Forum:George W. Bush

Forums: Index > Village Dump > George W. Bush

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6770 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I propose a complete rewrite. To begin now. Preserved as featured. Let us move on.

The whole "he's a moron" thing is overdone. Not. Funny. I think the funniest approach would be to take a deadpan adoring stance. Basing it on truth as much as possible and twisting it in his favor as much as possible.

Please commence discussion. --KATIE!! 22:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, factual with a definite right-wing bias to it, just to piss people off.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just call him and ask how he feels it should be played? ThisIsAShortUsername 22:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha!   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually what can we write that most late night hosts and stand up comedians haven't already written? That is the challenge. Try to write something original that is funny. Everyone makes fun of his speech problem, his policies, etc. Also it seems like the George W. Bush page is scribbled on by just about everyone who logs into Uncyclopedia, and too many cooks ruin the soup if you know what I mean. Factual with a definate right-wing bias would be no different than what Rush Limbaugh does, and would not be funny. What might be funny is if you rewrote it to say the opposite of what he actually does. Like say he is a Liberal who supports gay marriage, world peace, and runs a budget surplus, instead of a Conservative who supports traditional marriage, has a war on terror, and runs a budget deficit. Instead of all of those moron jokes, say he is an intellecutal and a critical thinker. Then create a Bizzaro George W. Bush or George W. Beard or whatever that you say the other things about. Just some ideas. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally find deadpan to be 500% funnier than playing the opposites game. --KATIE!! 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but I expect a lot of left-wing people to get upset over it and watch as they try to change the article into one that bashes GWB in retaliation. Make sure that you put in things like "The facts of this article were checked by the fair and balanced Fox News" or something when doing the deadpan. Then again, why not do deadpan in George W. Bush and then do the bashing or opposites in Bizzaro George W. Bush or George W. Bush (Cylon) or something? Just some thoughts. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My proposal: Put nothing on the George W. Bush page that has not at some point been asserted by his public statements, his press secretaries, or his party representatives. The humor should arise naturally. --Algorithm (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Algo, only I want to throw in the conservative blogs. Bring in stuff from 2001, or 2004 from these blogs. Only from the conservative side. Make it REALLY obvious that it's totally and completely biased. Also, I like Orion's suggestion of putting a "Checked for accuracy and balance by FOXNews".--<<>> 09:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as the right direction to go in and I very much like the checked for accuracy idea. Go forth and be prolific, gentlemen and ladies. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

When you get done with it, you're going to have to make it non-editable or it'll end up getting bashed again. --User:Keithhackworth/sig2

No, someone just needs to keep an eye on it and prevent harmful edits; that's what's done with pretty much all articles that remain good. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I must say I REALLY, REALLY like preserving the 'featured' version of an article that's since been run through the mud. - David Gerard 09:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like making articles stagnate, even if we do think they're really good. --Sir gwax (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that writing it in the vein of right wing slant is the only way to do it, sort of in the voice of Stephen Colbert, praising him for all his weaknesses as being 'pro-American'. Also, there should be a heading for 'criticisms of Bush' which then have the warning "This section has been ruled as not in support of our troops and has thus been stricken." It should have ironic paragraphs like "George Bush is very sensitive to the concerns of anti-war activists, which is why he has demanded that only men be sent out into battle so that only the women and children of the enemy be brutally slaughtered and in a civil peaceful manner." --User Picklefork 23:36, Mar 26.

I'm a "Left-Wing Nut" and I think an entire revision like that would be downright hilarious! George W. Bush for the win! Dudewheresmypizz4 14:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

George Bush heals ten lepers.

Is anyone writing this yet? This picture might go well with the adoring stance, unless it's going to be entirely based on fact. --Spang 06:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

VERY early version here. I'm starting with his bio from www.whitehouse.org and going from there.

Very good, I wonder if we can feature it on the Uncyc April Fools page as factual Wikipedia type information? :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A new start?

Looks like Bradaphraser/Keitei have moved the old page and started over with this one. That still leaves the question of what to do with other once-good articles that have had massive amounts of marginal dreck added, such as the Wikipedia article. If the amount of 'bloat' were moderate, a three-step approach would work:

1. Remove excess "this page needs more templates, please add some" templates and "f--ing kill" any Steve Ballmer quotes
2. Feed any tolerable but not brilliant quotes to the random choose/option algorithm so only one is displayed at a time
3. Link to the {{FA}} (asfeatured) baseline version of a featured article, based on date and oldid

Unfortunately, some articles have been so heavily edited since they were featured that they're not the same page anymore. Is having two articles on the topics the only way to resolve these (few) cases of regression to the mediocre? --Carlb 00:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I dunno...sounds like we need some sort of rating system. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I started the wikipedia rewrite here but ran out of steam.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Romania is also (arguably) worse now than as-featured, but I think I'll ignore it and hope the question goes away. --Carlb 11:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I propose that unilateral and undemocratic cleanup be done by card-holding cabalists/elitists with a proven history of not sucking. That's the only way to get anything done around here. Embrace it. --Spin 05:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little worried. If we're going to be pro-Bush, we should be pro-Clinton, too. I'd rather we be pro-nobody, of course, and just find ways to bash all politics. As a liberal, I don't want to think this wiki is biased conservitavely. I'd like it to just be plain negative about liberals and conservatives alike. Crazyswordsman 21:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think that defending Clinton and excusing his behavior is as funny as defending Bush and excusing his behavior, then you have my blessing to go for it... just be funny, mind.--<<>> 21:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the deadpan stuff is that great of an idea. Granted, it's better than the current article, but we don't want to go ripping off Stephen Colbert --User:Nintendorulez 14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)