph relevant, is that Bush deceived or misled. There is no evidence that Bush did anything or that this rose to a level of concern the he would contemplate beginning to deceive. It is rare for a Govenor to serve on a jury, assigning a summons to his attorney to handle without it rising to a level of concern would be routine. The time to worry and begin to deceive would be if he didn't get excused and article points out that was negotiated in advance of going through the motions in court. The SBVT truth at least had witnesses makeing sworn affadavits, presumably with complete sentences in them and who were in a location to have personal knowledge of the events. This prosecutor has no personal knowledge of Bush's actions or intent, he could only swear to what he believes and thinks in logical.--Silverback 10:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inherent Bias

I'm a political consultant, & I've worked for both parties (the Democrats paid me more). I've browsed through this article. I started making notes on how I could honestly contribute from my history with both parties, but it's blatantly obvious that this will never be a neutral article. Look, when a political consultant presents rumors as facts we call it campaigning (he he), but this article is simply filled with unsubstantiated innuendo. And as far as charges of cronism - obviously none of you are students of political science. In every government, in every country, in the history of the world, going back to ancient Egypt friends give friends positions of authority. To change that, you need to change human nature. --Corwin8 10:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, a paragon of neutrality joins us. Please tell us what to do, "obviously" no one here has any clue. Wolfman 13:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Historical precdent doesn't make it any less cronyism, just because they got away with it. -khaosworks 15:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur with khaosworks. A thousand stones is as much a thousand stones as one stone is one stone. Kevin Baas | talk 17:24, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Dec 3 revert war

Regarding User:Kevin baas, the temporary injunction against him allows no more than two reverts on an article in a 24 hour period. Kevin baas reverted to his preferred version if the introduction section three times (1, 2, 3). Sysops are authorised by the injunction to enact a 24 hour block. -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Au contraire mon friere (sp?), as anyone can see by the diffs you posted, the third version is a different version, and as anyone can see by the page history, it is not "my" version. Kevin Baas | talk 18:35, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Very subtle change in the 3rd diff above, but still a revert. Even if it's not though, then your first edit today can be considered a revert, and diffs 1 and 2 make it three total today. Which is it? -- Netoholic @ 18:58, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

My first edit can be considered a revert?!?! What planet are you from? Kevin Baas | talk 19:33, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

If, as you say "it is not "my" version", then that means your first edit on Dec. 3 was to revert back to that previous version. -- Netoholic @ 09:04, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

My hands are tied, folks

I'm on a self-imposed restriction here (I asked to join the arbitration and take punitive measures, with the condition that it be applied consistently to all parties.), so you guys will have to restore it to Gazpacho's neutral version and deal with Cecropia, Netoholic, Jewbacca, and VV. Kevin Baas | talk 18:45, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

The long talk above under the section "page protected" is where these arguments were hashed out. Jewbacca 18:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and it would be wise for people to read them. Kevin Baas | talk 18:50, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Listed on RFC

This page has been listed on WP:RFC. Kevin Baas | talk 18:59, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Minor factual corrections

I made some (imho very) minor changes to reflect the actual status of 2004 Election and reported Irregularities. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is revert war over?

I don't see much actual debate on this talk page by either side. In my opinion there really is no reason to list election controversy info on Bush's bio article, it serves no purpose. A bio page is not a place for indirectly applicable current events or information that changes rapidly in my opinion. In fact, for the election fraud to be exposed it may take a few honest republicans. Zen Master 20:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree about "indirectly applicable current events", but there's nothing indirect about including the 2000 and 2004 elections here. Those events were central to Bush's bio. It's clear that election controversies should be mentioned in this article, with appropriate wikilinks for more detail. The close question is what should be said about the elections in the lead section as opposed to the body of the article. JamesMLane 23:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, a simple sentence with a wikilink to the election controversy article for more info should be sufficient. Zen Master 00:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, a simple sentence, that there have been concerns in some quarters as to the fairness of the elections, prompted in part by their closeness, the degree of controversy and polarisation of issues, however it is important to note that 1) there have been such issues in many elections, 2) nobody has pointed a finger at GWB as being involved in these, and 3) at this point the Democratic Party have accepted the results. Whats the issue? FT2 17:17, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I vote for the 09:37, 3 Dec 2004 one--The_stuart 19:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your point 2 is false, plenty of people allege (without much evidence) that GWB was involved in the 2000 irregularities. As to the dispute, why not finesse it? There's no need in the second sentence to say either that the election was decided by SCOTUS or that GWB "was elected by defeating Gore". Why should the election or the opponent be mentioned at all in the 1st paragraph? If Gore must be mentioned, simply state that his opponent was Vice-President Gore. That leaves the lead-in neutral on the controversy by avoiding it entirely. Wolfman 16:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the elections don't even need to be mentioned, the focus on those small issues is rediculous for a president that has fought two wars and staved off an economic depression after an attack at the economic and financial heart of the U.S. The elections may ultimately become significant if they lead to reforms such as internet voting or proportional representation, but short of that they merely some mindless obsession for some.--Silverback 01:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cabinet table alignment

Why is the table listing the Cabinet members appearing on the right side of the page, leaving large ugly whitespace on its left? The markup appears to have "align='left'" on it, and it's not a problem with my browser because I checked in multiple browsers. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:09, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I think there's a mistake in the table formatting. It says 'style="...;" align...'. Changing it to 'style="..." align...' makes the alignment (and border) work for me.

The white space is caused by the <br clear="all"> after the table, which prevents the next section from moving up alongside of the table. Probably the table should be moved to the top of its section.

—wwoods 17:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrapped in a float:right div, and it looks better now. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Formatting question

In the Transcripts section of external links, the {{wikiquote}} tag displays badly. I tried to fix a couple ways, but to no avail. It appears correctly on a section preview, but not when saved. Any help? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same here, tried 4 or 5 variations. Previews correctly, renders wrong. I'm using Netscape. Wolfman 20:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)