Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 NPOV tag... again... 2 Bush is a born-again christian 3 9/11 Rubble Speech 4 Survey to remove NPOV tag 4.1 Remove 4.2 Keep 5 Electoral college challenge 6 removal of polling data 7 I feel this statement is POV 8 Another POV issue re: Powell / Rice 9 More POV: Bushisms 10 Too many pipes / links? 11 I'd really like to see a footnote for this 12 POV - fragile?

NPOV tag... again...

What are the hang ups on removing the POV tag? Below are the valid (as I see them (read: my POV)) reasons as listed by JDoorjam above. The list has been updated and edited by me and other editors. I may have removed very valid criticisms of the article feel free to add any more that you see. If we could address some of these, we could remove that darn tag, which should be everyone's goal.

JDoorjam would like to see:

• • The response of the United Nations Population Fund to Bush's claims that they support forced abortions and sterilizations in China.
  • an expansion of the hugely flagging support for the war.
  • sources for the pundits who said that the Downing Street memo was a smoking gun, and for those who said it was NOT evidence of cherry-picking intelligence.
  • more on the amount spent on the military, specifically outlining the amount spent on the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, as compared to inflation-adjusted figures before Bush took office.
  • expansion of criticisms by environmentalists about the Healthy Forests Initiative, if only to explain how the initiative is a "giveaway to timber companies."
  • expansion of Bush's proposed immigration policies.
  • removal of the paragraph about midterm elections going to the Republicans; this has to do with Congress and the Republican party in general, not Bush.
    • actually, this does have to do with Bush -- I don't have a problem with it staying in. JDoorjam 11:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • mention that Bush is unpopular outside the U.S. for more reasons than simply the invasion of Iraq; his environmental policies and other issues have raised the ire of the world as well.
  • polls regarding Iraq from "Outside the United States" moved to the "Iraq" section, or eliminate them, as they have more to do with post-war Iraq than they do with Bush. Polls regarding Bush specifically should stay in this section.

Please, let us end this NPOV debate. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • I would still like to see the Kyoto issue polished a bit -- it currently leans to the right by throwing a jab at the left -- but other than that, I'm satisfied with this trimmed working list. JDoorjam 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

From the article:

During his first presidential visit to Europe in June 2001, Bush came under harsh criticism from European leaders for his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. In 1997, while representatives of the United States and other countries were still negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate had, by a vote of 95-0, opposed any global warming treaty that did not require binding commitments from developing nations. Although the Kyoto Protocol was symbolically signed by Peter Burleigh, the acting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in 1998, the Clinton administration never presented it to the Senate for ratification. [1] In 2002, Bush came out strongly against the treaty as harmful to economic growth in the United States, stating: "My approach recognizes that economic growth is the solution, not the problem." [2] The administration also disputed the scientific basis for the treaty. [3] In November 2004, Russia ratified the treaty, giving it the required minimum of nations to put it into force without ratification by the United States.

As well as...

Bush has opposed the Kyoto Protocol saying it would harm the U.S. economy. Environmental groups note that many Bush Administration officials, in addition to Bush and Cheney, have ties to the energy industry, automotive industry, and other groups that have fought against environmental protections. However, Bush claims his reason for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol is that it is unfairly strict on the U.S. while being unduly lenient with developing countries, especially China and India. Bush stated, "The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol." He has also questioned the science behind the global warming phenomenon, insisting that more research be done to determine its validity.[4] (See America's Kyoto protocol position.)

I think it is discussed quite enough. What more should we say? I don't think the first qoute is that POV. It is a nice factual summary. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not more. I had meant it should be shorter:

"During his first presidential visit to Europe in June 2001, Bush came under harsh criticism from European leaders for his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. (snip) In 2002, Bush came out strongly against.... "

If people want a history of the Kyoto Protocol, or Clinton's role in it, they should to go their respective pages, I feel. JDoorjam 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Now the way it reads, it looks like the Bush administration was "unilateral" in it's failure to adopt the kyoto protocol...when the fact is that the senate voted unnanimously against any such act that wouldn't also include all nations several years prior to Bush becoming President...essentially, the groundwork was set prior to the Bush administration, during the Clinton administration, so why make it look like it is all Bush's fault...again? It looks a bit antiBush...just my opinion.--MONGO 12:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article should mention how it was not just Bush that opposed it. It was many in Congress and in the Clinton administration. I'm not sure it is "antiBush", but it is slightly misleading. Both versions are factual, but the original was more explanatory. I favor the original at this point. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Entering the conversation late after I saw the change on my watchlist this morning. I think the passage was much better when it mentioned that congress voted 95-0 not to ratify the treaty. This means that both Republicans and Democrats in the senate by a wide margin were against it. The passage reads like twisted anti-bush propoganda now. Like the man unilaterally said hey %$!# the enviornment Im going to do it my way, which is clearly not an accurate picture of the situation. Even if Bush wanted to sign Kyoto, the senate would have rejected it a second time.--AjaxSerix 14:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody had replied to my message on what is usually a quick-moving board, so I was bold and changed it (as I really want to get the NPOV tag off in the next, eh, week and a half). If it's going back in (and again, I'm not terribly concerned about this, except with length, as always in mind), I suggest this slight reorder, simply for flow:

(cut) In 1997, while representatives of the United States and other countries were still negotiating the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate had, by a vote of 95-0, opposed any global warming treaty that did not require binding commitments from developing nations. Although the Kyoto Protocol was symbolically signed by Peter Burleigh, the acting U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, in 1998, the Clinton administration never presented it to the Senate for ratification. [5] (paste) During his first presidential visit to Europe in June 2001, Bush came under harsh criticism....

Thoughts? JDoorjam 15:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Much better, now it is not misleading. But....wait...what does that have to do with George Bush? He did get criticism for it anyway, so I guess it should stay. How about getting rid of the Peter Burleigh and Clinton admin stuff. That is just background info that should go on the Kyoto pageVoice of All(MTG) 12:02, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding UNFPA statement, how about changing the paragraph to remove Bush as the source of the claim? Instead of:

"In July of 2002, Bush cut off all funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Bush claimed that the UNFPA supported forced abortions and sterilizations in China."

make it:

"In July of 2002, Bush cut off all funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) citing long standing claims that UNFPA money was being used to support the Chinese government's draconian population control policy, "One Couple, One Child" which involves involuntary sterilizations and abortions as late as 9 months, with some estimates as high as 10 million such abortions of which 80 to 90 percent were girls."

In fact, as a condition of restoring funding to the UNFPA in 1993, Clinton required that no U.S. money be spent by the UNFPA in China based on those same claims. I don't think the Chinese government policy or its cruelty is in dispute. The only dispute is whether or not UNFPA assistance is or can succeed in changing that policy. IMHO, it seems to be one of the bigger wastes of time and money.

But why is this included at all? It's not mentioned under the other Presidents who got involved with the UNFPA. Not under the President in office at the time the UNFPA was created, nor is it under Reagan who first cut off funding or G.H.W. Bush who continued the cut. It's not even mentioned under Clinton who restored the funding. Under the wiki UNFPA, ONLY the fact that funds were cut "in 2002, 2003, and 2004". All this suggests a biased point of view in simply mentioning it under Bush. The motivation doesn't seem to be a pragmatic summary of history. It seems to be a list of why the people who hate him, hate him. --JJLatWiki 17:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Then let's cut it. Anybody opposed? JDoorjam 01:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I am. Cutting out the fact that prior to Bush's first term the senate had voted unanimously against this type of thing, makes it look like the was no precident for his later decision to not sign. Sort of like saying the Iraq war, which was primarily to remove Saddam from power, didn't have groundwork already established also during the Clinton administration.--MONGO 09:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

If you mean the UNFPA issue, it's been a point of significant criticism of Bush, so it should stay in. I have no problem with mentioning that he didn't pull the charges out of the air, but merely repeated charges others had made. We don't need to go into details about the allegations, though (and certainly not using a POV word like "draconian"). How about:

In July of 2002, Bush cut off all funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), citing charges that UNFPA money was being used to support involuntary sterilizations and late-term abortions in China.

I don't think we need to report the details of the UNFPA's response in this article. Perhaps we should say "charges (denied by the UNFPA) that UNFPA money..." but any further rebuttal of Bush's position should go in the UNFPA article. JamesMLane 21:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is "draconian" a POV word with regards to the Chinese Government's "One Family, One Child" policy? "Draconian" means "exceedingly harsh or very severe". If it were not draconian, why would every President since Reagan deny funding UNFPA if it goes to China. The very title of the policy is explicitly draconian. The manner by which the Chinese Government has enforced the policy is draconian. If anyone has creditable evidence that suggests the policy or its enforcement are not draconian, then let's debate it. "involuntary sterilizations and late-term abortions" ARE draconian population control measures. What POV would deny that?

Bush gets harsh criticism for everything he does. If he gets criticism for cutting UNFPA funding, it's because it's just another item to add to the list of misdirecting reasons to hate Bush. I suggest that if anyone wants the UNFPA information included under Bush, they should take the responsibility to cover UNFPA in all Presidents who dealt with it and complete the UNFPA wiki so that Bush is not the only President to cut funding. They should also explain that although Clinton restored UNFPA funding, Clinton conditioned US funding on none going to China. I don't like Bush, but I don't grasp at every thread for another reason to dislike him and that's what the mere mention of UNFPA (among others) seems like here. The only reason it was more than a blip on his presidency is that Bush-haters pluck every string hoping for a reaction and they don't want any last detail overlooked. --JJLatWiki 20:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

NO no no - please no more debate... we need to work towards a concensus on wording, not debate because its not getting anywhere. Draconian is without a shadow of a doubt POV, so you'd need to say something like "some people consider it draconian" etc. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Bush is a born-again christian

It's well known Bush is a born-again christian it's the truth Jack Cox 19:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't this need a reference though, or do we already have one? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think its fairly common knowledge. But it should be stated in a way that doesn't potentially seeem POV to other Christian denominations, who might disagree with the use of the term. The way the article phrases it now looks ok. keith 10:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC) ps Carter was born-again also.

9/11 Rubble Speech

If I remember correctly, according to Bush At War, he wasn't expected to give any speeches, and that the entire speech was off the cuff. It was the supervisor standing next to him during the speech that gave him the bullhorn. PPGMD 04:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Survey to remove NPOV tag

Arnoldlover has suggested removing the NPOV tag. Since the tag was first placed on this article, a great deal of thought and work (not to mention volumes of discussion) has gone into giving it a more NPOV making it NPOV. I think that the editors of this article should be recognized for their conscientious work and the tag removed. Sunray 22:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Please cast your vote for removing or keeping the NPOV tag. The survey results will be tabulated at noon (Washington time) on August 30, 2005.

Remove

1. Remove: I'd vote for removing the NPOV tag. --Arnoldlover 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Remove: As stated above, a great deal of work has gone into this. It reads well now. Not perfect, but relatively meets generally accepted standards for NPOV, IMHO.Sunray 22:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
3. Remove. --Golbez 22:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
4. Remove. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
5. Remove.Voice of All(MTG) 04:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
6. Remove. Negligible POV not worthy of having an ugly tag affixed at the top of the page for the next 3 years. --tomf688^<TALK> 05:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
7. Remove We may get accusations of bias (see below) but will they be reasonable ones. I think this article has got as neutral as it can get. DJ Clayworth 14:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
8. Remove I don't see any reason to keep this tag here. I read through the article for the first time and didn't see anything that made me think it leaned one way or another. - Sleepnomore 02:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
9. Remove per DJ Clayworth. Also, in response to those who would keep the tag because the article could be biased and not necessarily because it is, that's why we have the {controversial} tag on this talk page. We should remove the POV tag and put it back up only if a major edit war erupts or the article undergoes significant changes that affect its NPOV status. We shouldn't have that ugly tag on one of our most prominent pages just in case yet another newcomer comes along and says "THIS ARTICAL'S WRNONG11!11!!!" sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 03:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
   • It would be good to note that these remove votes aren't exactly what should be said for a removal. Things like "as neutral as it can get", "relatively npov", and "negligible pov" do not equate to NPOV. 172.147.85.188 05:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (Note: User's first edit) Incorrect. It is called dialup. A new IP is given each time you sign on. 172.147.85.188 09:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
     • Right, I agree that "relatively npov" is not good wording. Let me rephrase that: "Meets the standard of NPOV when compared to other contentious articles in Wikipedia." The editors of this page really work at it and the results are evident. Sunray 19:32, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
     • Actually, an article doesn't have to meet a standard of "absolute NPOV" for the tag to come off. If that were the case, almost all our articles would have POV tags, if not TotallyDisputed tags. This is not because all Wikipedia's articles are biased and inaccurate, far from it. It's because NPOV is a goal we strive to reach, not an accomplishment. This article's at a point where we can say "well, it probably wouldn't pass FAC at this point, but we've made a lot of progress, and it's neutral enough so we don't need to leave that ugly tag staring at our readers". sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:31, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
       • Progress does not equal NPOV. If it is not NPOV, and its not even by the statements of those who wish to have it removed, one must understand the validity of the wish to include the tag. Ugly or not. Arguments of the sort of "We've worked hard" or "We've made progress" are not arguments against an article being NPOV or not. Also, see the comment regarding your edit above. 172.147.85.188 09:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
         • If you believe there are neutrality problems, please join in our discussion and point out where the problems are. The point of an NPOV tag is to alert wikipedians to a problem so that it can be fixed. "Inherently not NPOV" is neither constructive nor accurate. Will it be a constant battle to keep it neutral? You betcha. But it's doable. JDoorjam 12:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
           • I do believc their are neutrality problems, as do the people who even voted to remove the tag. But, I haven't edited this article, and thats why I haven't voted either way. I was commenting on the strange votes to remove that still acknowledged it not being NPOV. Oh, and I never said 'Inherently not NPOV'. 172.134.175.138 21:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
10. Remove. People may claim we can remove the tag when his term is up, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. Do people know how much some people HATE George W. Bush? That's why we can get POV problems with people who have been dead for decades. In this politically charged atmosphere that we live in, this article is pretty NPOV. It has one or two minor things still, but I'm not sure that requires tagging the entire article. What ever happened to using {{POV-section}}? My two cents. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
11. Remove. --kizzle 22:28, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep -bro 172.208.130.133 03:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
   • "User"s only edit... --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
     • I assume you mean logged in users. If so, says who? This is not VfD. -bro 172.208.130.133 04:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
2. Keep The article suffers from systemic POV and until he is no longer President, it probably will continue to do so.--MONGO 03:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
3. Keep. It is inevitable that a full-blown POV debate sparks up on this page at least once a fortnight. Harro5 10:07, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
4. Keep. The tag is justified but its design should be less obnoxious. Also, given that people are extremely devided over Bush, bias is almost guaranteed. This is a case where actually guidelines should have the last word, not voting.NightBeAsT 22:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
   • Please explain "guidelines should have the last word, not voting." A survey may be conducted in accordance with the guideline on consensus to determine whether there is general agreement on some aspect of an article (such as the need for a tag). Sunray 01:57, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
5. Keep. There is POV in the article, which I agree will be debated until GWB's term ends. I think after his term, it would be good to wrap up the loose POV ends and remove the tag at that time.--KBecks 13:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
   • I really don't like this argument, as many controversial articles here (some even moreso then this) have become featured articles etc.. People here though need to try to keep their personal opinions etc. out of the way when editing, which is obviously not happening on this article... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
6. Keep This President may not have a neutral wikipedia entry until after this and maybe the next generation are all dead. And if the most neutral acheivement is "we're working hard to be neutral", then so be it. But accept that it's not neutral. There are more people contributing to Wikipedia in general who hate Bush and it's worse for this article. So maybe the tag will encourage some of the other camp to contribute and will encourage children to look for more corroborating information before they use WP as their source.--JJLatWiki 22:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, because editors aren't keeping their personal feelings out of it is why I think the NPOV tag should be kept. Does the NPOV tag keep this from becoming a featured article? And if it were a featured article, can you imagine how fast it would be edited with POV/vandalized once it received the extra attention and exposure? I'd be very pleased to see GWB as a featured article after his term ends. P.S. I've added a few things to the talk page that I see as POV issues, and support my view on keeping the tag for now. --KBecks 14:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it means npovsect tags should be applied, not a whole-article npov tag (parts of this article are npov). As for vandalism, it wouldn't get much more vandalism than other front-page articles (and randomly inserting POV to WP:POINT is not really just POV). Also, this guy is not going to stop being controversial for like another 20 years at least - so lets take care of the problems now rather than later. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Electoral college challenge

Cut from article:

A challenge of the electoral college results by members of the U.S. Congress, only the second in U.S. history, was defeated by a vote of 1-74 (Yea-Nay) in the Senate and by a vote of 31-267 in the House.

Why was this cut? Because it's untrue? Or irrelevant? Or covered better elsewhere? (I find it interesting, so if no one objects, I'd like to put it back.) Uncle Ed 22:46, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, it could be included in the article, but it does not fit in the intro to the article. I feel it fits better in the section that talks about presidential campaigns, and there is a statement already in that section that covers the challenge, but it does not have the vote counts.

I'd recommend that you edit the existing statement in the presidential campaigns area for whatever clarification you feel is needed. Hope this helps! --KBecks 14:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

removal of polling data

The only reason why I removed the two intermediate reports of Bush's approval ratings is that it seemed unnecessary to report these months rather than letting the graph speak for the most part. Let's include the "milestones" of his approval ratings (high after sept 11, spike after war, around 50 during election, and all-time sub-nixon levels at 36 now) and not the month-to-month reports in the text itself otherwise this is going to be a very long section. In addition, I don't think its censoring anything as we can clearly see the general trends of Bush's approval ratings from the included graph. --kizzle 23:06, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record my last rvv evidently was a mistake, as I meant to revert the anon who vandalized the page but evidently got your edit instead. Sorry about that :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Most recently, a poll taken by American Research Group on August 18-21, 2005 [62] shows that 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president (6% below the number in July), while 58% disapprove. This figure is lower than President Nixon's approval rating of 39% during the Watergate scandal that evntually led to his resignation. However, to be fair, it is higher than Jimmy Carter's peak low of 17%.

I recently read in this book that Carter's approval rating was the lowest ever. But that wouldn't be too interesting of a fact for the guys at CNN, nah its more interesting to say lower than Nixon. I think we should now leave as is as it seems NPOV (at least to me) Redwolf24 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's because Nixon has been in the forefront of the public mind with Deep Throat coming out, plus Carter was a Dem while Nixon was a brother-Republican, which makes for a fairer comparison to Bush? Staxringold 00:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention when you think Nixon, you think crook. When you think Carter, you think Nobel Prize. He's a great man but his presidency sucked. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Nah, when I think of Carter, I think of gas lines a mile or more long....interest rates that kept many out of home ownership, and inflation. But you are right...habitiat for humanity etc are all definitely wonderful things for him to be involved in.--MONGO 03:20, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The current approval rating graph is somewhat misleading. The scale goes from 40% to 90%, but you can't read this in the smaller version on the page. You have to click the hi-res picture to be able to read the scale. On first glance, it appears that his approval rating in August 2005 was 10%, when if fact, it was 45%. I'm not a Bush supporter or opposer; I just came to the article to look something up and noticed the graph. I think a graph from 0% to 100% would be more appropriate. 24.208.178.93 16:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. It would be misleading even if you could read the axis. This is called a "suppressed zero" and, although common--particularly in graphs of non-scientific data--it is always a Bad Thing. IIRC Darrell Huff has a chapter about it in How to Lie with Statistics. The worst example I can remember was produced by Time magazine during the Vietnam War, during Johnson's presidency. The graph was called "Pulling Out" and it showed that the number of troops in Vietnam was decreasing. The thing was, it was a suppressed-zero graph in which you had a nice, impressive downward-sloping line... but the axis showed that the decrease was something like from 500,000 troops to 495,000. Apologists always say the same things about such graphs: "well, we're just trying to show the trend," "it makes the difference easier to see," "the numbers are on the axis." But the visual impression is misleading. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel this statement is POV

Ronald Reagan, at the time a former Governor of California, endorsed Bush's opponent in the Republican primary.

I don't feel this is significant. While Regan is a legendary political figure, the article does not go into any of the other endorsements. Plus, Bush obviously won the primary.

The point that is trying to be made is that Reagan did not favor Bush at the time. But because it deals with a primary election, it seems less than relevant and a POV slam towards Bush.

--KBecks 13:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree here. Bush has always idolized Reagans Presidency and has modeled his own after it. I think that it is relevant information. --AjaxSerix 17:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that it should be removed unless there are more facts to make it at least more interesting. Like, who was the opponent who got Reagan's endorsement? Did Reagan endorse Bush in the general election? It seems that Bush would have been lacking in experience so Reagan's endorsement was probably not a slight against Bush. How many other inexperienced Republican's did Reagan not endorse? As it is, the statement is uninteresting and not well researched.--JJLatWiki 21:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Another POV issue re: Powell / Rice

Colin Powell became the first African-American man to serve as Secretary of State during Bush's first term in office. In 2005 he was succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, who became the first African-American woman to hold the post.

It looks like this is intentionally presented to give Bush no credit for appointing Powell and Rice. In fact, it reads as if these things just "happened" all on their own.

I'd appreciate an edit, I've considered it, but am mentally struggling with how to edit without disrupting the flow.

Also, some additional informatin on Condi's first appointment by bush (not secretary of state) might be helpful.

Thank you, --KBecks 14:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I gave a bit more spin towards Bush Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

More POV: Bushisms

Bush's many mistakes while publicly speaking have spawned a new term in America, bushism. This is the term used for a word, phrase, or other grammatical configuration unique to the style of President George W. Bush.

I don't have a problem with a Bushism mention, but feel that "many mistakes" is a slam. What exactly is many? and do we know how Bush compares to other prominent public figures?

I do feel that the Bushism mention is a bit fluffy though. Is it really needed, and helpful to readers? or is it a cheap shot?

A less POV option (if this needs to be kept) would be "Bush's public speaking has generated a new..."

The Bushism page is also loaded with POV, IMO. --KBecks 14:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I think if we change it to grammatical mistakes, then it should be NPOV, as that is pretty much not under debate. --kizzle 18:38, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds much better, thanks. --KBecks 20:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, wait -- I still take issue with the word "many" and would like to see it removed. --KBecks 20:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A limitation to "grammatical" wouldn't be accurate. He mispronounces words, uses the wrong word, says things that are grammatically correct but make no sense, etc. JamesMLane 21:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Syntactical? --kizzle 23:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The man said: "Peeance freeance". And didn't even bat an eye. Sure made Bremer do a double take, though. (About 80% of the way through the video, where the transcript says "free and secure".[6] Gzuckier 01:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be some reference to "mistakes", even if is not quantified as "many". It already says he is known for them, but the style of his speech when refering to bushisms is just plain old improper English no matter how you slice it. The current wording seems to express a sentiment analogous to a well-known writer who invents new expressions (e.g. twainisms seussisms). I think it is rather NPOV to point out that the reason they are well known is because they are incorrect english, and that is a fact. It is not a cheap shot to point out flaws in speaking stlye, especially considering he is a politician and therefore an orator. I personally agree with the use of the word many, or something similar that may not be so subjective. The standard of comparison with regards to public figure should be other people in his position, past and present. We can say that he makes more linguistic errors than most other presidents and prime ministers. That would be an issue for the bushisms article to take into account though, because it deserves comparison to others. I think it warrants the addition though, of one or two words in he current write-up mentioning that they are mistakes or errors, which is factual information.

Too many pipes / links?

There are a lot of pipes in this article -- words like "man", "woman", "money".

Would it be OK to remove some of these very basic links?

• Pipes are fine - but they should only pipe on the first occurance of the word. As for links see also and some of the transcripts in the external links section could be purged Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You're talking mainly about wikilinks, not pipes. A pipe is a specific form of wikilink in which the sentence in this article doesn't use the exact wording of the title of the other article, so the wikilink has a pipe dividing the article title from the way it's referred to here. In general, although we wikilink only the first occurrence of a word, there's reason to depart from that generalization when a term is introduced again in a later section of a long article like this one. Turning to specifics, I don't feel strongly about linking "man", "woman", and "money", but what other links did you have in mind for removal? JamesMLane 21:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I don't know all the terminology yet. I removed money, but left man and woman since they're talking about gay marriage and there may be uncertainty to what a man and woman is although it seems obvious on the surface. I re-looked at the links and think they're OK. All the linked years and dates seem to clutter it up and not provide much relevance, IMO. --KBecks 14:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd really like to see a footnote for this

Many Democrats opposed changes that they felt were turning Social Security into a welfare program that would be politically vulnerable.

Thanks, --KBecks 13:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This line was utter FUD. It's competely NOT what the "Many Democrats" were/are saying. I changed it to something more in line with reality. I'm sure some Repiblican hack will insist on replaceing it with a Neocon talking point. I've got news for you: Social Security IS SUPPOSED TO BE a "welfare program." That's what it's for. That's why we have it. The insurance companies don't like it becasue they can't profit from it. So, in comes the "New" Social Sucurity plan, (which is neither social nor secure) and it's poster boy 'dubya. -anonymous

No, Social Security is not a welfare program, nor is it "supposed to be". The term "welfare" is generally understood to mean a means-tested program. Such a program primarily benefits the poor. Bush's endorsement of "progressive indexation" would make Social Security less valuable to the middle class, and much less valuable to the rich; it would move Social Security in the direction of a welfare program, with the concomitant weakening of political support. Democrats did indeed argue that this was a reason to oppose Bush's plan. A few quotations/citations from various progressive sources:

• "The President’s embrace of progressive price indexing for Social Security is just one more clever attempt to kill it. Converting the most successful government program in history into a welfare plan for the poor, practically guarantees it will lose political support and eventually get picked off." [7]
• "Progressive price indexing would transform Social Security over time from a retirement program to more of a welfare system.... Making Social Security’s benefit formula this progressive could risk undermining some of the broad-based political support that Social Security enjoys...." (from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, quoted in NDN BLog)
• Various comments that if Social Security is turned into a welfare program, it will be "gutted". [8]
• "Social Security as Welfare", a column by George F. Will in which he explains how progressive indexation would change Social Security, and why Pat Moynihan was vigorously against a so-called "progressive" change that would erode support for Social Security and subject it to the same fate that AFDC met. [9]

This is just what I found quickly. If you want to be sure it can specifically be tied to Democratic leaders responding to Bush's plan, I'm pretty sure that Reid, Pelosi, or Rangel have made similar comments. I thought this passage didn't need citation because the point was pretty well known and not disputed. (That is, it's not disputed that this argument is being made; whether the argument is valid probably is disputed.) JamesMLane 10:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I found the statement confusing when I read it, so maybe it's a wording thing and not a footnote thing. I was surprised that Dems would criticize privatization as welfare, the two don't really make sense together in my head. So some sort of clearer copy might really help, IMHO. The points I'm making about POV here on the talk page aren't really to stir debates, but to hopefully inspire more clear and/or accurate phrasing for the article, making it easier to clearly understand. I'm not very familiar with the Dems position, so will leave this to someone else to hopefully clarify. Thanks again. --KBecks 13:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

POV - fragile?

Bush has pushed for tapping into oil reserves in the fragile Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thought by many to be the last untouched wilderness left in the US.

I think using the word fragile is POV, and unsubstantiated. Any objections to removing it? The 2nd part of the sentence covers environmental concern.

Thanks, --KBecks 13:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree it should be removed IMHO.... --AjaxSerix 17:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• I concur with AjaxSerix. Voice of All(MTG) 17:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
• I agree. --JJLatWiki 21:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• The entire thing is POV. The Arctic National Wildlife refuge is not the last untouched wilderness in the U.S., none of them are untouched. What the sentence should state is: Bush has supported legislation for allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is a particularily sensitive ecosystem due to it's arctic location.--MONGO 03:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Arctic ecosystems aren't more sensitive than any other ecosystem. It's a controversial topic not because of any claims of fragility, but opposition to human influence on the land. While it's true that the ANWR isn't untouched in the strictest sense of the word, this wilderness remains one of the most pristine and natural areas of the country. Designated wilderness areas in the lower 48 have strict standards to adhere to in an attempt to limit any influence humanity has on those areas, but volumes of tourism makes some impact unaviodable. This is a problem that ANWR hasn't had to deal with for the last hundred years or so, making it rather unique. Sdauson 06:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

While not completely disagreeing, and trying to not diverge away from the subject (Bush) I just want to remind you that due to the location of ANWR being north of the Brooks Range, the recovery of such an area can take centuries, whereby, much of Yellowstone National Park (about a third) experienced extensive fires in 1988 and in those areas, the trees have rejuvenated and are over 30 feet high in places. However, all the fear when the Alaska pipeline was built (caribou herd migrations, oil leaks, etc.) have come to naught, but only because the environmental protocols were established to ensure effective monitoring, land reclaimation and resource rehabilitation would be effectively applied. Human ecological impact is always greatest in colder climates due to shorter growing seasons. The cold has a tendency to lock things in time...vehicle tracks on the north slope made during WWII still look almost fresh.--MONGO 07:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

You two clearly know more about this topic, thanks for the comments and good luck on finding the most accurate wording to make the article most clear. --KBecks 13:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)