Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

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 ridiculous 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 are merely a mindless obsession for some.--Silverback 01:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This argument is pretty blatant POV. If you approve of what Bush has done, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's no basis for withholding facts about the elections. If Bush is a shining hero and the facts about this aspect of his noble career take a bit of the luster off, well, that's the way the ball bounces. JamesMLane 02:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He is hero is some areas, mass-murderer in others, lets stick to the facts and keep them in perspective. The election stuff should be mentioned here, especially since it meant he had to overcome a hostile and divisive environment, but it doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraphs, if people are opposing its mention elsewhere in the article, I'll support its mention there. it doesn't match the encyclopedic POV of other presidential bio's to include it in the overall summary. --Silverback 02:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
James, I certainly think the election controversies should be fully referenced in the article itself. Anything else would be white-washing. I'm just not sure it needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. Perhaps adding a simple descriptor such as 'controversial election' or 'hotly contested election' would be a reasonable compromise for the lead-in paragraph. Wolfman 02:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the close question is how much to put in the lead section. My view is still that some people, especially non-Americans, will come to this article having heard vaguely about election controversies, and not even being clear on the distinction between 2000 and 2004. For their benefit, while the 2004 election is "fresh", I'd include brief references in the lead. The lead will have to be rewritten anyway after January 20, and at that time the references to controversies and delayed outcomes could be removed unless there had been major developments. JamesMLane 05:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable approach to me. Wolfman 05:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can sign on to a compromise which accepts the election references until Jan 20, and then reduces this early summary paragraph emphasis then, if others agree that they will support the election demphasis in the first paragraphs then. We don't need unanimity, but a workable number from both sides agree to accept and defend the compromise, both before and after.--Silverback 05:47, 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)

Bush administration disinformation about Iraq

Silverback's edit summary asks me "What lies?" His version is not NPOV because it asserts, as if it were an undisputed fact, that after 9/11 "there was a new sense of urgency" about the WMD issue and the possible aid to terrorists. I deny that there was such a renewed sense of urgency. My POV is that Bush knew, because all his intelligence experts were telling him, that Saddam did not have WMDs, was not close to getting nuclear capability, and had had nothing to do with 9/11. It is further my POV that Bush, knowing these facts, cynically and immorally seized on 9/11 as a convenient pretext for doing what he'd been planning to do since before the 2000 election, namely depose Saddam. Now, I don't expect the Wikipedia article to reflect my personal opinions of Our Glorious Leader. We should indeed report the line that the Bush administration was publicly spouting. Nevertheless, we don't assert it as fact. We attribute it. The version I've reverted to says "the Bush administration argued that", which is the properly NPOV way to present Bush's statements. We could, of course, get into more detail about what documentary evidence was available about Iraqi weapons programs, but if we're going to assert that Iraq made claims that weren't documented, then we should also link to Yellowcake Forgery to point out that Bush made claims based on forged documents. JamesMLane 02:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Completely agree with your point. Wolfman 02:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with keeping it NPOV, the yellowcake forgery was not done by Bush, although since it had been called into question, it should not have been used. Nevertheless, the concern it raised, that Saddam wanted nukes was valid, and it is clear from interviews with Iraqi scientists since the war, that Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD programs, and he had the resources to do it. My own POV is that the war was not justified, but that, even so, it was probably the most just war the US has ever been involved in and fought because we only intended to transfer the power and resources to a democratic government by the most just means because we didn't use conscription, and used some of the most accurrate munitions in history, to carefully preserve civilian life and infrastructure. Yes, we have avoided conscription in other recent wars, but in Serbia and the first Gulf war, we purposely targeted civilian infrastructure and in the bunkers in Kuwait murdered over 100,000 innocent Iraqi conscripts.--Silverback 02:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Well, if he wanted WMD, if he had the resources to do it, if the sanctions were not interfering, then why didn't he have any WMD? It's not at all clear that any of the premises above are true. Stating any of them as fact is POV; stating that the situation was urgent is POV. Stating what Bush said and attributing it to Bush is NPOV. Wolfman 03:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Saddam did want the sanctions to end, yet obsfuscated against the inspections because he wanted his neighbors to believe he still had WMD. Of course, it made the rest of the world believe he still had WMD as well. Why he wanted his neighbors to believe he still had WMD is unclear. was it as a deterrent to Iran? or for prestige in the region? to intimidate the shiites and kurds? Frankly, Saddam bears far more responsibility for the war than Bush, he had one of the greatest opportunities in history to open his country, get his borders guaranteed without any need for further military expenditures on Iraq's part, even disolving his military, and to thumb his nose at the west by legalizing drugs and calling his nation the freeist on earth. I would have done it!--Silverback 03:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The french, germans and russians probably also bear more responsibility for the war than Bush, because they gave Saddam hope he could wait out the sanctions and get them removed without the full cooperation that would have given Iraq's claims of having destroyed the unaccounted for material credibility.--Silverback 03:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would say that the person who started the war is responsible for starting the war, but that's just me. Kevin Baas | talk 05:49, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
I say the moral bright line is between sanctions and non-coercive means, not between sanctions and war. Sanctions are acts of war, a gun to the head, so to speak. Sanctions commit one to backing them up occasionally. Of course, one can also take the "start" back to the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, there has only been a truce since then. Rest assured that another nation imposing a no-fly zone on the US (as the UN did on Iraq) would find it considered an act of war.--Silverback 05:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Admittedly, I am not fully aware of the details surrounding Desert Storm. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing who went to war. The controversial term "preemptive strike" comes to mind. I guess you could argue that it was self defence, but that would be a failing strategy in any court, national or international. In any case, the War, the actual physical battle, was started by the Bush administration (and prepared for long before). I.e. it was a premeditated act commited by the Bush Administration, and insofar as one is responsible for one's actions, the Bush administration is responsible for acting as it did, and all of the consequences resultant therefrom. Kevin Baas | talk 07:12, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
The sanctions were in place after Desert Storm which was only "ended" with a truce (not a peace treaty) and that truce had been violated many times. However, I don't see the "preemptive" element as introducing any moral issues. Saddam lost any right have his rights respected, when he initiated violating the rights of others, the rape room, or the torturing of the soccer players is all the excuse needed. The key moral issue is that taking out Saddam in order to prevent further violations of rights involves the certainty of collateral damage, including the taking of innocent life. But governments do that all the time, even in peace, they use net-lives-saved justifications to delay access to life saving medications. In the United States delays in the approval of clot busting drugs (TPA and streptokinase) and beta blockers (propranol HCL, atenolol, etc) are estimated to have cost over a million lives (they didn't quite achieve a net plus on this one). If net-lives-saved are enough to justify taking innocent life in peace, there is no reason for the standard to be higher war, and given the nature of Saddam's regime and his diversion of humanitarian aid to the military and to the corruption of european and international leaders, the Iraq war may already have met the net lives saved standard. Madeline Albright estimated that over 500,000 infants had died in Iraq, before the oil for food program was initiated.--Silverback 08:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Silverback, you're kinda jumping around here. Egregious human rights records do not necessarily justify us to invade a country's soverign rule, otherwise we would be at war with many many countries, with at least a few we have far more of a reason to invade than Iraq. Iran is a much better target, why didn't we hit them? Regardless, the point is that we started the war, we are responsible for the war. The argument that we were provoked into doing so, like KB says, is flimsy at best. Any justification you can use for Iraq can be applied to many other countries... if we must accept this justification by provocation, we are morally inclined to invade these other countries as well and the fact that we haven't done so yet should incite moral outrage. --kizzle 07:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

As much as I agree with some of the posters here. It's all off topic. Does anyone have any concrete proof that Bush lied to the American public. Are there any documents that said before the war that Iraq neither had a single drop of WMD (remember that a single drop can kill hundreds), nor wanted to make them? The CIA may have had wrong information, like it's had hundreds of times before, or they could have been moved out of the country, but unless someone has concrete proof that Saddam didn't have WMD, and that Bush knew about it and intentionally lied about it, it shouldn't be in a factual article. PPGMD

Conversly, if and only if the CIA had "concrete evidence that Saddam Hussien possesses WMD." at the time that Bush made that statement, Bush was telling the truth to the public (i.e. x is a true statement). If he was not telling the truth to the public, then he was lying to the public (i.e. x is a false statement). To the best of any informed person's knowledge, the CIA did not only not have any "concrete evidence" of this, but had no credible evidence whatsoever. Therefore, Bush knowingly lied to the public. Simple logic. Sound and valid.
Why knowingly? Because this is the kind of statement a president makes to the public if and only if they know. If he did not know, then he is not only a liar (however unknowingly), but an abhorently irresponsible and incompetent one. That is, I am actually being nice to him by giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying that he knowingly lied. Kevin Baas | talk 20:45, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
No credible evidence whatsoever eh? I am sure the President knows what's going on in the bowels of the CIA HQ. Most intelligence agencies at the time that he made the run up to the war said that Saddam had WMD. There was very little evidence to the to rebut it, the report that they delivered to the UN didn't help anything either, since it didn't account for all the weapons. There was credible, evidence, at least as credible as one can get without any intelligence operatives on the ground.
Once again, show me documents from credible that prove that President Bush lied? This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of conspiracy theories, without concrete proof it shouldn't be in this entry. If I want junk like that I will goto coasttocoastam.com PPGMD
The onus is on the president to demonstrate that there was hard evidence of WMD. As the saying goes, "innocent until proven guilty." Until it is proven that iraq has WMD, i.e. is guilty of a violation. The proof is the lack of evidecne to the contrary. there can be no other proof. how can you prove that something does not exist other than pointing out that there is no evidence of it's existence? This is the logical problem mistake that make people believe in God. By the same so-called "logic" people use to justify their belief in god you are justifying your belief that saddam had wmd. You cannot disprove their existence because there is no possible way for there to be evidence of their "nonexistence"; one cannot be shown their "non-being".
The onus is on the president. Saddam probably didn't think he would go to war. Who can blame him? How could anyone expect a national leader to be so belligerent as to go around invading other countries on the basis of completely unsubstantiated allegations? The whole world, in fact, was rather shocked.
He said there is hard evidence. He does not know the bowels of the CIA! The CIA doesn't even know their own bowels. Where are you getting this from? Your blind faith is scarry. He said there is concrete evidence. There is not concrete evidence. He lied. I understand that this may be difficult to accept. But that's proof. That's as much proof as could possibly exist. Yes, the president of the United States blatently lied to his country. I know that's the last thing you want to hear. It sounds very ugly, it's horrendous. Maybe that's why you're having so much trouble believing it. You're not alone: nobody wants to believe it. But it's the sad truth. He lied and repeated his lies and when he could repeat them no longer because there was too much evidence to the contrary, he shifted them so as to make it look like that's what he was saying all along, and repeated those new lies over and over again. When there was too much evidence to the contrary, he shifted them again. Ofcourse it worked, ofcourse people think that he didn't do this; that he's told the truth the whole time. Have you done your homework? How do you learn something? Repetition, repetition, repetition. Teachers know this. It is the most powerful tool. Repetition. What is repeated is taken to be true, regardless of any connection with the empirical world. It's basic psychology. There was no evidence. There still is no evidence. The CIA knew this (with 2 maverik exceptions), every other country in the world knew this (except isreal. Britian's population knew this overwhelming, and Tony Blair possibly knew it as well.) He lied. People lie, you know. They do sometimes, really. No, really, everyone doesn't always tell the truth. Sometimes people actually do lie. No, really. Really. Kevin Baas | talk 23:52, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
Read The Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill, or Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke. We were planning on going to Iraq before we even considered weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the weapons of mass destruction claim came after our plans to invade. While it cannot be technically proven that he did not know, its like he claimed Saddam was planning to invade the U.S., a hypothesis with little to none substantial evidence. You make a statement like posession of WMD after you have the evidence, not before. --kizzle 23:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
This discussion didn't arise because someone wanted the article to say that Bush was lying. It arose because someone wanted the article to parrot Bush's lies uncritically. The demand by PPGMD for "concrete proof" should apply both ways. The article shouldn't state something as a fact if the only basis is that Bush asserted it. I have no problem with our reporting his notable statements in a form like "The Bush administration argued that...." It was the omission of that kind of attribution that caused the disagreement. JamesMLane 01:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
True. Plus the Bush administration did state numerous times that we had incontrovertible evidence that Saddam had WMD. Obviously we did not have undeniable evidence, since no WMD were found. Therefore, the administration did plainly lie about the strength of the evidence. Now whether that's the CIA or the Whitehouse is perhaps debatable. But last I checked, Bush is the leader of the executive branch, and that's where the buck stops so the issue is relevant to this article. Wolfman 04:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It isn't a lie unless the "liar" knows it is untrue. It is a copout to state that "the administration" lied. Who lied? Perhaps someone jumped to a conclusion or assumed the worst. Frankly, it appears the U.S. had inside intelligence high within the Saddam administration or military and believed what they believed. Iraqi unit commanders knew they did not have chemical weapons, but they thought other units did. It also appeared that Saddam himself may have been lied to, and the U.S. believed those lies also. In any case, it all turned out for the best, how lucky can the U.S. get?--Silverback 06:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Silverback is really George W. Bush, that's not a lie by his criteria. Yes, how lucky we are to have invaded Iraq, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, taken 10000 wounded in action and 1200 dead. Wolfman 06:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Touche! There must be some further qualification or criteria for lying that I have forgotten from my ethics class. I would characterize your statement (that I am W) as speculation, with extremely little evidence, but you are right, I wouldn't call you a liar by my criteria, even though I know through personal knowledge the truth or falsity of your statement. It is a very few hundreds of billions, but the casualties are low by historical standards, if only someone could liberate us the from yoke of the US government so cheaply. 8-) --Silverback 07:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I second JML (once again), its just fun to talk about this sometime, but we cannot officially endorse Bush's viewpoint, we must quote and attribute, quote and attribute. Back to debating, whether or not he lied is a question which will never be proved either way, however we do know that Bush wanted a war with Iraq before WMD's, before 9/11, so it just seems a bit convenient at best.--kizzle 09:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
You overstate it. There is a difference between wanting Saddam removed and wanting a war. He would have been more patient with other approaches, if not for the unaccounted for WMD, which gave it a sense of urgency. I doubt he would have waited very long however, if the other approaches were not showing promise. All the conservatives were impatient with the resource drain of the no-fly zone and competely lack of credibility of U.N. sanctions.--Silverback 10:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Resource drain, as compared to how much we're spending on the war now? To see the invasion of Iraq as merely a response to a threat of WMD misses the point. I don't think that's what Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were thinking at the time at the very least. --kizzle 11:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Obviously the army is tied down. But the airpower is significantly freed up. Read the PNAC document for an idea of the strain the no fly zone put on the U.S. Kuwait was not a good base for dealing with Iran, Iraq puts us in a better position, and makes sure the oil revenues are spent in Iraq for the benefit of her people, rather than spilling over into Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. You may think suicide bombers are cheap and in unlimited supply, certainly ones that can penetrate a western country are, but even there, I think there is a big drain on this irredeemable element being thrown against hard targets (U.S. military) and unfortunately innocent Iraqi's. They obviously view democracy as a threat, which proves they agree with the possible consequences of this risky and idealistic U.S. strategy, although of course, they oppose it. This war against a corrupt, depraved dictatorship may look like a bargain a few years out. Frankly, I think a civil war would not be that bad, especially if it resulted in the Kurds and Shiites getting nations, and the discredited bathists getting a middle country but permanently defanged, because they have no oil.--Silverback 12:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For those who missed it, Silverback just said "Frankly, I think a civil war would not be that bad". This needs no futher comment. Wolfman 14:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Three Comments

1. The box with the Cabinet appointments is wrong. Although some Cabinet members have submitted their resignations, these do not take effect until their successor is sworn in. So, for example, Colin Powell is the Secretary of State until Condoleeza Rice is sworn in. Same goes for Ashcroft, Evans and the others.

2. Concerning the above talkpage discussion. It is amazing to me how people cannot stop their political viewpoint from obstructing their view of facts. At this point it makes no sense to put Bush's administration in a historical context. Many of the controversial acts Bush has done may be great for America in the future, OR it could be a disaster but only time will tell. For example, TR's action in seizing the Panama Canal were controversial and maybe illegal but in the long run it is recognized as one of his Presidencies greatest achievements, likewise President Buchanan's reluctance to engage the Confederacy is now looked on as a major failure but at the time were seen as necessary to avoid war. So with that in mind, I think the current Bush article is better because it seems to be simply reciting the events of Bush's first term without arguing whether these acts were right or wrong.

3. I noticed in the articles, that there are separate links between Bush's first term and his second (which will happen, regardless of what one of the contributors above thinks). This is unnecessary. It was not done for other two term Presidents, so I don't understand why we need to do it here. Just have it all on the same page.

Thanks Ramsquire 23:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page again because of the spurts of vandalism it has been receiving. Will unprotect as soon as is possible. Any changes, feel free to submit and discuss here. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 02:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. This is an actively worked on page, so the vandalism gets corrected almost instantaneously and gets lost in the noise. It is the vandalism on less active pages you need to worry about.--Silverback 06:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For once I agree with Silverback. Unprotect. Dealing with the vandals is a hassle but a minor one. Besides, how can anyone "unprotect as soon as is possible"? We won't know how much vandalism will occur until it's unprotected. JamesMLane 00:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Failure to Meet with NAACP

Under "Domestic Policy" the following line appears:

Although President Bush did meet with the National Urban League, he is the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.

This is poorly written. A better edit would be:

President Bush has met with the National Urban League as President, but has not yet met with the NAACP as President, though he did address the NAACP at their 2000 convention in Baltimore as a presidential candidate. Should President Bush not meet with the NAACP before he leaves office, he will become the first sitting President to have not met with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.

This is a significant improvement for several reasons. First, while Bush hasn't met with the NAACP as president, it's unfair to fail to mention that he has met with them in the past. Secondly, Bush isn't "the first sitting President not to meet..." anymore than Bill Clinton was the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP up until the time that he actually did. The sentence won't be true until Bush has left office still not having met with the NAACP.

I agree. Your statement should be added to the piece.Ramsquire 22:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I too agree sounds more NPOV.--198 04:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
yes, making the edit now. Wolfman 05:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
oh, well then, i see it's protected. at any rate it's a clear improvement. and the page should be unprotected, as it just encourages vandals by making them feel powerful. block them, not us. 05:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First and Second term pages

I don't know why, but some one removed the links to George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as president of the United States I added them back to the see also section.--The_stuart 19:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again, some one has removed the links to these pages. I thought that discussion was supposed to come before removing something from this page. I don't see any reason why links to these pages shouldn't be incluided some where on this page. Until there is discussion as to why they shouldn't be on this page I'm going to keep putting them back. I'm not try start any kind of conflict, only discussion.--The_stuart 18:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the link to Bush's first term and second term because I find it strange to point to other articles that are basically discussing the same things as this article. Also, I explained my edit above in the section entitled "Three Comments". I am just confused as to why we would need separate links since the topic of this article concerns the life and presidency of Bush. Ramsquire 21:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because, after only one term, the page is already 57k. Spinning off sections to separate pages (and replacing them with summaries!) is standard practice as articles grow.
—wwoods 21:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But wouldn't it make more sense to just prune out the unnecessary stuff. It is weird that Bush's one term page would be larger than Clinton's two terms page. Maybe we should try to format the page so that all pages on world leaders follow a very similiar format, but if there are other things the person is noted for, e.g Nixon and Watergate, have that under a separate title. The reason I proposed the edit is that Bush's page is very unlike all the other US president pages, containing sections on world and domestic views on the Presidency, which maybe can be streamlined into the body of the rest of the article. Just an idea.Ramsquire 20:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer to use the existing split by subject matter -- to prune the sections on foreign and domestic policy, moving a lot of the detail to those respective daughter articles. A particular reader is more likely to want to know something like what Bush did on economic matters, regardless of which term it was in, than to want to know what happened specifically before January 20, 2005. JamesMLane 03:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As for the Clinton comparison, recent subjects tend to attract more attention than older ones. The article on Bill Clinton is much longer than the article on Thomas Jefferson. JamesMLane 10:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Bush just happend to be president now, so more things are going to be written about him. Later presidents will also probably get exstensive articles as well. Its just a matter of the timing that his presidency will be so well documented.--The_stuart 16:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that since Bush is in office now, it seems like everything he does will have historical significance and should be included in this article. Things like the SEC investigation will have no historical significance in four years, but yet paragraphs are dedicated to it in this articel. I think we have to fight the urge to include every possible angle and keep the article simple. I know it would be too difficult now, but perhaps we should have a specific format for world leaders that we have to stick to, instead of the add everything we can think of going on now. It is ridiculous that a one term president already has all this information in his article. I do like the idea of using the foreign and domestic policy split over first term/second term split though.Ramsquire 18:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Resignations

I just compared the current version of the page to the version by VerilyVerily at 05:27, 12 Dec 2004 diff. One major omission is the following paragraph. Since I'm aware that this page is being attacked by vandals, I'm copying it here in case it is vandalism that has been missed (it probably isn't, but I'm being extra cautious).

"Within a few weeks after the 2004 election, several Cabinet members announced their resignations: Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and Secretary of Health of Human Services Tommy Thompson. Bush has announced his nominations of Condoleezza Rice to replace Powell, Alberto R. Gonzales to replace Ashcroft, Margaret Spellings to replace Paige, Carlos Gutierrez to replace Evans, Mike Johanns to replace Veneman, and Bernard Kerik to replace Ridge, although Kerik has declined the position." --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, I replaced that paragraph with the table of "Proposed second term cabinet" to make it all more readable. I may be a vandal, though, as I've been accused in the past.  :) Jewbacca 04:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected that this might have been the intention, but I thought it was worth querying just the same. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were some changes during the first term, and some continuity between the first and second terms. I don't think breaking it out this way is best for the long run. When the dust settles after most of the confirmation hearings, we should go back to a single unified table (with dates), and a paragraph noting the spate of changes at the end of 2004. For now, though, a separate table is reasonable, to accommodate all these unconfirmed nominees or intended nominees, who can't yet be listed as Cabinet members. JamesMLane 05:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My thoughts precisely. We finally agree on something :) But yes, we should merge it to look like the table at Bill Clinton after confirmations. Jewbacca 06:04, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Most vandalized page on Wikipedia?

It sure seems like it. Every time I visit this page, typically half of the current History actions on the screen are vandalism reverts. --I run like a Welshman 22:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if these things are tracked, in a meaningful way, but the impact here is probably less than on other pages because the page is actively worked, by experienced wikipedian's, reverting the vandalism is a minor nusance. You will also usually many substantive changes to the page on any given day. Really, once you gain some experience, it is hardly a bother at all.--Silverback 15:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's probably to do with the amount of traffic this article recieves, Bush being about the most visible figure worldwide. Michael Moore and Adolf Hitler are two articles I've looked at that also recieve a lot of vandalism. At least there doesn't seem to be a revert war going on, like there was with the John McCain page a few weeks ago. Diceman 15:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have not/did not

I changed As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised about inaccurate counting of votes and other irregularities, especially in Ohio, although in 2004 they *did* not lead to recounts that could affect the result. to As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised about inaccurate counting of votes and other irregularities, especially in Ohio, although in 2004 they *have* not lead to recounts that could affect the result.

I'm not making some conspiracy case that the election can be overturned, but in point of fact, it's Jan 6. when 'did not' becomes accurate. Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 20:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed "could" to "is expected to". It is technically more correct. There are enough uncounted provisional ballots and spoiled ballots to overturn the result, besides the fact that it's physically possible for there to have been fraud. Kevin Baas | talk 20:10, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Ohio the focal point of 2004 election "shadiness"

I added mention of Ohio being the focal point for suspicion over voter representation in 2004. I was oh-so-tempted to mention how the CEO of Diebold said they were committed to delivering Ohio's electoral vote to Bush in 2004..but that would've clearly been biased and I didn't want to polarize this entry. MDesigner 21:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

The recount showed a change of only 300 votes -- Get over it and let's move on First Lensman 15:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Get over it and let's move on." Nothing to see here, folks. Classic. 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities -- RyanFreisling @ 00:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other info

The page is about George W. Bush. I am looking, and thinking, things like his beliefes, financial backers, agenda and the like have a place in it. They are legitimate in an article about him, and can and should be shown, albeit neutrally. Its not just about "his acts and history as president". FT2 09:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

agreed--The_stuart 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to agree if we were doing a biography on the subjects in this page. The problem is that many of these things turn out to be apocryphal and therefore don't belong in an encyclopedia. In a biography it is more acceptable to use poetic license and rumors, than it would be in an encyclopedia article. Here we should stick to facts that can be verified (so that we don't have to keep constantly editing and adding things to the articles). For example this article says that there have been rumors that Bush has used cocaine. If it were to come out tomorrow that the cocaine use has unquestionably been verified, either way, then we'd have to change the article. If it wasn't in there, we'd wouldn't have to add it unless it affected policy or his health, or had some current importance. However, I understand I am in the minority here, most people do want everything ever written about a figure in the wiki articles. Ramsquire 22:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An explanation

this page was moved - and there were problems with the move back (someone edited before the page was replaced). Because actions weren't going through - it ended up with a move and a delete happening at the same time - and so the real page was deleted (by me!). The restore function also wasn't working - possibly because of the size of the history. Now it seems that the history is duplicated - but at least the page is back and koo got it in the right state! -- sannse (talk) 01:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History is quadruplicated. :-) Evercat 01:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep - not sure what can be done about that... hopefully a dev will be able to fix it. what a mess! -- sannse (talk)

Thanks to User:Tim Starling, the problem is fixed, so long as nobody tries to undelete the page again. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 15:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

robert jordan redirect

Someone filled out the entry for Robert Jordan as the author for Wheel of Time, so when someone clicks on the entry mentioned in Bush's business career it goes to that. How can that get fixed as a redirect or something? --kizzle 22:37, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've dabbed it into Robert Jordan (lawyer) and will now do a stub. JamesMLane 18:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bush was a cheerleader.

Bush was a cheerleading captain, at Andover, I believe, if memory serves. Somebody look it up. One of the notes to the edits to this page mentions it and assumes it's vandalism. But, no. Wrongo. He was a cheerleader.

Is it important?Ramsquire 18:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
David Letterman frequently uses an old photo of Bush as cheerleader and says, "That's exactly what our country needs, a cheerleader."--Pharos 17:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the fact that he played baseball and rugby any more important? Should that be removed as well?

If I had my way the rugby, baseball, drunk driving, his religious conversion, rumored cocaine use, the details surrounding the Harken incident, the anecdote about his jury service as Texas Governor, the entire public perceptions and assessments section and the trivia section would be removed, but I am in the minority here when it comes to how this article is presented. I believe that these articles should reach for brevity, as do most other encyclopedias. It is sort of ridiculous that a one term President has an article that is almost three times the size of two-term President and major historical figure Thomas Jefferson.Ramsquire 21:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Now a TWO (2) term President (Thank God) First Lensman 15:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's be adult about this. The issue isn't whether Bush was a cheerleader or not; it's the context in which it's presented and NPOV. This could be viewed as a "color" item—an interesting fact about someone, at least as significant as that John Kerry named his boat "Scaramouche." But simply saying "cheerleader" without context implies a short skirt and pompoms, an attempt at ridicule (POV) and an undercurrent of homophobia (worse).
IOW, I don't know the circumstances of Bush's cheerleaderness, but if its mentioned as a "color fact," we should know what "cheerleader" meant. Was he one of a bunch of guys who performed dance moves? Was he a token male in a groups of girls? Did he hold a megaphone and call out cheers while others danced? Was there anything special in his decision to enter this activity? Do it right or don't do it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I for one never thought it was important at all, just passing along information. If anyone wants to know, in the Letterman picture, he's just yelling out of a megaphone and looking cheery.--Pharos 19:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the length of the article, Ramsquire. Bush is a present day figure. We know a lot more about him than we do about Thomas Jefferson. Every bit of information that is preserved about him on here is, IMHO, good. Displaying everything can help prevent bias (for or against) and will help ensure that that information will be there for future generations. Imagine if the people of ancient times had had a Wikipedia in which to inscribe everything they knew about their culture and political leaders. -- J. Jensen 16:36, 14 Jan 2005 (CST)

Cocaine

The now-blocked 216 has a point, does he not? Should we really carry accusations without giving any real evidence at all? Evercat 19:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see we've not reverted his removal of same. Fine. Evercat 19:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The cocaine "allegations" are just endearing and humanizing personal anecdotes. Supporters probably think they add color to his testimony, and opponents can hope that someday he'll remember that prison would have denied the country a great leader in its time of need, and end the hypocritical drug war.--Silverback 19:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We give the evidence for what we state, namely that Bush has been accused of having used cocaine. It's NPOV to report that accusation, which has enough currency in the political world to be notable whether or not it's true. We don't assert it is true. JamesMLane 21:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The cocaine allegations have no place in this encyclopedia. The source of the allegations came from a single book from a discredited man. Just because something is alleged in a book (particularly one from a no-name author instead of say, Bob Woodward) does not mean it needs to be given space in an encyclopedia. I saw a book that claimed Bill Clinton was part of a murder conspiracy that resulted in the death of Vince Foster and others. The book is at your book store right now. Does that mean the murder "allegations" should be included in Clinton's entry? Of course not. And in the very least, if we must include "allegations" from a discredited author and a discredited book, we must at least say that the allegations were never proven and are not widely considered credible.

Let's not discuss the vetted fact concerning ALL the drugs John F. Kennedy was hopped up on While He WAS President. Noooooo! But, Let's just state every innuendo, every speculation, every lie, fostered on the public by rabid Liberals bent on the character assassination of George W. Bush, and present it as fact in this encyclopedia. Just because a Liberal spouts something doesn't make it true. These items need to be vetted. Place them in the discussion area before posting to the article. FirstLensman 16:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


=Hayes

although in 2004 they have not lead to recounts that would affect the result. George W. Bush is the only President to win re-election after losing the popular vote in his first election. The other three, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison, were each defeated in their bid for a second term.


I don't believe has ran for a second term in 1880 or at least he was not the GOP candidate Garfield was.

Cut down the article

The foreign and domestic policy sections have already been placed into other articles but are still too large in this article - it's 56k last I checked. I think it'd be best to further summarise those sections where possible. I would do it but have no particular interest or knowledge about this topic. violet/riga (t) 23:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oil companies

What the article stated about Bush's career in the oil business was that he founded Arbusto; Arbusto changed its name to Bush Exploration, and under that name was sold to Spectrum 7; Spectrum 7 had Bush as its CEO and went bankrupt; Spectrum 7 was saved by Harken Energy; Bush became a director of Harken Energy, which encountered some financial difficulties, from which it extricated itself through an arrangement with Harvard.

It appears to me, however, that Spectrum 7 did not go bankrupt. It lost money and might well have gone bankrupt except that it was saved by the Harken deal. There's a detailed account of Bush's career in the awl bidness in this cached Village Voice article by the reputable James Ridgeway (I hope this link works): [1] To my mind, "bankrupt" implies a formal filing, by the company or by one or more creditors, in a Bankruptcy Court. Even if it turns out that Spectrum 7 actually did go bankrupt, I find no support for the statement that was added to the lead section of this article that Bush managed "several oil companies which went bankrupt". Accordingly, I've reworded that passage in the lead section and the more detailed discussion of these companies later on. JamesMLane 04:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that what seems to me to be the undeniable and somewhat germane fact that, prior to getting elected partially on the promise of 'running the country like a business' his experience with running a business seemed to consist mainly of overseeing their accumulation of massive deficits, is being NPOVed over. Perhaps the use of the words 'unsuccessful businessman' to refer to someone who presided over the serial running of several oil companies into the groud is too NPOV; but at least the observation that the companies over which he presided have not, on the whole, exactly been models of competitive economic success should be able to be presented in some sort of objective wording. Gzuckier 17:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the lead section, I think what we have now is appropriate. I agree that his poor track record in the private sector is germane, but it should be presented in the section about his business career. There, I think the objective wording is simply to describe the history of his companies, as we do. JamesMLane 08:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I think we should take out the part that says his term is scheduled to end on jan 20 , 2009. It sounds like the writer is anxious to have him out of there. In other words, not a NPOV. --Dmm246 06:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You could read this passage in the article as being POV in either direction -- reassuring Bush admirers that he's in for four more years, even if he can't hold the support of members of his own party, or consoling Bush detractors that the nightmare will end in 2009. The reason to leave it in has nothing to do with POV, but because it's useful information. Many readers will be more familiar with a parliamentary system (like the UK's) in which a leader doesn't serve for a set term. JamesMLane 08:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I really doubt that most americans don't know that the president serves a four year term. Regarding you comment "it's useful information" I am sure there is a lot of useful information that negative POV users would like to put in which didn't make it but I think this is one of them. You don't have to put a positive spin on saying he got for more years and fill it with praise but I think we should just leave it out. I am more just voicing an opinion than saying we must change it. If more people think we should change it then thats fine.--Dmm246 17:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that most Americans would know. That's not the criterion, though:
Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible. The reader is probably reading the article to learn. It's quite possible the reader knows nothing at all about the subject: the article needs to explain it to them.
(from Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader) That's why I mentioned above that many readers would be more familiar with the systems used in other countries, in which the leader doesn't serve a fixed term. JamesMLane 20:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This seems to me like an fairly innocent, utterly harmless idea. It's a fact. I think having it in there is educational and appropriate. -- J. Jensen 16:44 14 Jan 2005 (CST)

Medical diagnoses by political partisans

Those who feel that the "dry drunk" and "cocaine" allegations are appropriate and NPOV say that the allegations have been made, and we are just reporting them, without stating they are true. Taking it in good faith that these statements are sincere, we need to give the reader context. The "dry drunk" allegations do not come from medical journals but from political partisans, with one article illustrated with Bush as a wino. As for Cocaine, those charges have been made against other politicians (including Clinton). The only significant source for this allegation is Hatfield's book. We could also note the man was an ex-felon (convicted of trying to have a former boss murdered) who sets up the perfect unprovable journistic setup: "Bush was arrested but his father had the record expunged." Most of the people who have taken Hatfield's book seriously are the ones who want to believe it's true and the man himself committed suicide as he was being pursued for credit card fraud. Ah, the reliable sources that Wikipedia depends on to inform the people. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your edit gives the false impression that the cited article was written by Cockburn, when in fact it was written by a professor who'd previously authored a book on addiction. I'm deleting the language about Cockburn. If you want to convey the point accurately, it would have to be something like: "(This article, written by a professor of social work who had co-authored a book on addiction treatment, was published in Counterpunch, a magazine edited by Bush detractor Alexander Cockburn, who also writes for the leftist magazine The Nation.)" One could give a similar treatment to the Bisbort article. I think all this is more detail than the point warrants -- readers can figure out for themselves that statements strongly supportive or condemnatory of any controversial person might be influenced by the writer's bias -- but I could live with including it if people feel it necessary to get in a dig at Counterpunch. JamesMLane 09:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK. I will accept your wording if noone works to dilute it further. Please remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If we read something like this in the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, I doubt we would say, "well the editors expect us to assume that they've included this highly prejudicial material with the expectation it was written by fire-breathing partisans." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You placed my suggested wording after all the links, giving the impression that it applied to all of them. I moved it so that it followed only the reference to the Wormer article. (Note that I said, "One could give a similar treatment to the Bisbort article." If you want to undertake the effort of drafting yet another gratuitous slam at a Bush critic, go ahead, but I think the paragraph already looks pretty silly.) JamesMLane 10:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the paragraph looks pretty silly as it is, since the subtext is innuendo that Bush's policy are a result of his being a "dry drunk." I know Jimbo Wales' opinion doesn't necessarily carry any extra weight in Wikipedia, but I agree with his statement that the choice of what to include and exclude is in itself POV, even if the material is described accurately.
But before leaving this subject, I want to make one point: I was a lifelong (and proud) liberal from 1953 (McCarthy) to c.1996 when liberals I knew suddenly decided they weren't anti-war anymore, and a sometime socialist. I never voted for a Republican for president until 2004 (I voted for Nader in 2000). I voted for Dukakis, for chrissakes—I voted for a man who looked like Rocky Raccoon in a tank because I was worried about the rightward drift of the Supreme Court! Arrrrgggh! So there is a point I wish liberals would take to heart: it has long been a habit to portray those who don't vote for the people liberals want (or the politicians liberals don't like) as stupid, or ignorant, or wicked, or deceived, or "troglodites" (popular in the 1970s) or now, as non-drinking drunks. As long as this attitude, which runs from condescension to operate hostilty persists, liberalism will not come back. Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's well-known in liberal circles that all conservatives are lowbrow idiots. It's equally well-known among conservatives that liberals are latte-sipping elitist wimps. Oh, and we all hate America. So the only lesson here is that people with strong political opinions are happy to believe and repeat unflattering stereotypes about their adversaries. Anyway, while I appreciate your advice about how we can "come back", I must note that the Democratic candidate has gotten the most votes in three of the last four Presidential elections. Now, obviously, we're going to get slaughtered in 2008, when voters look at all the thriving democracies in the Middle East, and the robust economy and federal budget surplus produced by the tax cuts for the rich... well, sarcasm mode OFF, back to editing. JamesMLane 04:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, you see, sarcasm or no, therein is the problem. This isn't a duel of which side has the juiciest epithets against the other; it's that Democrats have been sinking, and the explanation is to blame it on the Republicans, or on the voters. Isn't possible that the fault, dear JML, lies not in their enemies, but in themselves, that the Democrats are now underlings?
But to one subtantive matter, yes, the Democratic candidate got the most popular votes in three of the last four presidential elections, but lets look at that. Clinton (who I voted for twice) pointed the way to Democrats getting the white house. Play to the middle, reform some of those Democratic icons (like welfare) that need reform, leave the economy alone, look to the middle class. But right now Clinton's DLC is dirt in the mouths of many, if not most, Democrats. And Al Gore? Yes, he got 500,000+/- more popular votes than Bush, but he should have been a slam dunk. A good debater over an uneasy one. Mr. Technology. Intellectual. And the Vice President under a Democratic President with high popularity ratings, a booming (until the last year) economy, and apparent peacetime. And all he could do was barely more than tie dumb little George W. Bush. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You touch on an important subject. Quite a few Democrats agree that a better campaign would have produced a cheatproof victory in each of the last two elections. The trouble is that half of them think "a better campaign" means a move to the center, and the other half think "a better campaign" means a more vigorously left-wing program. Resolving that dilemma is somewhat beyond the scope of this talk page, however. JamesMLane 06:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course, the diagnosis was reached without a direct physical examination or medical history which might have revealed or been able to rule out other possible causes of the symptoms inferred from the public record and the diagnosis is not an officially recognized medical condition. Note, that co-authoring a book may get you on the talk show circuit, but is not a peer reviewed publication. That said, I think wikipedia should reflect its manner of creation and not merely attempt to duplicate the dryness of brittanica. Not including obviously controversial material might induce users to over trust it. --Silverback 10:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I will also note that Katherine van Wormer, the author, is not a Doctor of Social Work (I checked) and certainly not a medical doctor and therefore no more entitled to make a diagnosis than I am, even if she had examined Bush. I'm quite familiar with this. My younger daughter is autistic, and couldn't be educationally placed as such until she had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist (not a psychologist), who is an MD -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease

Boy, this will be controversial as hell, but what the heck. It looks like the bulge observed during debate is actually a medical instrument instead of a radio receiver. Below are the two articles related to Bush's bulge. [2] and [3]

"It looks like the bulge [...] is actually a medical instrument [...]? Oh, please, you need more than a speculative piece in a European leftist web site. If CNN or some other outlet with a press reputation says so, it might mean something. The belle ciao article is really a stretch. SO Bush is on powerful statin drugs. Oooooooooo, so is a huge hunk of the otherwise healthy US population. I've been on statins for several years and I'm Bush's age and have no cardiovascular disease. Simple high cholesterol--it's supposed to help me in the future. We'll see. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush Picture

We need to change the picture of Bush because in this picture his eyebrows are bushy and it makes him look like an ape

We usually use the official picture. You can confirm that this picture is Bush's official picture if you Google the phrase "miserable failure", which will take you to his bio on the White House website. JamesMLane 19:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, do not insult apes now! -- Nils 12:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush Picutre

We really should change that bush picture it makes me wanna puke!

Drunk / Drugs / etc

It seems that every time I return to check this out, someone has edited out my completely factual info about his past as a drunk and a drug user. Also, it seems that just about every somewhat unfavorable fact about George W. Bush is removed as well, such as the cheerleader thing, etc.

Most recent example: someone edited stuff out and put "this was written by angry democrats." True I am a democrat, but I don't stoop to the level of vandalism on an educational resource, as many republicans tend to do on John F. Kerry's page.

What is there that I can do to keep people from editing out my facts? Should I leave comments with sources or what? I mean... a video of him taking back shots at a party in 1992 would seem to be enough, right?

I believe these facts and accusations of alcohol and drug use are very important and educational. They should not be left out because some republican doesn't seem to like it. If John F. Kerry had been arrested for DUI, I would want that on his page too.

I agree that this article seems to have been seriously messed up, although I don't agree with all your points.
  • A whole paragraph of completely uncontroversial information, such as his birthplace and parents' names, was deleted. I've restored it.
  • Also deleted were two pictures, one of Bush with his family and one of Bush in his National Guard uniform. I've restored the pics.
  • The addition of the statement that Bush signed up in the Guard "Specifically asking to not be sent to Vietnam" wasn't sourced. I've deleted it unless someone can provide substantiation.
  • There was unacceptable POVing in both directions. The NPOV approach is to report controversial points without taking sides and without wording that's biased one way or the other.
    • The language about Bush's drinking was full of "supposedly" and "claim" for his side of it, and said that the opposite view is "well documented". I understand the temptation to take sides -- the people editing the Killian documents article just aren't satisfied with listing all the evidence, they too have to make sure that the article echoes their view of the weight of the evidence. It's wrong when Bush partisans do it there, and wrong when Bush detractors do it here. That Bush isn't drinking any more should certainly be presented as something he says, not as an undisputed fact, but we can make clear that it's his statement without going out of our way with the "supposedly" stuff to cast doubt on it. I've tried to clean up these passages.
    • The Hatfield allegations should be reported as allegations, not suppressed and not reported as fact, and with the responses also reported. I've restored the first paragraph about Hatfield; the text of the article when I looked at it just now quoted Bush's side of the story ("He also called Hatfield's book 'totally ridiculous'.") without naming the book or summarizing its content. At some point, however, the paragraph about Hatfield's book picked up a statement to the effect that the record of Bush's cocaine arrest was in fact expunged. That's Hatfield's allegation, not an established fact.
  • One point I still have doubts about is this insert about the space exploration initiative: "in January of 2005 the White House released a new Space Transportation Policy fact sheet which confirms the plan is still on track." My preliminary impression is that that's a POV overstatement and should be reworded. I've left it alone for now, but I think it needs attention. JamesMLane 10:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maybe somebody could update the article as to how Bush's previously announced War on Steroid Abuse is coming along. Grin grin. Gzuckier 21:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The source for Bush asking not to be sent to nam is all over the place. a google search found this ...which you may agree is a valid source (his own form). Andsat 04:40, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)

Oh come on here, I see Kerry's signature on his form, but I don't see Bush's on the part that is supposed to be from his form.--MONGO 12:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the allegations should be mentioned although not given undue weight. If someone has a problem with the weight and context given at present, perhaps the thing to do is to edit to add more context and adjust weight, rather than try to remove all mention of the allegations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inuendo and slander

When I came to this page for the first time, it was after I had utilized another article for reference and dechiphered an obvious non NPOV. This POV was left leaning and I as surprised as I have used Wiki for some time now. So on a hunch, I queried George Bush and was appalled! The rampant slander was so apparent, I thought it was written by some left wing extremists and decided to start editing. I haven't decided as to whether I will continue to edit this page, becuase I have lost all faith that the major contributors to this article are to the extreme left. I find it funny, reading through others bios how young, perhaps not American citizens, and how liberal in attitude are those that I am arguing with here. I mentioned to one, that since he lived in Germany, perhaps I could utilize the same techniques employed by the likes of him and quote or state as fact that a book had been written by unreliable sources that Adolph Hitler wasn't such a bad guy and he had little to do with the murder of millions. These books do exist, in published form, and they are AN OPINION, yet we know that the opposite is true and therefore in good taste, we exclude them from any discussion here in Wiki. In a nutshell, this article utilizes POV and that POV is anti bush. Anyone that thinks that this rubbish of an article is NPOV is blind. I have been warned and etc. and I really don't care. So in an effort to show what ridiculous is, I created my user page and made it as preposterous as possible. MONGO--MONGO 11:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess it shows how wide the gulf between some editors can be that I, a European, at first took your reference to "how liberal in attitude are those that I am arguing with here" as a compliment. Indeed in British English this sentence is impossible to take as anything other than a compliment as far as I am aware.

That aside, I notice that the Adolf Hitler page does indeed give room to some fringe speculation: the theory that Hitler had some Jewish ancestry. The presentation of the theory (which is well known enough I think that many people reading this will have heard it) does not amount to an endorsement. Nor does the presentation of the allegations of Hatfield and Salon magazine's speculations with respect to the drug testing program amount to an endorsement of those positions. They shoud be mentioned as opinions, with such factual basis as might exist to support or refute them., because they are common opinions held by educated, intelligent people about Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget the words of Churchill when he spoke of political leanings....it goes somewhat like> a man under thirty who is not a liberal has no heart, but a man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brain. Being liberal is a good thing...being blindly so is not. I hope you're no older than 29.

Liberal has an entirely different meaning in Europe. Don't confuse them with US democrats, hippies or guerillas ;)

The major contributors to this article are brainless or lacking in enough of a brain to see that the entire article is speculative and that I am convinced that the insertion of the Salon story and the book by Hatfield are unworthy of mention in that they are opinion, inuendo and without the ability to stand up in a court of law. I don't care if because they were written then they should be mentioned. I care about quantifiable truths that would be accepted as facts and be fact based. Lets get the inuendo of Hitler having Jewish ancestry out of that article too and then, just maybe, this stuff will start to become NPOV. --MONGO 13:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Churchill himself switched from Conservative to Liberal and back again at key points in his career. He had no problems with the term "liberal". I have not yet reached the age at which Churchill ceased representing the Liberal party in Parliament.

Now on the section that you have removed, it reports some claims that were made in Salon and were widely reported during the election campaign. Why then did you remove it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salon.com's February, 2004 report

MONGO removed this:

In February, 2004, Salon claimed that Bush's cessation of flying in the spring of 1972 and his subsequently refusal to take a physical exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which, Salon said, meant random drug testing for pilots, including Guardsmen.

I believe it's adequately referenced--if preferred I can include a complete citation for the precise article, or even quote a relevant paragraph. Is there anything else you think should be provided to satisfy your problems with this, Mongo?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/index_np.html

See article referenced above --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Gentleman" Cs

I see alot of detractors trying to make hay about George W. Bush's "Gentleman" Cs he received in Yale. I'd like to amend this section to at least consider another POV regarding his performance in Yale. Here is a conservative (some say ultra-conservative) gentleman attending a liberal institution. The instructors are stubbornly Liberal in their views. A student who tries to argue their conservative beliefs would be labeled wrong and be given low grades. I am not saying that Bush is a genius. But, I am saying that he was disenfranchised (to use the term du jour) and his grades were depressed because of this conflict. He did go on and do much better when getting his MBA. Because Yale is a Liberal institution, I also wouldn't give much credence to the notion that Yale let Bush skate through. First Lensman 15:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • If you have a public source for someone making this point about Bush's Cs, please feel free to add it. But if you just thought of this and there is no external source then it may be "original research", not encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Original research? Wishful thinking more like it. I second the call for external sources. -- Nils 12:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that I got you dangling on the hook, check out the New York TImes article titled "[Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's]. As you can guess, it is an unflattering article about the President's Yale years. But three items can illuminate some of the discussion here. The first is the quote "Mr. Bush was pressed during his years at Yale, 1964 to 1968, to take sides in the great battles then unfolding over politics, civil rights, drugs and music. Mostly he was a noncombatant in those upheavals, but when forced to choose, he ultimately retreated to the values and ideals established by his parents' generation, and to their accepted methods of rebelling." My interpretation of this is that he remained conservative in his views. This would not have been looked upon favorably by the faculty or his fellow classmates in Yale. The second relates to the alleged drug usage mentioned in another section, that "For all the buffeting that late-night television has given Mr. Bush over questions of drug use, he was in most respects a very conventional young man, and classmates say they do not recall him ever using marijuana or other illegal drugs." This from the New York Times??? If there were any evidence that President Bush used drugs, the New York Times would have plastered it all over the place. Finally, the article addresses President Bush's intelligence. While going through some anecdotes about his grades, the most telling quote is that: "This guy is very smart," said Lanny J. Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton and a supporter of Al Gore, as well as a fraternity brother of Mr. Bush at Yale. "This notion of lightness is totally missing the point. There are many smart people, intellectually smart as well as street smart, who don't have the energy or motivation at times to act smart, but that doesn't mean they're not smart. There are times when George coasted through Yale courses or through exams or seemed overly facetious. But don't mistake that for not being intellectually acute." The article then reaffirms my point by stating, "yet ever since he showed up at Yale as a freshman in 1964, Mr. Bush has resolutely cultivated an anti-intellectualism and chafed at what he describes as the arrogance of liberal intellectual elitists." Because this is a New York Times article, I say that the Yale establishment chafed at Bush's attitudes as much as Bush chafed at them. The article also states that "Mr. Bush's tension with what he sees as an arrogant Eastern elite, and his perception of himself as outside it, seem to have arisen initially from the clash of generations that occurred while he was at Yale." Again, I state that the tension went both ways, causing Bush to form an "...association with a community of gifted people with whom Mr. Bush would form lifelong friendships -- and Mr. Bush's strategy at Yale was clearly to build great friendships, more than a great transcript. It was also a perfectly reasonable strategy, for one could argue that Yale graduates in the 1960's got further on the networks they made than on the grades they earned." Anyway, does this suffice as a source? First Lensman 14:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you haven't found a source for your main thesis, indeed the article seems to be saying that Bush was essentially apolitical and that he personally feels that he may have suffered some prejudice because he was a Texan. But you have an excellent source for the fact that Bush isn't thought to be dim by some of his former classmates and indeed demonstrated a keen social intelligence at his fraternity house. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to read between the lines to extract cause and effect information. I think I have done so here. While the article stated that the prejudice he suffered was because he was a Texan, I have cited other statements in the article that shows the prejudice was because he was Conservative in his views. First Lensman 15:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you're drawing an inference and you're entitled to do so. I don't see anything in the article or in the sections that you have cited from it that demonstrate that the prejudice, if it existed, was because he was conservative--indeed as I have pointed out Bush himself thought that any prejudice that might have existed might have been regional. That is, those eastern intellectuals thought a guy with his Texan background and accent was dumb and probably only got in because the college had a regional quota for admissions.

The upshot of this is that if you can find someone notable drawing the inference that you draw (in the media) then you can cite that. Otherwise it would be original research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would consider the Salon article to be original research as well. I read through it and found not one credible source mentioned. I failed to find anyone notable in that article yet you portray it to be creditable.--MONGO 13:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However you personally might want to describe it, citation of an article in Salon is not original research in the sense used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Items that Wikipedia reports on may well be primary sources, which would comprise original research (everything starts as someone's original idea). Or like Salon they may comprise secondary sources (the research is originated by third parties and Salon reports on them). Wikipedia is a tertiary source in this instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Alright, stop it. I'm an ultra-liberal, Kucinich-supporting, Democrat, and yes, it is very tempting to vandalize this page, esp. today. I even wrote up a vandalized edit making reference to his last name. But actually posting it is only a detriment to the Democratic Party. It makes us seem immature and juvenile. Democrats, stop it.

Would someone please protect this page for twenty-four hows or something?

  • You voted for Kucinich? Seems like you and I made a good choice at least. I agree on the lock though, we could be spending our time doing much more productive things. :)


That amount of vanderlism recived by this article in the last 24 hours doesn't seem hugley exceptionalGeni 03:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Related links

I agree with the edits made by 69.92.137.107 that have since been reverted by Rhobite. For example, why is it necessary to link to a some random website where people try to collect signatures to impeach the President? Is this really something that important to link to?--BaronLarf 06:30, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

The VoteToImpeach item deleted by 69.92.137.107 was not a link to the website in question, but to a Wikipedia article which said, inter lia:

In the days leading up to the 2004 election, the group was cited by some conservative pundits as proof that opponents of Bush believed President Bush would win.
So it was hardly an anti-Bush link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I didn't claim that it was an anti-Bush link. Just not necessary and not something really topical in a 32k discussion of a president who has never had any serious threat of impeachment. I can see that going in the George W. Bush Category, but not in a short list of related links. But I know that trying to get a serious article about a conservative American politician written on here is like spitting in the wind, so I'm not getting my hopes up. Cheers. --BaronLarf 16:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

That has been my point...the leftist have determined that irrevelent is relevent. Thank you for a keen eye as I havene't even been able to get beyond the personal life section of the article yet due to the level of bias there alone.--MONGO 10:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "Dry Drunk" nonsense

This article is a partisan opinion NOT based on fact and NOT based on a physical or mental examination. I've left in all the stuff that the President has admitted to, the "reckless youth", the "DUI", the cessation of drinking at 40, because they are admitted to by the president himself, or substantiated by documentation. The article does not demonstrate a NPOV. Items should be put up in the discussion area first so that the information can be vetted by the users. (See "Gentleman's Cs section above"). Then, there will be some massaging of the information that would eventually wind up in the article. Just posting information directly into the article is just not productive. First Lensman 23:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"This article is a partisan opinion NOT based on fact and NOT based on a physical or mental examination." I assume that, by "this article", you mean the Wormer article, not the Wikipedia article. You're completely correct about Wormer's opinion concerning Bush. Of course, exactly the same could be said about Bush's opinion concerning Saddam (he had WMD's, he was involved in 9/11, etc.). Should we censor out Bush's pretexts for launching aggressive war just because they've largely been exposed to be pretexts? No. We report these opinions and attribute them. To say that Saddam had WMD's is opinion. To say that Bush claimed he did, however, is an undeniable fact. A point that that people often miss is that reporting and attributing a POV is perfectly consistent with NPOV. JamesMLane 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't Bush's opinion concerning WMD. He was informed that they did have WMD by the United Nations, NATO, The members of the European Union, and the U.S. Intelligence Services. First Lensman 01:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Don't blame Bush for his faulty intelligence. For what it's worth, I agree with James - decribing POV opinion is not POV. To understand and contextualize an issue, POV's must be explored, in an NPOV way. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
James, I think if Wormer based her claims on observations similar to those a medical professional might make, people might not have such a problem with the paragraph. But she's claiming that Bush has a behavioral disorder because his rhetoric is not to her liking. She cites "regime change", a phrase that predates his presidency, as an example of his "extreme language." A remark from one speech, not repeated to my knowledge, indicates an "obsession" with revenge. She cites a sentence, "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients..." that would sound absurd if replaced with its negation "We need not be prepared..." So her conclusions end up looking shaky and random to someone who doesn't share her political bias, not much more credible than the report of the Lovenstein Institute. We could put a paragraph here for every allegation on Bush family conspiracy theory, but we don't. If Wormer's article has a place here, I think it's the External links section. Gazpacho 09:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're deluding yourself. We have been involved in an aggressive war with Iraq since 1991. Repeatedly we bombed Iraq because of their consistent violations of the cease fire agreement. We maintained at tremendous cost in tax dollars a no fly zone and imposed sanctions which were detrimental to everyone because we were forced by agreements with our partners to not invade Iraq, overthrow their government and establish a democracy. Bush asserted that there were WMD because the evidence supported it, and it is therefore not a POV. Regardless, the fact that none have been found doesn't mean that they don't or didn't exist. The major contributors to this article seem to fail to understand that and blame Bush for making a decision based on the evidence. --MONGO 10:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, I don't think we need to turn every content dispute (or any content dispute) into an open argument about Iraq. Gazpacho

Most of my argument has been about content, this is my first about Iraq...what are you refering to?--MONGO 12:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my comments in the page history as to why I deleted the "dry drunk" info from the main article again, I meant to say I would post a comment, not a link, in discussion. Anyway, it seems to me this info really does belong in the exlink section because there are some issues of partisanship in the study itself. There is also the fact that this study is not well-known among the general public which might account for an exception if that were the case. I don't see anything wrong with having this link in the exlink section, but it does seem rather biased to put in the main article. That's my opinion. --Xaliqen 01:00, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean suppressing all criticism of Bush

People keep trying to remove passages that are unflattering to Bush, notably by arguing against the criticism -- Hatfield was a felon, Wormer didn't examine Bush, the Yale professors who graded him were probably liberal bigots, etc. The NPOV policy certainly requires that we not endorse any particular opinion, pro or con -- but NPOV permits, indeed requires, the reporting of those opinions, properly attributed. I'm restoring the huge mass of material that's been removed. That's not to say that all of it is perfectly OK. For example, there's this statement about Bush's governorship: "His tenure in office featured a positive reputation for bipartisan leadership." Now, that's an opinion, and unlike the negative things about Bush, it's not properly attributed and sourced. An article about a controversial subject has a particular need for editors to cite their sources. Someone notable could probably be found who said something like that, which is why I'm leaving it in for now, but it should be attributed. JamesMLane 16:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As I've stated already, I left in the DUI, the "Irresponsible youth", the drinking, et. al. But, when someone puts out an attack piece insinuating that He's a "Dry Drunk" without ever examining him either physically or mentally, I say that it has not been vetted properly for inclusion in the article. First Lensman 13:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could pick this entire article apart with the constant unfootnoted inuendo such the repeated use of the terminology of "others have said" "it is the opinion" and each and everytime, this is without a reference to a source of who the "others" are. Let's look at another figure who may be considered to be a controversial leader, namely Robert E. Lee. Now in Lee's case, there is plenty of room for allusion, opinion and positions that are not NPOV. Yet I fail to find them there...the entire article meets the criteria of size and shape and offers a basic synopisis of the facts though in a brief format somewhat lacking in details that may be of importance to those that need more to diet on. I believe that the vast majority of the articles in Wiki are without bias and without inuendo based on weak and transparently leftist or right wing bias and take a NPOV. In the case of a few though, primarily those of more recent political aspects, it is hopelessly biased and the truth is that this bias is to the left. Constant reference to the kind of inuendo by those that perpetrate this to be good science fail to see that the support of the leftist arguments are no more reliable for truth than the National Enquirer would be. The reasoning that since it was written and therefore an opinion and is mentioned along with detractions that the source is without support is a built in refutation of the evidence and therefore it should be excluded. "This guy or organization said this, yet this guy or organization is essentially an unreliable witness to said events"...how does that philosophy make it credible to be included in what is supposed to be a NPOV article? With that in mind, it seems no different that an article on North American mammals should discuss Bigfoot because on at least 50 occasions, Bigfoot was spotted here or there as reported in certain issues of the National Enquirer. Editing out the inuendo of this article is good reporting. If anyone thinks I edited out all the "bad" or negative information about Bush, they are gravely mistaken. JamesMLane and similar charged persons are passionately opposed to Bush, while I am no fan of his, I am conservative and would not have voted for Kerry under almost any circumstance. Yet, polical affiliations aside, the negative aspects of this article are placed here without regard to their questionable source due to the fact that the detractors of Bush wish to slander him.--MONGO 21:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can assure you, MONGO, that there's no leftist bias in favor of Robert E. Lee. (Remember, it's leftists who want to remove the Confederate flag from U.S. state flags, who criticize Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University because of its segregationist policies, etc.) Instead, the difference between the two articles is that Bush is a contemporary politician. Articles on such people attract editors who support the subject and editors who oppose him or her. Both sides have a wealth of online source material (far more than in Lee's case). A better analogy would be John Kerry. He actually served in Vietnam, yet you'll see that the Wikipedia article reports the criticisms of his service. For example, it notes that "two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott ... have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved." In fact, just as with Bush, the back-and-forth about what he did during the Vietnam War got so extensive that it was spun off to a separate article, leaving behind only a summary. That's why the articles on George W. Bush military service controversy and John Kerry military service controversy were created. As for unfootnoted statements, we don't need to provide a reference for noncontroversial stuff like his place of birth. Although you complain about "the repeated use of the terminology of 'others have said'", I searched the article for the word "others" and found only two uses: a quotation from Bush, and a reference to other previous elections. I invite you to call our attention to any specific passages that you think should be sourced. JamesMLane 23:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did that aleady when I mentioned the Salon article. Where is their source for their allegation? I could start on online magazine or paper which made plenty of inuendo and provided propaganda of some sort or another. Because I said it in my paper, would it be a citable source for Wiki articles even if it itself provided no references or named sources? Depending on which version of this article you are talking about is the number of times you can find the passage of, in essence, "others have said" or similar. I once counted it 5 times. Naturally, I wouldn't expect a footnote in regards to his date of birth. I do expect, since a simple query in Yahoo brings you to this article within 5 links, that less innocent ones may wish to research the subject without having to be subjected to it's obvious left wing sentiment and unsubstantiated propaganda.--MONGO 07:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "others have said" and the like, at least where it presents controversial unsourced material, is not acceptable. Your edit was unacceptable, MONGO. Citation of a report under NPOV does not require that the primary source of newspaper/journal-reported allegations upon which we report be available. The newspaper/journal report is encyclopedic in itself (though the lack of a named primary source can be and should be noted). The removal was also far more extensive than justified by your criticism of the Salon report. You removed the entire section starting "Katherine Van Wormer" and ending with 'knew random drug testing was going to be implemented"', with the exception of the paragraph starting "The New York Times article". I am reverting the sections you removed for these several and distinct reasons. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What Rules Should Govern Opinion Piece Links?

I created the 'Opinion Pieces' sub-section so that some of the partisan commentary could be referenced there as opposed to in the main article. However, there should probably be some rules governing what sorts of opinion pieces are best-suited to the section and the article. It seems logical that, if an opinion piece is intelligently written and references factual circumstances or sources, it should be included. It's a bit tricky, though, to know when to draw the line. Perhaps the best policy is to review each link on a submission-by-submission basis. I'd say that a good goal for this section could be to avoid simple-minded propoganda for one viewpoint or another and aim for intelligent pieces. But, I know opinions will vary. So, if anyone has any input, it would be well-appreciated.

I think we can do without the opinion pieces actually. The factual information they may contain can be gotten elsewhere, and the opinions themselves are not relevant to George Bush. I say we stick with "give people facts and let them make their own minds up." --fvw* 23:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
I think the opinions are relevant to the article because one can only gain so much insight from facts alone. But I do think they should be limited to representative intelligent examples of each viewpoint and placed in the exlinks section as opposed to within the main article. The reason I think opinions are important for this article is because of the sharply differing viewpoints over the subject-matter. It would be nearly impossible to provide solely factual information and come away with an informed perspective. --Xaliqen 23:30, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Comment on content

The article still appears as somewhat left of NPOV, yet the current revision is the best one I have seen yet as of 12:30, 24 Jan 2005 Ferkelparade. I can concede this as an adequate series of alterations, and would not disagree with internal links to the Salon reports, Hatfield's book and van Wormer's discussion, so long as they don't constitute the main body of the article and remain as links to further reading if someone chooses to read such items.--MONGO 13:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Gazpacho's summary

The summary simply eviscerated all mention of substantive reports except to repeat Bush's own denials. Since the President's past life does attract a lot of interest (the afterword to the Hatfield biography, Boehlert's Salon piece, van Wormer's bizarre ad hoc diagnosis) I don't think a summary is appropriate here, and this summary in particular does not capture the breadth of speculation directed at the President by the media both before and during his Presidency. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you admit that it's speculation, then why on earth should it be in the article? The article does need a statement of when and how long the press focused on the cocaine allegations during the 2000 campaign. But aren't citation links a better way to present claims that are just based on someone saying "maybe"? Gazpacho 18:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that the administrator(s) of this page and major contributors to this article wish to present, as a major component of the article, unsubstantiated drivel as part of the basic synopsis of the life of Bush, which explains the current protected article. Repeatedly, it has been mentioned that I consider this to be poor reporting which should be eliminated. I conceded that I would support a brief mention of the unsubstantiated bias if it were linked to another source and out of the main body of this article. Those that say that I wish to see no negative aspect of the man here are deluded. I simply wish to see the facts, without the leftist bias, that are worthy as a form of communication and worthy of this forum. That the page is protected in situ in an earlier form makes it obvious to me that the administrator(s) are not to be persuaded that their position is not NPOV and that instead they use this medium as a way to argue that the irrelevent is relevent and that what rational human beings would regard as speculation, opinion and slander would be permissible in this article. The mention of these items of dispute is one thing, the elaboration of them is another. Obviously, this article is a poor example of what normally appears in Wiki, in that it is not NPOV...it is leftist bias, plain and simple. The page was protected because the adminstrators(s) wish to filibuster any attempts to weed out bad reporting.--MONGO 20:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The source given for the van Wormer thing was CounterPunch. In my opinion this is a fairly obscure source. I propose to remove the reference to the van Wormer "analysis" unless she should be shown to be notable or a more prominent source is found than CounterPunch. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, much better. I traced the original to the Irish Times. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Wormer Article

I still say that this entire paragraph needs to be removed:

"Katherine van Wormer, a professor of social work and writer on addiction treatment, claims that Bush seems to have the mindset of a "dry drunk," an alcoholic who still exhibits thought patterns that accompany alcoholism[6] (http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html). She bases this view on her perception that his public speeches express rigidness, obsessiveness, impatience, and grandiosity. Wormer's assessment was published in Counterpunch, a magazine edited by frequent Bush detractor and Nation writer Alexander Cockburn. (See also [7] (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info/a/aa081397.htm), [8] (http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html), and [9] (http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy1019.html).)"

It has not been vetted through an actual physical or mental examination. If there were a report by a Bush physician that hinted there was "Dry Drunk" syndrome, I'd say leave it in. What we have here is someone who is trying to negatively label someone whose opinions and actions she disagrees with. Why don't we have a new article called "Wild Accusations About President Bush"? This would be a much better place to put this article! First Lensman 13:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion Wormer's claims are absolute bilge. However what is worthy of note is that a published author on addiction wrote this extraordinary nonsense about Bush and it was published in the Irish Times. We're writing a NPOV article here and this is encyclopedic by the standards we're using. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I guess I just don't agree with leaving "bilge" in. Just as I wouldn't put in the Pat Robertson claim that Bush has been sent by God to lead this country. In both cases, there is no proof. We need to have stricter criteria. Why not use the credo of Detective Friday on Dragnet -- "Just the facts"! First Lensman 14:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it is a fact that Pat Robertson claimed that Bush has been sent by God to lead his country, then Pat Robertson's prominence, and the prominence with which the claim was published, would establish whether the claim was worthy of note. The fact reported would not be "Bush sent by God" but "Famous televangelist with massive following claims Bush sent by God." This is the essence of NPOV. We don't say Bush was or was not sent by God, we say Pat Robertson says this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it isn't a proven fact, then it shouldn't be included!!! First Lensman 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:NPOV. "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." If Pat Robertson said that, it's a fact about his opinion that can be asserted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What swung it for me was The Irish Times. Published author in CounterPunch isn't much. Published author in the newspaper of record of a European nation of four million people and a longstanding US ally, that's quite a lot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A reprint in a foreign newspaper doesn't validate an article. First Lensman 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I agree absolutely that it doesn't validate it. (I believe the article was originally an opinion piece in the Irish Times, actually). What it does is make it noteworthy. If we only reported opinions that were validated, Wikipedia would be a very small website. Instead Wikipedia reports opinions that are published prominently enough to gain wide circulation. If something is in the Irish Times, I can read it by popping down to my local newsagent in London. I should expect the same is true in most large US cities. That's what I call prominent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"If we only reported opinions that were validated, Wikipedia would be a very small website." -- well at least small-er and I'm all for this !!! My concern is that by having a whole paragraph so prominent concerning an unproven opinion printed in a foriegn newspaper will make students believe it is truth, which it isn't. This encyclopedia is a resource that is not only used by adults, who can make the determination that it's hogwash, but by students, who can't make that determination. That is why we have to stick to "proven" facts and place a reference to the opinion piece in the Irish Times down in the "opinion" section that was just started. First Lensman 15:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If "students" will believe something is true just because it's printed in a newspaper, Wikipedia cannot help them. It is not Wikipedia policy to suppress reporting of opinion for fear of being seen to endorse that opinion, but you're welcome to start your own fork of Wikipedia that operates on policy to be determined by you. If we stuck only to proven facts we'd have to get rid of all reported third party opinion--this on a person who owes his office to the opinion of third parties. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, elected officials are especially appropriate subjects for inclusion of third-party opinions -- although, as Tony Sidaway has said, reporting the facts about opinions is our general policy anyway. If someone wants to add Robertson's opinion that Bush was sent by God, I think that would be an appropriate addition, if it's properly sourced. (I did a quick search and found Robertson saying a year ago that God had told him Bush would win in a landslide: "I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004." [4] I didn't find Robertson saying specifically that Bush was "sent by God" but I didn't check all the hits.) Robertson's opinion is quite clearly bilge (at least, it's clear to me), but we can let the readers decide for themselves. JamesMLane 17:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to continue off-topic, but I suspect that any such claim by Robertson would be an urban legend from those who never see his show. He has denounced Bush repeatedly. Others may have made such claims. Gazpacho 18:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standard for evidentiary inclusion into our legal system? The DUI stays in because we have the record of the DUI. The drinking stays in because the President admitted to drinking and then giving it up. The "AWOL" charge is much more problematic. If you look at the President's record, he earned enough points (842) his first four years, which amounts to over 16 years of service credits at the minimum of 50 rate. So, he's more than earned his honorable discharge. He did skip some months, but the National Guard allows people to skip months as long as they are made up, which the president did. But, it has to be included not because of it's veracity, but as a note about the rabid attacks against the reelection of this president. The "Dry Drunk" was one article written without any substantiating proof and was not carried by the U.S. press or the Democratic party. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it doesn't warrant a whole paragraph in this article. A citation at the bottom under the new "opinion" section would suffice. First Lensman 19:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Protected

It is more apparent than ever to me that those that disagree with some of the context of this article are to be denied the opportunity of editing and that the administrator(s) pretend to open this up to a forum of discussion whereby a concensus will be reached that will result in those that are not to the extreme left and wish this article to actually be NPOV will find appeasement. Rubbish. The page is protected in an effort to maintain the bad reporting and to extend as encyclopedic left wing bias and propaganda. I doubt anything disussed here will result in any major improvements to this rag of an article because the administrator(s) are hopelessly POV, anti-Bush and determined to slander his character. They impose martial law because they are unwilling to admit that their position is weak. We can argue about the situation forever, but there is no doubt in my mind that unless you agree with the major contributors of this rag you will never get appeasement. Let's not pretend to think that we can hash things out here. Open to discussion...it's like farting in the wind.--MONGO 20:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"They impose martial law because they are unwilling to admit that their position is weak"
1. What position?
2. How is this position weak?
--kizzle 00:14, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. It's a core wiki premise and without it, pages wind up protected and uneditable... -- RyanFreisling @ 20:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with MONGO on one thing. The current protection of the page does not seem to be justified. There is a minor content dispute but nothing that is likely to cause great acrimony, and all parties seem to be behaving well. There has been some vandalism but I understand that is normal for this article and the regulars have all dealt well with that (a vprotect would be more appropriate in such a case, anyhow).
Has the administrator who protected the page made an entry here explaining why he did so? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Protection of this page was requested by two separate people on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and if you have an problem with it being protected, raise it there. You will also find entries in the protection log and on Wikipedia:Protected page where my action is recorded for review.
On the other hand, if you want to believe that this page is "protected in an effort to maintain the bad reporting and to extend as encyclopedic left wing bias and propaganda", and that I am "hopelessly POV, anti-Bush and determined to slander his character," or that I am imposing "martial law" because I am "unwilling to admit that [my] position is weak," then I invite you to take the righteous fury that consumes your heart from within to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and mark your territory there instead. silsor 22:04, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

You quoted me three times and then belittle me with inuendo that I am a dog. I accuse you of being biased and having deliberately protected THE WRONG PAGE. I guess in one paragraph you did a sufficient job of proving that the protection was done as a hostle act. Perhaps you are not worthy of being an admistrator to this article. Prove me wrong and unprotect or perhaps I'll follow your advice.--MONGO 11:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the links provided by silsor, anyone who wants to fight against this blatant use of page protection as a tool of leftist bias will find some useful suggestions here. JamesMLane 01:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I feel that you're partially responsible for the locking of this article. I've watched the revision history and it seems to be a good deal of people vs MONGO. I don't care if you're a fan of President Bush, you are removing factual information from the article. Just because said information has negative connotations does not make it untrue. Even references were provided.

Therein lies the problem, the term "factual information". An article by a biased source in a biased magazine, that just happened to have been regurgitated in the Irish Times, is being pushed as fact. The Wormer article is nothing more than smear since it was not substatiated by any physical or psychological examination of George W. Bush. This paragraph needs to be either eliminated completely, or the article needs to be footnoted in the "Opinions Against" section that was started. Something like this happened to my family. A family member, who was in the medical profession, convinced my wife and I that my daughter has ADD and should be put on medication. Turns out, after an examination, she was deemed highly intelligent and was just bored with the material presented in school. My daughter explained to the doctor that she knew that stuff already and wanted to move on to other, more interesting topics. So, you see, even the supposed "experts" can get it all wrong. This is the crux of my concern with stating this article as "fact". First Lensman 17:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, many of you mistake firm disagreement for anger and use of strong tone as wrath. I mean no harm here. I have mentioned previously that I wanted to see the elimination of certain passages because I considered them to be bad reporting. I moderated that request to say that I concur to the BRIEF mention of the articles I keep deleting with a sentence that explains and directs the informed reader to a link which can elborate as much as necessary to support the commentary. I did not and do not think that the Salon article, the J.H. Hatfield book nor the van Wormer material to be reliable witnesses and have compared them to National Enquirer level of reporting. But, as I stated, I would agree to a link to these articles. No sooner do I make this concession do I find this article protected and hence my disappointment and accusations. Trust me in this: I still find that even with these articles completely removed, the entire article is biased. In the eyes of a conservative, I consider much of it to be revisionist history and smacking of left wing slander which I have a serious problem with. Without trying to insult further, I also have serious doubts that my efforts and or my concession will be honored.--MONGO 09:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I requested the page protection of George W. Bush at WP:RFP due to all the reverts being made at the page history. Some of them were vandalism, and some of them were disagreements over POV/NPOV. In any rate, it seemed some of the vandalism and NPOV corrections were being lumped together. It looked as much as edit war with vandalism in progress. As I can not personally approve the request myself, even though I am an administrator, I went through the proper channels and waited for other people to agree and approve the request. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)-

AllyUnion, thanks for going through the appropriate channels to get this page protected. I do appreciate that. However I disagree that there is any substantive edit warring going on. Mongo making edits to remove stuff and a few different people restoring it, and the odd attempt at producing a compromise, in my opinion doesn't merit protection. The vandalism is a different matter but apparently it is normal for this page and with all the eyes watching it the page content is in no danger from vandalism.

I'm not in agreement with Mongo that the page is biased (or rather, I remain to be convinced on the matter). I also don't have any problem with people who disagree with me and think the current content dispute or the vandalism merits protection--it would be a dull old world if we always agreed all the time. But I remain of the opinion that the page should probably be unprotected to enable us to use normal editing to work out a good compromise on the content that Mongo disagrees with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UNprotected

Thank you for proving me wrong and unprotecting the page.--MONGO 08:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Explanation of excision of "validity..uncertain"

I removed the following statement

The validity of the claims asserted Amy Reiter and Salon.com is uncertain.

However it is a fact that in 1999 Amy Reiter of Salon.com reported on the rumor and also reported on Salon's phone conversation with the director of the center, Madge Bush, who she reported as saying of George W. Bush (no relation): "I've never heard of him doing community services here at this agency, and I've been the only director for 31 and a half years." There is no reason to cast this in an uncertain light. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see it to be bad reporting. Why would you put this inuendo in here, if it is self discrediting unless the goal was to allude to Bush having used cocaine. If that constitutes what should be considered encyclopedic than there is no reason I cannot begin to edit in articles from known right wing periodicals which are also self discrediting. Quid pro quo, my friend. I say remove all the inuendo from this article which includes unsubstantiated reporting such as one would expect from Salon. I think it has been twisted around in here long enough and discussed and it seems that some folks here would like it to be true, when it is not. Personally, I would be surprised if Bush didn't use cocaine! But I would rather it come from a more solid resource that can truly support the allegation.--MONGO 10:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None of the sources report that Bush used cocaine; like you they wouldn't be surprised but unlike you they have actually investigated, they have followed up what leads they could find and reported factually on the outcome. Omitting the sources would sound like a cover-up; everybody knows the rumors and it is a matter of legitimate public concern on a man's fitness for public office. Putting them in and detailing the investigations (which are generally of reasonable quality) and the conclusions (largely negative--little or no evidence found to support the allegations) is fairer to the reader, whom I presume to be reasonably intelligent and able to evaluate the evidence presented for himself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider all readers of this to be intelligent and able to make up their own minds, I consider a large number of them to be "innocents" in that they may be coming to this site so that they can reference what is in most cases, reliable reporting, and using the references for a term paper, etc. I'm sorry, but I do not consider Salon to be NPOV and I have clicked the links in this article and am shocked that anyone would consider this to be any better than National Enquirer type of mish mash. It is all argumentative and as such, it should remain outside of this article. I do not appreciate the innuendo that I didn't do my research as well. As I said, I think many would like it to be true, and maybe it is, but nothing you have offered is anything other than liberal anti-Bush POV, and the continued use of this type of poor reporting is unworthy of Wikipedia.--MONGO 11:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't claim that Salon is NPOV--indeed few if any sources cited in Wikipedia aspire to the NPOV. But if you read the Salon article you will see that they did investigate the report and did come up with a pretty conclusive blank. It is very unlikely that the young Bush worked on a community service program at MLK in Houston. The gist of the evidence for this (specifically Madge Bush's assertion) is quoted in the current version of the article.
On your concerns for the intelligence of the reader, well I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that. Many will be able to understand what is being written, others will not. Wikipedia policy is to write accurately and to NPOV, and while we should certainly avoid ambiguity, we don't have a policy of writing in such a manner that what we write cannot under any circumstances be misunderstood. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then at the least, since you yourself seem to be unable to prove the allegation due to the unsubstantitive and weak argument provided by Salon, for the sake of the innocent reader, return the statement that the article is not substantive: The validity of the claims asserted (by) Amy Reiter and Salon.com are uncertain. I would consider this to be less POV and to be more in line with NPOV. Yeah, I know, NO ARTICLE REALLY IS NPOV....but this one doesn't come close! The inclusion of anything from Salon, which specializes sensationalist reporting is certainly not of the level of say The Washington Post et al and other more traditionally liberal/centrist mediums. This article might be substantive in a treatise on Bush under the label of mud on the President, but I can hardly accept it as worthwhile to be placed in here. To most readers, this article is an example of how NOT to write a term paper and thesis....--MONGO 19:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salon does a pretty good job of documenting its assertions 'sensationalist' though they may be. So, just to clear the air, exactly what kind of evidence would be expected to be unearthed to prove that somebody did not serve somewhere where they were supposed to, if the absence of any positive evidence that they did is insufficient? A report from someone who followed the person for the entire time in question and can state that they never did what they said they did? The impossibility of proving a negative is well known and well used by those who can just glance at each new piece of evidence and state 'Not convincing enough. Try again'. (See also, 'Global Warming Skeptics'). This is why in an ideal research world, one must frame the question first, and decide what evidence would result in a positive or negative outcome before gathering the evidence, rather than evaluating each chunk of evidence as it comes along. Although this doesn't happen in the political world, it's never too late to start. Can you state what kind of evidence would convince you of the Prez's absence, in the purely hypothetical possibility that he was absent? Gzuckier 19:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Argument circular...the entire treatise makes and or alludes and imposes on readers the thought that whether it is true or not, there is the possiblilty that he is currently a cocaine user. I repeat that it is a slander based on less than creditable sources. I would not consider the Salon innuendo to be anything other than hypothetical.--MONGO 20:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your position presupposes that this stuff about George W. Bush being a bit of a playboy prince during his teens and twenties originated in Salon. It doesn't; Bush himself is a self-described recovering alcoholic. I think you should trust the reader more--Bush himself trusted the voters and was rewarded well for it. The bottom line is that rumors have surfaced about Bush's younger days and the better journals investigate before publishing. In that Salon investigated and drew what amounted to a negative, and stated so in its report, Salon is one of the better journals, at least as far as that report goes.
This is emphatically not restricted to yellow journalism. A New York times editorial in August, 199 said: If Mr Bush never used illegal drugs, he should say so. If he did, he should 'fess up. The Washington Post as early as February, 1999 carried a piece about Mr Bush's evasiveness on this issue. I don't think the subject merits more than we have put in, but I could expand with quotes only from the Times, the Post and some other more reputable dailies if you prefer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. I didn't say anything about him never using drugs or being a former alcoholic. I just said that the remarks allude to make the reader think that this is still the case. Whether it says it is the case isn't the point, the point is that the illusion is that he still does. Round and round we go. I am quite familiar with all the charges and they are unsubstantiated. Why is it so difficult to wish to stick to the facts that can be proven unless the piece is supposed to be an exercise in slander? Examples: we know the facts such as his name, where he was born, comments from his speeches, legislation he dealt with, his confession to being a drunk, the premise he had to go to war with Iraq...we know these things are as solid as concrete. But when I see this type of innuendo, that is all written based on circumstantial evidence or heresay, then I see no place here for it. Sure, state facts about opinions etc. I have read all that and that's fine....but isn't this supposed to be NPOV....how is circumstantial evidence that is not backed up by facts appropriate here unless you are trying to push a point of view? Example: I've seen the video of Bush at the wedding, acting goofy and at the end he does certainly appear to swallow down the nasty lasty of a glass of something....but is it beer, is it alcohol, or is it water? Who knows! It can't be proven that it was alcohol and there is no one to collaborate that it was alcohol. These type of items are not appropriate because they are conjecture and they are misleading. Once again, I know, facts about opinions...well, that doesn't suffice. Then whowrote this opinion?: Should Bush not meet with the NAACP before he leaves office, he will become the first sitting President to have not met with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover. How can anyone ascertain future? ybe he will meet with the NAACP and maybe he won't...but the innuedo suggests that he is a bigot to the casual reader. The FACTS that Bush appointed Powell to the highest cabinet post ever held by an African American man and followed that up by having Rice confirmed for the same post, becoming the highest level attained by an African American female, is hardly alluded to....just a comment that his cabinet is the most ethnically diverse. My extrapolated point is that the entire article is filled with uses of certain words, inclusion of circumstantial evidence and omission of some positive issues which makes this thing look almost like some childish prank.--MONGO 08:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I still get the impression that you're uneasy about this piece because, firstly, it could be misread by an inattentive or unintelligent reader as an assertion that George W Bush once used cocaine, and secondly you believe that we should only include facts about opinions that can themselves be proven to be factually correct. I've addressed both of these points already.
In my opinion there would be no problem with including a reference to the wedding video and the interpretation that some commentators have put on it, provided this was reported prominently enough to break out of a narrow niche. As it happens, that piece was reported by Drudge and picked up by Slate, who went to some journalists for opinions. Christoper Caldwell, who writes for the The Weekly Standard and the Financial Times, was quoted (he was a fence-sitter on the subject, and gave some good reasons for and against). Writers from the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the New Republic, Vanity Fair, and the New Yorker also gave their opinions. By themselves, I don't rate Drudge or Slate very highly, but I think the fact that Slate got the opinion of some first rank journalists makes it relevant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a perfect world, I would like to see all this stuff...Hatfield's book, van Wormer's opinion, the Salon referenced issues, and other skeptical sources of knowledge to be withdrawn. I would settle for them to be greatly condensed and then linked to another piece which can be as detailed as anyone would wish, based on the Wikipedia standards, which I would not edit. ie: It is the opinion of some that Bush has used cocaine in the past, has consumed alcohol after claiming that he no longer drank alcohol, has been considered to be clinically a Dry Drunk....etc.....for further clarification on these issues the reader is directed here.....and then create a "Bush substance abuse controversy page"...outside of the main body of this article. But, I am still not satisfied...as witnessed to my bringing up the issue of Bush not meeting with the NAACP. I don't think forecasts of the future should be in here....unless you can find where it was referenced from, which I suspect may be hard to do. But if anyone can, the Wikihawks can.--MONGO 11:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would you want them removed? It is a fact that there has been a great deal of speculation and rumor about Bush's younger years. That this speculation exists is not controversial, it's a solid fact upon which any honest biographer would have to report. I don't think it's important enough to spin off into an article on its own, though. A few paragraphs in the main article should be sufficient.
Actually what the NAACP says is this: Although candidate Bush appeared at the NAACP’s Convention in 2000, in 2004 President Bush became the first President since Warren G. Harding to refuse to meet with the country’s oldest and largest civil rights organization when he declined an invitation to speak at the 2004 NAACP Annual Convention in Philadelphia.
So the point NAACP is making is that he's the first leader since Harding to have turned down a specific invitation to address their Convention while in office. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that is a FACT...and should be included, but it doesn't address the speculation that he will not still meet with them...so that part needs to go. See, you Wikihawks are so resourceful....continue to find true FACTS and you'll never get an argument out of me...--MONGO 12:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

The newer version of the box (as found in this version of the article) seems to me to be not an improvement. Wikilinking some key points, like Bush's predecessory, wife, and VP, is helpful, even if they're also linked in article text; this pulls them together. Inclusion of the lines for death information is redundant when the box already says that he's the incumbent. More generally, use of the template makes it harder to edit. My attempts to edit within the changed format produced various forms of mess, so I finally gave up and went back to the old one. JamesMLane 09:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i love george w. bush. he is by far one of the smartest men to serve our country !

Keep article about Bush

Noticed reversal of edit I made which took out comparative statement of Bush and Clinton regarding federal budgets/deficit. This article is about Bush, not Clinton. The only relevency of reverting back to the the comparison would be to continue to cast Bush in a negative fashion which suits the leftwing and is therefore a POV. Everyone knows that Bush has created a gigantic federal deficit and that information is a FACT and should be included, but the article is not about Clinton, so his budget surpluses are not relevent.--MONGO 13:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The text removed reads: In the last year of the Clinton administration, the federal budget showed an annual surplus of more than $230 billion. [5] Under Bush, however, the government returned to deficit spending.
In my opinion the fact that the final Clinton budget had a surplus is relevant to Bush's fiscal performance. Had he inherited a huge deficit this would mitigate his fiscal record; conversely the fact that he did not adds to our understanding of his performance. We could remove Clinton's name if you prefer. In the last year of the previous administration...' --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still feel that that this alludes to and enhances the reader's view that Bush has done a worse job than his predecessor and everyone already knows who that was. It passes judgement and doesn't take into account that the main reasons for the deficits are related to such things as a downturn in the economy (which was already happening prior to Bush's first election), the impact of 9/11, the fact that Bush cut taxes, and then had a huge military spending bill passed...something that Clinton didn't have to do per se. I say state the facts and let the reader be educated and enlightened, not state the facts and let the reader decide...this constitutes the great rift between myself and many of the editors here. Likewise, could we put in there that so far, Bush has had a better professional relationship with his White House interns than Clinton, in that he has yet to use his position of power to use that as a magnet to young obsessive women? I think not.--MONGO 21:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The federal budget is huge; even a President, for all the power of the office, can't turn it around completely in a short time. Therefore, the information about what kind of budget a President inherited is relevant. If Bush had come into office facing a $700 billion annual deficit and had managed to whittle it down to "only" $400 billion, that would reflect a different fiscal history of his administration than what we actually see. If you think the baseline Bush inherited in other areas was similarly significant, feel free to include it. The treatment of interns obviously wouldn't be a good example, because that's something that the President can change immediately and unilaterally, regardless of what the situation was under any prior administration. JamesMLane 21:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well like it or not, MONGO, fiscal performance is something that US Presidents have been judged on since Carter at least. Chasing interns around the Oval Office, while not compulsory, doesn't seem to have hurt the last incumbent's reputation in the long term. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, without going to far off on that tangent, I was not the least bit unhappy with Clinton until the situation with the intern came up, so his reputation in my eyes from that point on went downhill. Iused this contrast to show that I didn't want to do comparisons, not because I do...and you can't predict the future.--MONGO 08:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Who put up the disputed page tag?

68.49.191.97 please identify yourself by contributing here in discussion or remove the tag please.--MONGO 09:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll remove it with an edit comment asking whoever to make an entry here explaining why he disputes the factual accuracy of the piece. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I thought it was a good idea, but agree with you that if it is to be done, they should hash it out here.--MONGO 12:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)



Business man?

Where is the proof?

--Relaxation 18:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The parts talking about the businesses he owned/ran? That's your proof. RickK 23:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Information.

[delete copyright violation] - RickK 23:49, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

--Relaxation 20:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So? We call Gerald Ford a President. - Calmypal 20:58, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity?

Neither "positive" or "negative" facts belong in an encyclopedia.

Also, Taking a statement like "Bush is a fool, a charlatan and a criminal"... and changing it to "X said that `Bush is a fool, a charlatan and a criminal'"

is an extremely transparent and futile attempt to make such statements seem neutral.

80% of this article has a hopelessly transparent political bias.

An encyclopedia should only contained generally accepted information that everybody agrees is true, not a debate.

This page needs peer review... if there's any hope for Wikipedia at all.

I second that. The article is approached with one goal by major contributors and that is to cast Bush in a bad light. It is not a NPOV article by any measure of the imagination. We need to be careful with the wording of positive and negative facts...if they are facts, then they belong...but these facts are based on concrete evidence and without any major skeptical sourcing or innuendo. There is no doubt in my mind when some of the people that have reverted my edits claim to be to the far left politically...."left of scary leftists", "hostile to the right", or display a Soviet Union Hammer and Sickle medal on their user page (as if that is something to be pround of in light of what it was like to be in the Soviet union in the 1930's for the average citizen) etc., etc. that those that wish to continue to leave this work as the benchmark are doing so to push their opinion and that opinion is to slander Bush from a left wing perspective, not to educate based on the provable evidence.--MONGO 16:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I added this to illustrate what a piece of junk this entire article is: "Eric Alterman, some political columnist that I just googled off the web 3 minutes ago, said in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=alterman) that "Bush is a liar".

A friend of mine once said that Bush was mentally retarded. He based this view on listening to Bush's speeches - particularly his use of poor grammar. He hasn't written an opinion piece for any newspapers, but he's probably a lot smarter than whoever the hell Katherine van Wormer is."

Ironically, I don't even *like* Bush - but I have some idea about what sort of material belongs in an Encyclopedia and what doesn't. I shouldn't have bothered but, hey, it's a Sunday and I'm bored.

This page demonstrates everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Heading back to the mathematics section which at least isn't full of raving mis-guided lunatics. - anonymous (guy who made a good-faith effort to improve this article the first time around anyway)

The statement that 'Neither "positive" or "negative" facts belong in an encyclopedia.' is mystifying. It seems to imply that an undisputed fact shouldn't be reported if it would tend to put Bush in a good light or a bad light. That wouldn't leave very much.
Also wrong is the claim that attributing a controversial opinion "is an extremely transparent and futile attempt to make such statements seem neutral." It is neutral to report someone's stated opinion. This is Wikipedia's general policy, not the product of a cabal of Bolsheviks who are out to undermine Bush. Here's an excerpt from the policy:
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. . . . (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)
The foregoing is from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation. If you disagree with the policy, you should take it up on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view instead of trying to make Bush a special case who's immune from any report of the criticisms he's received.
Finally, with regard to "peer review", Wikipedia will never have peer review in the sense used in academia. I do note, however, that MONGO's attempt to suppress anything unflattering to Bush included this edit, in which, among other significant deletions, he removed not only the comparison of Bush's fiscal record with Clinton's, but also the news reports stating the undisputed amounts of Bush's deficits, and the open letter from more than 100 professors of business and economics ascribing the deficits to Bush's tax cuts. Indeed, in the MONGO "encyclopedic edit", the very fact that Bush had run a deficit was omitted. It's hardly encyclopedic to conceal from the reader all information about one of the most aspects of Bush's presidency. JamesMLane 00:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I liked that edit, and would have edited out more but sensed that it was foolish to engage in edit wars, so I decided to hash it out in discussion. Truthfully, being new to editing, I mistakenly took out more than I thought I had. Repeatedly, I have stated that I feel that this article is a vehicle of exercise in how not to write an encyclopedic NPOV article, and have stated that I expect that this article if any would be filled with POV, both left and right wing. I doubt that the major contributors to this are anything other than very intelligent people, but am mystified at their choice of quotes and quality of evidence. A large portion of this article reads like a left wing slam fest, not as a NPOV article. I have also stated that what appears to be the hawks that watch over this page have openly stated in their user pages and in other written form that they come from a far left perspective on the matter and are therefore incapable of remaining neutral, especially in this situation.--MONGO 08:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The underlying issue here isn't a left-versus-right divide. The underlying issue is how to handle controversial subjects in general. Wikipedia policy, applicable to many, many controversial articles that have nothing to do with George W. Bush, is not to exclude statements of opinion, as you seem to think it is or should be. Instead, the policy is that opinions, when held by large numbers of people or prominent spokespersons or qualified experts, can be reported, if properly attributed, and if presented in a way that does not give an appearance of Wikipedia's endorsement. (For example, I've frequently edited statements along the lines of "So-and-so pointed out that...." because "pointed out" suggests that it's true. "So-and-so argued that...." is preferable.) Certainly a different policy could be formulated and logically defended. Unless and until some other general policy is adopted, however, we should treat Bush the same way we treat other controversial people or topics. JamesMLane 08:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Really? What about Bush is controversial? I mean isn't he universally liked...what with the "Mandate" he has! But here's the thing, if known left leaning periodicals and other forms of reporting which use sensationalist forms of editing suffice to be considered good sources for this forum, then why not the National Enquirer...why not Rush Limbaugh??? I mean I could reluctantly go into Rush and find all sorts of grandstanding about Bush...but I consider his opinion to be right wing, not NPOV. I dunno, it still looks to me like this thing is hopelessly POV. Also liked the editor (silsor) linking me into the boilerplate complaints page...saw that yesterday...but then he took out the link from there back to here...I thought I was almost famous! infamous?--MONGO 09:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trying to get some clarification here -- Do you disagree with current Wikipedia policy on NPOV? Do you disagree that that policy, as applied to someone like Bush, calls for reporting opinions about him, even leftist opinions, even opinions with which you disagree? Do you take both these positions? Or do you take neither, and your objection is on some other grounds? I keep getting the feeling that you think Bush should be given the benefit of a different set of rules from what's applied to all our other controversial articles, but perhaps I'm misinterpreting you.
Incidentally, if the National Enquirer reports that Bush is actually a reptilian kitten-eating space alien, that comment would not merit inclusion in the article under current Wikipedia policy. JamesMLane 10:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: Lest anyone think that my hypothetical example means that I've been using a few controlled substances myself, let me add that I didn't make it up. It comes from our friends to the north. See Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet. JamesMLane 10:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is my point isn't it? If the sourcing for your version of encyclopedic citation is as it is then why not include all subversive horseradish on the guy even if it is about Bush being a reptillian kitten eater from another planet. Is it really postulated that books that are pulled from shelves, vague little known social workers with obscure opinions cited in vague obscure sensationalist POV magazines and other sources of what you refer to as creditable witness should be included in this article, then why not the National Enquirer...or Rush Limbaugh? I understand that Rush Limbaugh has a large following on the air and on line...so certainly his right leaning bias should be admissible, that is if your left leaning mumbo jumbo is. I look through the John Kerry article and I consider it to be much reduced in POV...much more neutral...there still is the supposed controversy over his military service etc., but the article isn't some effort to be a slam fest by either the right or the left wing political factions. The leftist bias in this rag are as plain as the nose on your face! I think some are so caught up in vilifying Bush that they can't get around their hatred of him enough to ever be neutral.--MONGO 11:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the coverage of Kerry and the coverage of Bush (both in multiple articles) are largely in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I say "largely" because if I looked over all those articles in detail, I'd probably find something that could usefully be edited for greater compliance with policy, but after months of being haggled over by editors of varying political views, the articles show no great deviations from policy. JamesMLane 12:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


":I believe that the coverage of Kerry and the coverage of Bush (both in multiple articles) are largely in keeping with Wikipedia policy. "

OK - that's your opinion. A lot of people (including myself) strongly disagree with you. That makes this material controversial, and this article, as it states at the top, is already way too long and difficult to navigate. A compromise that has already been suggested is to place this stuff in a separate "Bush drug controversy" article. People could then still debate the accuracy/relevancy/objectivity of including the claims there.

In a normal Encyclopedia, the editor retains control of the content. That can be bad, if she is biased, but at least her name goes on the article. Everyone knows who she is, and history can judge what she wrote and whether she was a true scholar or not.

In Wikipedia, it is only those who are willing and able to tirelessly revert/change edits that keep control of the content. This won't be the smartest, or most knowledgeable people. It will be those with enough time to sit and monitor a page day-in, day-out. IMO, that's going to rule out the people most qualified to write the article.

Even better! It has already occurred to the conspiracy theorist in me that if a political party really cared enough about the content of this site, they could *pay* someone to watch and edit pages like this. i.e. the highest bidder can effectively buy what is written on Wikipedia, just by paying some individual (or group of individuals) to "watch"/"revert" it continuously.

Worse, because this editing can be done anonymously, no-one can even allege/prove that it is happening (unlike normal political advertising).

Perform a google search for "George W Bush" and this Wikipedia article makes it on the first page. That's got to be worth some votes, if the page says what you want it to say.

Right now I'm not getting paid, but if you can persuade the Democratic National Committee to come up with the dough, I'll cut you in for a 10% finder's fee. JamesMLane 01:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now that is scary...and it brings up my point made before and that is that when you run a search off almost any browser for George Bush, this article comes up in one to five links. I doubt the conspiracy theory, but it's as possible as thinking that this van Wormer fool who has never had a one on one personally with Bush should be able to be considered a creditable witness regardless of her level of expertise on the issue of who is and who isn't a DRY DRUNK. Her innuendo of slurred speech...expert opinion...hogwash. But there is a lot more...I can hardly wait for her expert opinion...[6]. Who would buy the books people like her sell if they weren't full of their "expert" opinion. If someone can cite any known clinical proof based on an actual medical and or psychological evaluation and diagnosis from a person to person examination of George Bush and which shows validity to the argument that Bush is a Dry Drunk, then by all means, it should be in here...but to quote some person who has never met with Bush in a patient/doctor scenario is tantamount to pushing a POV.--MONGO 12:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Subpage for drug use allegations

The parties in this dispute seem to be on a path that usually leads deep into the dispute resolution process. Have they considered taking the same approach that was done with the national guard allegations, and moving the details to George W. Bush drug controversy, or something similar? Gazpacho 10:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A move like that is appropriate for topics that are accumulating so much detail that they overwhelm the article. I don't think that's the case here. Furthermore, even when a lot of the detail on such a topic is moved to a daughter article, it's appropriate to leave a summary in the main article, as is done for both Bush and Kerry with the allegations about their military service. Yet, in this case, we've seen repeated attempts to delete even the very terse summary of the Bush military service allegations. The underlying dispute isn't over the level of detail in the passages about drug use; it's about whether the information should be completely suppressed. Therefore, I don't think that creation of a daughter article would help. As long as anyone keeps trying to suppress the subject, the dispute will go on. JamesMLane 10:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My argument is over the entire article. It is over the content, the dubious quality of the evidence, and the use of verbage. I suggested before that the entire area of discussion in regards to his drinking, drugs and other related weaknesses be placed on another page, and there the user can decide. But for the bulk of this article much would still need to be done to make it neutral. I say let the reader be enlightened and educated with FACTS...not by opinions which can be construed as facts by the less articulate.--MONGO 12:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you're losing your right wing propaganda censorship war, Mongo. Propose and/or create separate pages for any positive facts as well as negative facts, and you probably wouldn't have any problem with anyone other than the vandalizing idiots. This page and this talk page is getting way too big. --Karmafist 02:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right wing propaganda censorship war? Hardly. If you are leftist enough to think that I have ever deliberately edited out any substantive negative facts then there is no hope for you. I say the major contributors that hawk over this page come here with a predisposition to use much less than credible reporting and then attempt to pass it off as encyclopedic. The reason this article is too long is because of all the mish mash. I haven't made continuous editing to his oil deals, his Texas Rangers profiteering, the argument that he lied essentially about why we needed to wage war in Iraq...once again, I have stated that the innuendo of his cocaine use, the dry drunk garbage and all that other stuff takes up 80 percent of the section on his personal life section. I think folks like you just want to use this medium as a way to lampoon Bush, not as a way to educate.--MONGO 11:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well here's one of your edits: [7]. You edited out quite a lot of good reporting of the various negative opinions, rumors and whatnot that Bush has tended to accrue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do think you have deliberately edited out substative negative facts, and there is hope for me, regardless of what your censor-happy extremist opinion is.

And if you don't realize by now that his reason for going to war with Iraq (Weapons of Mass Destruction) was a lie, then i'm sorry MONGO, but there is no hope for you.

--Karmafist 20:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a revelation you bring, Karmafist...is that possible? Is it possible that we went to war with Iraq due to a lie...or maybe it was to finish what Daddy couldn't...or maybe it was purely due to oil...oh, yeah, so Halliburton could reap a big windfall...sure, it's possible that Bush has killed thousands just because of his vanity. Let's agree to disagree. As far as editing, Tony, I see that the vast bulk of your arguement is based on sensationalist POV reporting from known left wing sources.--MONGO 20:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cocaine allegations

Gazpacho, I think your edit omits too much. To Bush supporters, it's important to note that Hatfield had a felony conviction and that his original publisher withdrew the book. To Bush detractors, it's important to note that Bush said he had no drug use in the 15 years preceding 1989 but refused to answer as to the period before 1974. I do agree with you about the anonymous email as a source, and I've tried to clarify that the email was contradicted when journalists checked with the very contact suggested in the email. Also, in looking into this, I found that our article copied too much verbatim from Salon, so I reworded some passages. I also put in more sources. You removed the link to Bush's characterization of Hatfield's book as "totally ridiculous", but I think that, on a controversial subject, it's especially important to cite sources. JamesMLane 11:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hunting.

What's his view on hunting?

--Relaxation 17:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eliminate Opinion Pieces Section

I noticed that opinion pieces were briefly discussed above. However, I don't believe a consensus was reached on whether this section should be kept or what links should be included. I'm raising the questions again after I noticed that the "Against Bush" links outnumber the "For Bush" links 6 to 1. All of the links (on both sides) are extremely partisan (as would be expected) and add very little, if anything, to the article. I propose that this section be eliminated. I don't believe this section serves any purpose other than to give biased users a chance to insert POV links into the article. Carrp 20:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No one is stopping anyone from adding "For Bush" links. And the whole purpose of opinions is a POV -- these viewpoints on this extremely contreversial president add to the depth of this article. However, it would be good if made some more spinoff articles.

--Karmafist 20:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you added the three most recent links (in one edit [8]). How exactly do those links "add to the depth of this article". What spinoff articles would you like to see? I just don't see these links adding anything except POV. Carrp 20:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Carrp in that this could easily turn into an extremely large section mostly comprised of editorials which simply state what many other articles have said. I think we should put a cap to this (like 10-12), split it down the middle both pro- and con-, and select only the best articles which are not redundant and add more to the discussion or at the very least make us use our head rather than pull at our emotions.--kizzle 23:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Don't rationalize with him...he is only here to push a leftwing bunch of rubbage...I don't think Bush is extremely controversial...only those that are extremist to the left would label him as such.--MONGO 21:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith Mongo...basic wikipedia etiquette.--kizzle 23:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, by MONGO's definition, 48% of the American voters are "extremist to the left", along with majorities of the adults in many of our longtime democratic allies.
Putting aside that indefensible view, the fact remains that there are a lot of websites about Bush. There are supporters and opponents, but opponents are probably more strongly motivated to put up a website. We don't want to try to list them all or any appreciable fraction. Wikipedia articles aren't "[m]ere collections of external links." ([Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files|Wikipedia is not...]]) The question of when to add external links hasn't been definitively settled within the community (see Wikipedia:External links and other pages cited therein). The question is particularly problematic in a case like this one, with so many links out there clamoring for attention. My inclination would be: (1) A particular external site that's a source for an assertion in the article should be linked at that point in the article, and needn't be repeated in "External links". (2) External sites that focus on particular issues might more usefully be linked in the appropriate daughter article rather than here. (3) There might be some particular value in linking to sites that are frequently updated. If a site's main value is static information, we could just steal (uh, pardon me, incorporate) the information rather than linking to the site. (4) Some people get touchy about links, so, as a practical matter, I usually wimp out and refrain from removing links, even when I think the linkomania is getting excessive. In this particular case, I haven't looked at the "Opinion Pieces" links. MONGO, if you want to add more pro-Bush links, I'll probably think the whole exercise is getting out of hand, but I also probably won't bother deleting. (5) This might be an appropriate subject for posting on RfC if anyone feels strongly enough about it. I suspect there are several people who have no interest in the Bush article but who would jump in to present their strongly held opinions about when we should or should not include an external link. JamesMLane 05:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No I said that those pushing the leftist bias of this article are extremist to the left. I suggest that many others here need to assume good faith and put it into practice by making some attempt at transforming this article into a neutral one. I could hardly agree that there is a conspiracy here to present a left leaning viewpoint and I anticipate that many of the folks here are from academia (which has a natural liberal tilt, no insult intended)or are not in favor of presenting a neutral article because they do not agree with Bush's policies, his actions or his deeds. That is fine, but if they can't let go of this bias, then they shouldn't contribute here if they expect this article to ever be neutral. I have been accused repeatedly of removing ALL bad information in the article and that is simply false. What makes you think that all those that voted for John Kerry did so because they believe that Bush is controversial? Perhaps they voted against Bush more than for Kerry...in that they oppose the current Iraq war and are dissatisfied with the economy, etc. You stated: "there are a lot of websites about Bush. There are supporters and opponents, but opponents are probably more strongly motivated to put up a website." So in essence you answered my premise that the major contributors here are, in all liklihood, opponents of Bush. If you look for answers to support your premise then you'll probably find them. If you come here with a predispostion against someone or something, then in all liklihood, that will be produced in the evidence you gather. I say get rid of the opinion pieces...they are opinion and have no reason to be here.--MONGO 09:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that millions of Americans wanted to remove Bush from office, and given that millions of Europeans and others consider him a graver threat to world peace than Osama bin Laden, it's incomprehensible to me that anyone could suggest he's not controversial. Heck, I voted for Kerry, and I'd have no problem saying that Kerry is also a controversial figure. With regard to the websites, I don't understand your comments. I wasn't suggesting that we should do a headcount of all the sites out there and tailor our coverage accordingly. The point that you keep missing, though, is that a certain amount of reporting of POV's is within the NPOV policy. You repeatedly delete specific, duly attributed opinions, and you make general comments that suggest you don't understand the NPOV policy or you don't want to apply it to Bush. External links to opinionated websites can help illuminate specific points in the article. The tough question is the kind of general external link we find in "Opinion pieces", not cited in support of any specific assertion. To say that opinions "have no reason to be here" goes too far, though. JamesMLane 10:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, MONGO, I find your latest edit interesting. You removed all the opinion pieces, which were clearly labeled as opinions. You had no problem, however, with the recently added passage that stated -- without attribution, without a reference, but simply as a flat Wikipedia assertion -- that the Afghan elections "were a huge success". Should I infer that you didn't happen to notice it? Or do you consider that an expression of opinion of that sort is justified? I return again to the idea of treating this article according to generally applicable policies, rather than giving Bush his own special rules, so I'm deleting that and related passages that clearly violate NPOV. JamesMLane 10:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You should infer that I didn't happen to notice it. I removed the opinion pieces because they are , uh, opinions. Who cares about someone's opinions. I continue to say the opinion pieces should be removed. I don't know that the Afgan elections were a huge success. But I can say that since elections were held, and though they may have been seriously flawed in comparison to what us lucky westerners get to enjoy, they were still a step in the right direction. I bet some here wish democracy in Afganistan and Iraq would fail, just so you could enjoy the opportunity to see the policies of the current administration also as failures. I also remember quite vividly when Reagan was President and how all the leftist said he was leading us down a path towards nuclear war and how he was a threat to world peace. Time will tell.--MONGO 12:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I stated before that the purpose of an opinion pieces section would ideally be to have a few select external links for each point of view that are well-chosen in that they are referenced, cogent and defensible. I believe the value in this is to provide for greater understanding about the various viewpoints which surround the current President. There are things that do not belong in a strictly encyclopedic article that are, nevertheless, informative and important in gaining a clearer understanding of the 'greater picture' surrounding an issue. If the consensus believe this section should not belong, then it should be removed. However, I do not think a final agreement on the matter was reached before MONGO removed the section. I do not lightly make judgments about this sort of thing, but MONGO, I believe you have a very strong point of view. I respect that, but I also believe that occasionally your point of view clouds your judgment as an editor. I think this is something you should keep in mind when you're contemplating removing entire sections of an article. I will leave it for the community to decide whether it is appropriate to re-add the Opinion Pieces section or something akin to it. I strongly believe that the standards of NPOV should be adhered to, but, for the reasons stated above, I also strongly support a section wherein controversial subject-matter can link to the varying salient opinions on an issue. Xaliqen 02:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I don't check this page for a day and there's already a slew of replies to this discussion alone, let alone Bush himself. If you can't realize there's contreversy in this topic, then you don't understand what contreversy is.

Heck, Bush is easily one of the most contreversial figures, let alone presidents, in American History. One just needs to look at his polling numbers from 9/11 when they were around 90 percent to just before the election when they were around 50. In a mere three years he managed to piss off 40 percent of the American population, and if he didn't secure Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell's wrongdoing, he'd probably have sprung a coup by now.

As for your POV concerns, you should follow your own advice, you constantly censor things that don't jibe with your world views. Opinions are never correct or incorrect, only facts are. Unfortunately, facts are often shaded with people's opinions, so what can be proven and what cannot is blurred(read up on defamation for more on this). I don't delete extremist right wing opinions unless they are presented as false facts because I am a liberal, and one of the key beliefs of being a true liberal is taking everyone's opinion into account(those on "our side" who think otherwise are just as conservative as Bush, if only as a counter-conservative)

And as for spinoff articles, my suggestion was meant towards making the main page into basically a directory of Wikilinks in order to shrink the page down to a managable size.

--Karmafist 05:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haven't heard that one...well, I did hear it but it was swept under the table...the Ohio vote I am referring to...but maybe it didn't make a big splash in the press because they have all become right wing nut cases and are therefore duty bound to suppress all negative views on Bush. Just as I have been doing here, right? Let me state this very clearly..I consider a large portion of this article to be leftwing bias. I would like to delete a lot more than I ever have in any one single deletion. Those that think that I have edited out all the negative are not being factual. I could go into lots of right wing articles and link them into this and I don't because I think that would be pushing a POV. I am not asking for anything other than for everyone here to make an attempt to be neutral. But remarks about coups, fixed elections or how 40% of the American people became pissed off can hardly be construed to be anything other than your political bias clouding your ability to remain neutral. Just because 40% of the people became dissatisfied enough to voice a negative opinion poll doesn't mean they were pissed off. People rallied around the national leader in a time of crisis and his polls rose, when the economy slumped and then the war in Iraq bogged down, the polls dropped. Bush alienates most liberals because he is quite conservative for our time. But that doesn't mean that this forum should be used as a medium to demonize him. I don't go into the John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton articles and force some right wing sensationalist allegations and opinions there. Weren't we talking about opinion pieces? I say get rid of them...the opinions are not that illuminating anyway.--MONGO 10:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the 40% fact is untrue, remove it. If it is simply a "negative opinion poll" or whatever, we should use the original wording from wherever that source was found. However, removing it is not ok. The more detail one can draw to a subject, the better, as long as its organized in a proper fashion. It is 100% encouraged to make text more resemble the prose that its citation is based upon, but do not remove material simply because it paints Bush in a bad light, and thus is "liberal." (or the converse). The meat of wikipedia articles is fact, we try to skin off the fat of opinion or of taking sides contained within the articles. However, linking to opinions is also correct. In my philosophy reader at school, we had two different opinions on ethical topics so that we could come to our own conclusion. Same with the Supreme Court and dissenting opinions. We would not detail a Supreme Court case without linking to both the normal and dissenting opinion. Opinions are not meaningless in themselves, we must be careful to balance them with each other. In addition, since everyone on the internet has an opinion about Bush, we must be careful to select a few choice opinions on both sides and not just any blogger who has an audience of more than 1000 people.--kizzle 20:03, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Why is it the folks who know the least, lecture the most? The statement of a 40% drop in the opinion polls isn't in the article fully...the above was my response to it being labelled as an example to prove that people were pissed of...which has no correlation.--MONGO 09:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attributing opinions

Although MONGO says, "Who cares about someone's opinions", there are plenty of instances in which the objective reporting of a subjective opinion is sufficiently informative to be included. The Wikipedia policy to that effect also calls for attributing such opinions, though. I've therefore removed this unattributed sentence: "Advocates of the conquest of Iraq have responded by pointing out the billions of embezzled dolalrs those officials at the UN, and in several of the other opposing countries, had gained from the corruption of the Iraqioil for food program." Even aside from the improper characterization "conquest of Iraq", I don't think this belongs in the article about Bush unless the Bush administration commented on the subject. I'm sure the administration has criticized the Oil for Food program, but linking that program to other nations' stances at the UN is another matter. Putting it in this context implies that Bush has drawn that link, which shouldn't be stated unless it can be sourced. If it's only some other people raising the charge, it should be covered in Oil for Food program but not here. JamesMLane 18:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


The opinion as expressed above is also making or relying on unsupported factual statements. The use of the term "pointed out" implies that the expressed opinion (that officials at the UN, etc, embezzled billions of dollars in funds) is true. There are assumptions there too (that any embezzlement was exclusively by or on behalf of non-US nationals). It's a bit of a mess. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
One way of recognizing when someone is trying to add PoV when they dispute part of an article is that they complain about specific parts of something they find embarassing to their agenda, but instead of fixing the questionable details, they simply delete the whole thing. If it mention of the opposition to the conquest of Iraq by France and the UN are acceptable, then the counter-arguments popularly given, attributing their motivation to their profit in the food-for-oil fiasco, is equally appropriate. You can arguably dispute the precise delivery, but not the validity of the information itself. Kaz 18:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the above, JamesMLane and I have indeed questioned the validity because it was not attributed. If there is an attribution that would be verifiable and there would be no problem. Sometimes an item when it first appeats is no more than hearsay and weaseling, but the originator if he makes the effort can find an attributable source and transform it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is duplicated

van Wormer's Opinion

Why is Katherine van Wormer's opinion that Bush displays "all the classic patterns of addictive thinking" included in this article? As this is simply one person's opinion, shouldn't this be an external link in the opinion section? Carrp 16:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, in general we shouldn't relegate significant opinions to external links (the opinion section of links serves no meaningful function in my opinion). Van Wormer's piece is significant because she's a professionally qualified specialist and published author on addiction and the piece was published in the Irish Times. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree that she is qualified, but it's still only her opinion. Without extensive testing and, at the very least, interviewing Bush, her opinion cannot be considered an official diagnosis. It's very common for doctors to disagree about psychological and behavioral diagnoses. How many other qualified specialists concur with van Wormer? There is already information in this article that details Bush's drinking and drug problems. Van Wormer's opinion doesn't add much factual information. I do think the Irish Times article is worth adding to the external link section (I also agree that the opinion section is fairly useless). Carrp 16:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the piece is not illustrative in any legitimate sense of Bush's psychological state. Perhaps it needs reworking to make it plain that it isn't in the article to back up any factual statement. All it actually says, which I think is extraordinary enough, is that this published expert on addiction came out with this extraordinary pseudo-diagnosis and got it printed in a major European newspaper. I find Bush's behavior inexplicable, but I think that's more because I'm a left wing European than because he is or ever was an addict. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's a disputed statement, so you're certainly right that it shouldn't be presented as if it were purely factual. It was first included with the line "It has been observed that", which was clearly improper, because "observed" has a connotation that the statement is correct. I was the one who made the change to "It has been argued that". (I still think "argue" is better than "claim" but I haven't cared about it enough to fight over it.) Either "claimed" or "argued" is enough to convey the point that it's someone's opinion, not a statement of undisputed fact. JamesMLane 21:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is only here to cast Bush in a bad light. It is not a definition accepted by the medical community, not based on anything other than her opinions which were not reached in a typical doctor/patient scenario, and they are her words she has opinionated because she disagrees with Bush on a political basis. It is best off in the opinion pieces which I think don't belong here either. Just think, if you put it there, I have only one edit to do instead of two!--MONGO 10:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How does it cast Bush in a bad light? I agree with you that here, apparently, is a professional prostituting her credentials in order to score a cheap political point. So how does it reflect badly on Bush? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because it is a cheap political point.....it is her opinion. Her opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine on this subject regardless of her supposed credentials because it is not based on a typical doctor/patient relationship and would not be rendered as fact by any medical journal or institute. Lots of opinions are published and lots of them are not based on facts...that is why they are opinions. It alludes that because she thinks he is suffering from this malase it explains the reasons why he acts the way he does and for the decisions he has made but it does this in an effort to push a POV, not because she is behaving in a typical concerned doctor manner.--MONGO 12:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but could you try to answer my question? How does van Wormer's behavior reflect badly on Bush? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where did her behavior come in? Her behavior reflects badly on her, not on Bush. She is using her "expert opinion" to push her POV and to sell her book(s). I don't think I can make it simpler than that.--MONGO 13:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good, then we're agreed that it doesn't reflect on Bush. Therefore by arguing for it to be there I'm not doing so in order to "cast Bush in a bad light", as you put it. I'm only putting it there because it's part of the story of the Bush Presidency that, like Clinton before him, he has sometimes experienced some rather overheated attacks upon his character in the quality press. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We haven't agreed on anything as far as this goes. It has nothing to do with her behavior...it has to do with her unmedical opinion...and your continuous insistance that it is worthwhile reporting just because it appeared in a foreign newspaper...Her opinion casts Bush in a bad light because it insinuates that his behavior seems similar in her eyes to what she has come to know as a "dry drunk". Look, while assuming good faith, I cannot agree that her opinion is anything other than that and it is here because it helps support your own biases about him. Your question about her behavior has nothing to do with the point.--MONGO 09:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bush is commonly known as...

I removed this recent addition:

Bush is commonly known as extremely conservative in nature, opposing gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, and misleading the nation over the invasion of Iraq, typically governing from a Christian perspetive, despite our separation of church and state.

It's really just a "well my friends and I think this..." kind of insertion which isn't a lot of use (practically my whole city think that Bush is a raving nutcase but that isn't going into this article unless we run a poll). I think this kind of thing (especially the bit about misleading people) should have some kind of psephological basis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Extra pro-Bush articles?

Perhaps some extra pro-Bush articles could be added to the opinion pieces links. There's 1 pro link and 6 con.

I cut the Against link section down to three links which is, I think, a pretty good number to keep things at. If you have two good links you could add to the Pro section, then please do. --Xaliqen 12:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some NPOV edits

In response to MONGO's latest edits "to make this more of a NPOV article", I made several changes, some prompted by his edit, some that should have been changed a while ago.

  • I've restored, yet again, the information that MONGO keeps trying to delete -- that Bush's record budget deficit is in the context of his having inherited a record surplus. I previously pointed out that Bush's actual performance, of turning a $200 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit, is significantly different from, as a hypothetical example, trimming a $700 billion deficit to $400 billion. Therefore, the context is highly relevant. MONGO, you haven't answered that argument or any of the arguments that several other editors advanced.
  • This constant harping on "van Wormer never examined Bush" is pretty silly. It would be obvious to the reader. Nevertheless, since MONGO makes such a cause about it, I've left it in, but as long as we're stating the obvious, I'll add that Bush has never submitted to such an examination. Even leaving in this silliness, the conclusion that van Wormer's opinion "therefore carries little weight" is POV and must be removed. Also, although it wasn't in MONGO's latest edit and I forget who inserted it, the crack about this being "an easy target for the press" serves no purpose but to denigrate one side of the controversy.
    • Mongo, if you disagree with the above, read Wikipedia:Spoon Feeding --kizzle 23:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • The van Wormer material was recently expanded to include a longish quotation from her article. I think the previous, shorter version was better; anyone who wanted to see her elaboration could just click on the link. Nevertheless, perhaps the Bush partisans prefer it this way on the theory that it makes her opinion look like just a rationalization for disagreeing with his politics. I prefer the shorter version but I can live with it either way.
  • I removed another silly remark, "According to CBS news and Dan Rather, he never served in any army at any time."
  • There's no reason to censor the controversy over Bush's TV appearance in the matter of Tucker's execution.
  • The "Pet Goat" episode has been prominent in the public discussion of Bush's presidency. I've restored the deleted photo.
  • There is language in here, which MONGO didn't change, about U.S. sale of WMD's to Iraq. That's the kind of controversial point that needs a citation. I've left it in for now, but if it can't be sourced (possibly with an attribution instead of being a flat assertion), it should be deleted.
  • Similarly, I previously commented that the passage about Oil for Food shouldn't just be ascribed to unnamed "critics". It's been rewritten but the flaw is the same. The passage should identify some notable person or entity that supports this view. If none such can be identified, it should be deleted.

JamesMLane 11:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your constant harping that van Wormers unmedical opinion should be in here at all is pretty silly too, James! How could the insertion of this be anything but support for your liberal bias....for the last time, it is a bunch of hogwash! The pet goat picture is another tired innuendo that Bush was perhaps perplexed...unknowing what to do next, after being told about the planes hitting the WTC towers etc...you have it here to support your bias that he is unintelligent...what other purpose could it serve other than that? What does that picture have to do with anything else? Tony sidaway keeps putting that picture back in after others take it out stating that he likes the picture...so what. What purpose does it serve except to allude to something untrue that was, in all liklihood, taken out of context. Show me where the grade point average is in the John Kerry article, or Bill Clinton. The left likes it here because they think it makes Bush look of average intelligence. Well, Lincoln had little if any formal education as did a number of other people highly regarded as intelligent. As far as budget comparisons, it is the same deal...you want it here because it continues to support your point of view. You think it is significant but it is taken out of context and fails to address the reasons. It is done as an innuendo to suggest that Bush is less capable than Clinton at managing his budget. I see little you add here that has any basis in neutrality, James. You even state that the issue of WMD sale by the U.S. to Iraq should be referenced, but you leave it in anyway. If it was an issue I had deleted you would quickly scamper to find some vague periodical that would support the claim, no matter how poorly regarded that article may be, just to bolster your neverending effort to display your radical left wing ideas of neutrality. Hence my discussion that we might as well cite the National Enquirer! There is every reason to eliminate the issue of Bush being cynical about the Tucker execution. Where is your reference for this? This article states "The execution of Karla Faye Tucker, who repented in prison and become a born-again Christian, was particularly controversial, in part because Bush appeared on television publicly mocking and mimicking her appeals for clemency." What television, and where? When I read this article it is so full of things taken out of context, falsehoods, innuendo which supports a leftwing bias and misconceptions it reminds of me of reading a treatise on evolution written by creationists.--MONGO 13:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, your personal attacks are growing very tiresome. I left in the part about sale of weapons for the same reason I left in the unattributed slur on several UN members that dared to disagree with Our Glorious Leader: I was following the Wikipedia standard of assuming good faith. On these two points, which could be seen as one pro-Bush and one anti-Bush, I didn't just delete, but called the editors' attention to the need for citation. Do you agree with me that, unless they can be properly sourced, both points should be deleted? Beyond those specifics, if you want to think, without evidence, that I automatically "scamper to find some vague periodical" in support of anything anti-Bush, fine, you go right and think whatever you like. JamesMLane 20:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, first of all, exercise some judgment and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, don't call it a bunch of hogwash. Keep it simple, simply disagree and submit an argument for your perspective of how the article should be, and shut up about everything else. My personal feelings about the Van Wormer piece are undecided at this point. Has her book or opinion been cited on television or any other avenue for public exposure? If the group thinks that the book for better or worse has received enough public attention than I think it should be included but with JML's explicit disclaimer that Bush has never submitted to such an examination. If its not prominent in the public eye, however, I'm not so sure that it should belong here simply for being a low degree of relevancy and significance. However, JML is dead on about several other things. The context of Bush inheriting a $200 billion surplus and turning it into a $400 deficit is vitally important, as dropping the former changes the meaning and significance of the latter. How is mentioning this in any way taking things out of context? Just use the line that every other Bush supporter uses, "it was due to 9/11". But don't censor the fact that he started out way on top. Another thing, "according to CBS news and Dan Rather" is obviously laced with so much innuendo it can hardly be called neutral. The Pet Goat episode is one of the primary bones of contention for opposers of Bush and is one of the most memorable scenes of a movie that grossed more than any other documentary in box office history. However, if there are no references to the passages you cite, then they should be removed until someone can find a source for the information. Stop bitching about left and right interests on this page, just make your point and back it up, there is no wiki liberal cabal that rules all here, the only currency that carries weight here is properly referenced non-analytical descriptive sentences. One is a lot more likely to listen to your viewpoint if it contains much more reasoning and less complaining. --kizzle 23:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that the pet goat picture was in that documentary...but in light of the fact that that documentary was not seen by me, it should be no wonder. I'm sure I would have found it enlightening. You complain about me "bitching" and also tell me to "shut up". That's very nice. Here's my answer: when this article becomes neutral, then I will do both of those things. Incredible that you would tell me to assume good faith then demand that I shut up. I never claimed to say that Bush isn't to be credited with a huge federal deficit, only that it isn't necessary to compare it. The pet goat picture is only here because most of us remember that Bush did sit quizzing himself after being told about the WTC...so what..who wouldn't be in a state of shock somewhat...which is what I took it to be. I do not see the importance of it, especially since it isn't referenced. I didn't know it was in the documentary because I didn't see it. The issue of Karla Faye Tucker's execution and the supposed public mocking of the event by Bush isn't referenced either...where is the proof. Put the proof in there and it stays for sure, for I am opposed to the death penalty anyway. As far as WMD being sold by the U.S. to Iraq, I am not familar to this issue and need to research it more before I can discuss this matter. I have discussed Hatfield's book, which isn't even on the shelves anymore, as also being a less than credible source. I do see in this article many many links to other references, but I do not think they are in some cases very strong unbiased treatises on the issue referenced. If you wish to prove to me that you and others that find this article to be neutral then you won't do so by lecturing me, being condescending or by telling me to shut up.--MONGO 08:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Why do people who know the least, lecture the most?", now that's condescending.
In analyzing how a president did, we take what the country was like the day he took office to when he left. When Bush took office, he had a $200B surplus, now its up to a $400B deficit ... that's a net loss of $600B under Bush's term. Seems to me like an important thing to note. Like I said, if that's taken out of context, then apply the context that is missing, don't censor the existing essential facts (i.e. "blame it on 9/11"). I must correct myself that the picture of the pet goat probably does not come directly from F9/11, the event was just made public for most people by the movie, of which that scene where he waits 7 minutes is one of the most memorable. I had said it earlier, maybe I didn't word it correctly, that I agree that if certain aspects of this page like the death penalty mocking incident isn't referenced, then take it out. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that unless they can find a source. --kizzle 19:39, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't so much the comparison, it is the context. I do not think it is up to us to analyize how a President did...to such a degree. The deficit can be blamed on many things, some of which include...reduced corporate profits and therefore reduced tax revenue, reduced taxes to citizens, increased spending especially for defense, and much lower on the list is the issue of 9/11...but that is still causal to some of the other tax hikes. I think it is enough to simply say that Bush has the largest federal deficit in history...and then the comparison isn't necessary. However, in comparison to the current GDP, the current deficit is still not a record. But to put that in would be a positive for Bush, so I don't add it because I do want this to be neutral.--68.13.116.52 21:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yowza!

What a gobshite! How the hell did he get a second term? do Americans read te newpapers? are they aware of politics at all? god help us.--Crestville 03:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The goat picture has to go

I think this article has major problems. Even if the tone is NPOV, virtually all the information cited gives a negative impression of Bush's background, accomplishments, etc.

Removing that "The Pet Goat" photo would be a good improvement. It's not even mentioned anywhere else in the article, and seems to exist here only to portray Bush as a buffoon.

Um, pet goat picture? RickK 06:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
All the other pictures in this article appear to be official portraits or posed publicity shots of GWB. If they give Bush a "negative impression", then there is really nothing that Wikipedia can do about that. The "pet goat" picture provides a good counterbalence to the clinical posing of the official photographs.
If it would help we can add text about where the "pet goat" picture comes from. DJ Clayworth 06:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was on the side of it being an attempt to make a naughty point, but if it's an official publicity photo, then I'd say its incidental connotation is no worse than the pro-Bush spin clearly behind all the other publicity photos.
If we're gonna yank it, then we should also yank the one that has him looking so presidential, and the one that has him next to another world leader all statesmanlike, the pic of him as a good family man, et cetera.
And understand this: While there are many criticisms of Bush which I find credible, I consider the pet goat thing to be sheer nonsense. He could not have accomplished anything by running willy-nilly from the classroom and trying to "take command" seven minutes earlier. That's authority-worshipping silliness. But I still say that, if it's a legitimate, official publicity pic, it should stay...one is taking a PoV stance by wanting to remove it. Trying to censor something which appears embarassing to their "side". And, again, I say this despite thinking the complaint implied in the pic is bogus. Kaz 20:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I understand the desire for less stilted pictures than official photos (though other presidents' articles don't seem to suffer from any such problem). However, I think the choice of the Goat image is suspicious. It seems more like a tie-in with Fahrenheit 911 than a candid snapshot of the president that just happened to make it onto the page. Anyway, thanks to DJ Clayworth's edit, the complaint is no longer implied, so it's even less NPOV than before. At least the link to The Pet Goat provides some counterbalance, although none is given in the article text. Ultra Megatron 07:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
I made this edit because someone complained that the picture wasn't in context, so I put some context in. Feel free to remove it if you prefer. DJ Clayworth 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Goat picture should be there, I think--it's what he did after being informed of the attack. I'm not happy with the current caption, however. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The goat picture is misleading. Most of those who know of the incident can look at it from one of two ways: that he is an idiot and it took him 7 minutes to break free from the excitement of the book about the Pet Goat and deal with the 21st century version of Pearl Harbor (it was worse than Pearl Harbor)or, that it was a combination of shock and digestion and gathering a course of action to handle this momentus event, which is my impression. As far as it being in F911, I didn't see the documentary, but knowing that the director of that movie is prone to putting things out of context (in much the same way creationists do when writing about evolution), I do not consider any innuendo to that documentary as neutral, regardless of how much money it made. I see no reason for the picture to be here...I've got a personal impromtu picture of Bush from just last week of him speaking at a venue where he discussed social security reform that I attended...it isn't flattering and one could make all sorts of deductions from it as well. I do not see that only White House approved pictures should be displayed here, but this one is subversive and is here for one apparent reason only, and that is to cast Bush in a bad light, and can therefore never be construed by me to be anything other than pushing a point of view.--MONGO 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why replace an image that will be familiar to the millions with an utterly obscure image? It hardly matters what you think of the movie - the picture wasn't shot for the movie, it just used the footage. Again, if you think that use of an image by a biased source invalidates the image then any images used by GWB's machine (not just created by them) should also be treated with suspicion. The picture is a rare one of a world leader at a defining moment in history. It's hardly irrelevant. Any interpretation you place on it, such as the rather negative one you give, is entirely your own issue. DJ Clayworth 20:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really, really like JamesMLane's recent edit, making the caption read: Bush reading The Pet Goat in a classroom after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center. He was criticized by some for his apparent nonchalance, but praised by others for not alarming the schoolchildren. I think that encapsulates the issue very well. I know people who don't even like Bush who think he did the right thing that morning, and I'm sure there are pro-Bush people who think the President could just stand up and say thank you kindly to the children but he has some Presidenting to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, the fact that you have an alternative interpretation of the picture proves that it does not push a single point of view. Gamaliel 00:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
IN other words, my alternative...the positive one is the opposite of yours which must be the negative one, hence your argument that the picture is substantive based on your viewing the picture and thinking negatively. If you come here with a liberal predisposition then that will cloud YOUR ability to be neutral.--MONGO 12:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the caption should make clear that Bush has not just been told about an attack, but that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. He actually went into the Florida classroom already aware of AA11 hitting the north tower, which might have been excused or explained as a terrible aviation accident. As is obvious from the unedited footage (with sound) of the entire classroom visit,[9] which if anything is more chilling than the abbreviated version Michael Moore used (with his own voiceover) in his Fahrenheit 9/11 excerpt, Chief-of-Staff Andrew Card waited for an opportune moment when it would have been entirely appropriate for Bush to rise, say a few words, and plausibly excuse himself. As has been widely quoted and acknowledged, Card told the President two phrases: a second plane had hit the towers, and that America was under attack. Bush didn't move or get up, perhaps out of shock, perhaps because Card had not specifically told him to get up, or perhaps because he didn't want to "upset the children," although I think that was a rationalization after the fact, because he had been given the opportunity to leave. I think it entirely appropriate for this photo to be part of the George W. Bush page, since indeed 9/11 is the defining moment of his first term. The use of this photo on Wikipedia's page should have nothing to do with whether Michael Moore used it in his film. We all remember -- and indeed can never possibly forget -- where we were at the moment we heard or saw what was happening. We should remember where Bush was, and his reaction. Sandover 00:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The picture is here to push a POV. The point of view is that the President didn't react fast enough. You can all twist it any way you wish but that is why the picture is here and that is why you all keep pushing this issue. I consider his defining moment of 9/11 as the speech he gave a few days after that event...perhaps one of the finest in Presidential history...where is that picture? I said it once and I'll say it again...you cannot undue the fact that he is the President if you wished he wasn't by slandering him. If it must stay why not word the caption: Bush reads the book The Pet Goat after being informed of the second plane hitting the WTC. Some have said that he was waiting for a break in the reading to depart so that the children wouldn't be upset, while others have critized him for not responding to the call of duty quick enough. Though this is long for a caption, it shows that in this article, the negative must always go before the positive, as far as the way much of it is written. Why not put a positive view before a negative view?--MONGO 09:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The alternative points of view are that Bush went into a funk and that Bush displayed great restraint so as not to upset the children. Those are significant opinions on Bush and should be reported in the article about him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Negative. No one really knows what he was thinking but him. But the critism of that pause, moment of momentus decision, effort to be tactful etc. has been misinterpreted by the liberal media and perverted to make most folks think that he was dumbfounded as to what to do next. That is what everyone has been led to believe. Therefore, the picture is here because it helps the left wingers perpertrate their myth that the President is an idiot. You and yours demand the continuance of it being here because it helps you support your attempt to slander. I say replace it with a picture of Bush deliving the speech he made a few days later. With those pictures, we can KNOW what he said...with this picture, we can only DEDUCE what he was thinking and most folks have been brainwashed into believing that he was not thinking at all.--MONGO 12:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's assume hypothetically that there was a vast left-wing conspiracy to convey a false impression about Bush, and that this conspiracy succeeded in using this picture to brainwash millions of people. On that assumption, the picture is notable and should be included. That's the issue, not whether some people are drawing an incorrect conclusion from the photo. We could go into a whole big thing about the different interpretations, giving more detail about each side. I personally think the subject isn't important enough to warrant that, however. The photo is notable and should be included; because the subject isn't addressed in the article, the caption should summarize why a seemingly routine photo became important. I think that's enough detail on it because I don't think there was a vast left-wing conspiracy, I don't buy the anti-Bush argument that there was something useful he could've done in those seven minutes, and I don't buy the pro-Bush argument that he couldn't have politely excused himself without panicking the children. Therefore, let's not clutter the article with the blow-by-blow about Bush's activities on September 11. JamesMLane 13:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
MONGO, you're absolutely right when you say that we look at the picture and deduce what he was thinking. Nobody knows. He's the most important politician in the world and the kind of person he is--how he acts in a calamity--is important to a lot of people. So they look at the video and they try to work out what it says about Bush.
Now replacing it with a picture of a guy making a speech would probably be the wrong thing to do. Politicians rehearse speeches, and usually the speeches aren't even written personally by them. Here is a picture of Bush at a time when, perhaps for the first time in his Presidency, he had to make a decision without access to his staff. He had to think on his feet. I look at it and I see a man beset by indecision, others may look at it and see a man being considerate to the children whom he is there to meet. Whatever you think, it's a pretty powerful portrait of President Bush unmediated by the usual White House smoke and mirrors. A rare chance to see the man beneath. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think both of you saw too much news coverage of that situation and or F911 and reach the conclusion you do about him being indecisive. I say it is here and you support it here because it supports your biased opinion of Bush. I don't use the word biased in a hostile manner. We all have our biases...no doubt. But I think that the entire issue of this photo is a misrepresentation in that the media, which tends to be leftwing, has looked at it from that manner and has passed it on to all of us. I do not see controversial pictures of this nature in similar articles. I do not see that at all. It sits solitary and alone and is not connected to the article...but due to the bias of the media, we have all been well indocrinated to what that picture was guessed to mean about what Bush was doing which appeared to be nothing. As far as Bush having the chance to show independent thought...well, some of his staff were right there with him...and no President acts alone anyway...I say the picture should be replaced with this one for, as I said, we know what he said.[10]. That would leave no ambiguities and would be neutral because it is attributable to a known, not some perception.--MONGO 13:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, sidestepping the issue of whether to keep the pic or not, I don't think people have been biased by the leftwing media to see the photo as an indictment of Bush. Quite the opposite; everybody, without exception, I have talked to who has seen the whole clip of him just sitting there for a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time has said the same thing: 1) it clearly portrays him as rudderless and 2) why the hell hasn't this clip been shown in the media before? Gzuckier 15:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, which is why I think my opinion on this is significant; I think it's utterly ridiculous to pretend that Bush could have accomplished anything more if he'd run out of the room (panicking the children) and started trying to micromanage the situation seven minutes earlier. This is the kind of authority-worshipping nonsense that really irks me about our society in recent years. People "taking charge" doesn't automatically improve a situation or crisis. And yet I agree the pic should stay. Especially if it's a Bush PR pic. If we don't censor PR pics for making Bush look good, we shouldn't censor them for supposedly making him look bad. And, anyway, the fact that the pic is historically significant makes it that much more appropriate, good or bad. One of the most famous individual pics of Clinton is the one of him laughing at Ron Brown's funeral. Because the pic is so famous, it would be appropriate in his article, though of course the Clinton apologists would try to censor it purely out of their own bias. Kaz 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's utterly ridiculous to pretend that the only alternative to Bush sitting there continuing his photo op was to run out of the room screaming. He could have easily excused himself in a calm manner without scaring anyone. Despite what Mongo thinks, all these possible interpretations prove that one single POV is not being pushed by including the picture. This is an important, unrehearsed moment in American history as it is happening and should be included, and is much more important than some varnished, rehearsed picture of a politician's speech. (Incidentally, someone should put a Lewinsky pic in Clinton's article.) Gamaliel 17:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bush's behavior since September 11, 2001 is something about which I have a particular interpretation but that is not something for discussion here. I will simply say that it is possible to have interpretations of Bush's reaction to the incident (and American's reaction in general) other than the one that is loudly promoted by the White House.
You can rest assure that, being European, I have never had the opportunity to become "indoctrinated" by the US media, since I do not have access to their output and my local media have their own independent US political correspondents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's be realistic here...if the premise is that people might get a bad impression of Bush from the US media, that's true cubed for European media. I still say the pic should stay, but you're not exactly gonna get a positive impression of Bush in Europe. Kaz 17:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed you won't. But my point handily demolishes MONGO's belief that there is a small clique of Washington "liberals" or whatever the mot-du-jour is engineering bad PR for Bush. If anything, the Washington press corps is seen by outsiders to be a bunch of spineless bootlickers for Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

reordering books

just wanted to maybe sort the book section by author's last name, unless someone has a problem i'll do it later tonight. --kizzle 19:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Karla Faye Tucker

The statement we had, that Bush mocked her on television, was wrong. She appeared on television (on Larry King). Tucker Carlson wrote a magazine article (in Talk) that reported on Bush's mocking of her TV appearance. I haven't looked up the paper copy of Talk, and website (like the magazine) is defunct, but the passage was quoted on many websites, so I'm comfortable with it unless and until someone finds it's an error. (Talk magazine, September 1999, page 106 is the cite I saw.) The link I gave is to a site quoting the article and also quoting a Salon interview with Carlson. I don't subscribe to Salon; maybe someone who does can check out the Salon link to verify it. (An amusing sidenote is that Carlson was worried that his profile would be seen as "a suck-up piece", but Salon characterized it as "the most damaging profile of [Bush] yet written". JamesMLane 21:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to some further info regarding the Tucker incident: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670 and here is another link from the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr080999.html --Xaliqen 21:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realize that you'd already linked the NY Review of Books article --Xaliqen 21:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyone will have to forgive me for this and will probably chalk it up to what may be perceived as a pro Bush agenda...but I do not find either of these links satisfying. I know you researched it throughly but do not believe it to be substantial enough, and I would like to see a link to the original interview or quotes as they were reported in Talk. These links are secondary to the main article. If you can find a copy of that Talk edition, scan it in and create a website for it, I doubt there would be any copywrite enfringement in light of the magazine being defunct. The interviewer may feel otherwise...in that he is a conservative. I searched for the information myself and cannot find any to add. I will say that a quote from a magazine or article that quotes a now defunct magazine isn't sufficent unless the original citation can be accessed.--MONGO 07:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to exclude widely reported information simply because the source is not internet accessable. A proper citation should be more than sufficient. Also, we shouldn't be a party to a copyright violation simply for our own convienence. The magazine may not be around, but the company who owned the magazine probably is, and the editor of the magazine and the author of the article are still alive. Gamaliel 07:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then it needs to be found as I do not consider third party citations as qualifying.--MONGO 09:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that I'd like to see a link for every point in an article, but it's not always possible. Wikipedia frequently cites printed sources that aren't available online. It's not our usual practice to scan such sources and create a website. Furthermore, Gamaliel is correct that printed material doesn't pass into the public domain just because a magazine stops publishing. I've given a link to my source. Any reader who shares your skepticism about third-party citations can see that this one is a third-party citation and can discount it accordingly. Such a reader can also do a Google search and discount all the many other websites that quote the Talk article to the same effect. JamesMLane 14:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The objection that we can't include widely documented information unless we can link to a direct version of an article in a periodical which no longer exists is absolutely indefensible. It is clear from the articles linked here, if one bothers to examine them, that this incident did indeed happen, unless Carlson, a pro-Bush pundit, was lying about his own interview with Bush. This does indeed seem like yet another PoV censorship trick, trying to keep a fact embarassing to one's own agenda silent. As with the goat pic, allowing this is a matter of principle, regardless of whether one likes the perception it creates. We should defend the posting of factual material that we dislike more stridently than the stuff we support, just as a society can only have liberty if people are free to make unpopular choices. Kaz 18:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've tracked down the publication details, the volume and number (it was vol1 no 1), the name of the article and the page numbers. Thus we have a verifiable citation. The incident, from Carlson's article as source, was widely reported in news media at the time and has often been referenced since. I'm not happy with the wording we have now, however, until someone can track down a copy and verify. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I am coming accross as an obstructionist on this issue. Probably I am. It goes back to my belief that I don't think Salon or some of the other sources of information are very creditible in that they do tend to be sensationalistic and left wing. I've read up on this Carlson guy and it appears to me that his family influence is the main reason he is employed in his field, as he is not all that respected in his field, kind of a Rush Limbaugh type, going off the deep end on a number of issues, being insulting, etc. In that, he appears to be somewhat sensationalistic too. I am conceding defeat on this issue because I know now after looking hard myself that it isn't probably possible to find the original citation and all of you have found more credible citations than were here before. Furthermore, being a conservative, though I don't trust him, Carlson probably did witness this event during his interview with Bush and it is unlikely he would have recited it if it wasn't true. I still do not think the van wormer opinion or Hatfields book or anything from Salon to be creditible however. No, it's not that I accept bad information about Bush solely from conservative sources, I just find these three areas to be unworthy of Wikipedia standards.--MONGO 20:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well MONGO, I sure don't think the National Review is left-wing. First of all, it was founded by William F. Buckley Jr. Second, if you go to the front-page of their web-site, it's quite clear that the focus is on conservative issues from a conservative perspective. As for its reliability, it's been published since 1955, not that longevity determines reliability, but it is certainly a respected publication in a number of circles. --Xaliqen 21:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, National Review is a Neo-Conservative magazine, which means that right now it's devoutly Bush League, for better or worse, since he's successfully advancing their number one agenda. Kaz 04:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well Xaliqen, if you read my discussion then you would see that I had indeed praised those that found more credible sources in this matter. So why are you still unsatisfied?--MONGO 08:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed tag

This article doesn't need the TotallyDisputed tag. The way I see it, that's a heavy-duty tag that goes on articles that are blatantly biased, like, say, all those "Palestinian children" lists. George W. Bush is a controversial man, as all US Presidents were to some degree. No matter how neutral or accurate this article is, there will always be someone out there who disputes its neutrality/accuracy. Also, and I know this is no reason to take off the tag, this is obviously one of Wikipedia's most visible articles. Think of what that says about us, when one of our most basic, vital articles has an ugly tag reserved for the worst of the worst POV offenders. In addition, I haven't seen much of a case made on the talk page that this article truly is biased or inaccurate. Szyslak 02:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. I think this article is nowhere near as neutral as other contemporary articles in which you would expect to find disagreements on context, sourcing of information and discussion. When I look at the pages on contemporary politicians such as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry etc., there is little if any flag waving either way...they appear to be tremendously more neutral than this article is. Let me provide examples: (1)The use of the Pet Goat picture here has no purpose except to put Bush in a bad light...why isn't there a picture of Monica Lewinsky in the Bill Clinton article? The ordeal is discussed and it represents one of the most disgusting abuses of power of any President, but it is discussed only briefly. In the John Kerry article there is a picture of him when he got arrested for an anti Vietnam protest but the entire connotations are different from the Pet Goat picture. (2)In the Bush article, there are numerous paprgraphs detailing his alleged drug and alcohol abuse, but all the sourcing is from conspicuously less than authoritative sources. Whereby in the Clinton article the issue of him smoking dope but not inhaling is mentioned but briefly. (3) In the John Kerry article, there is paragraph after paragraph detailing his actions which resulted in him winning numerous awards and only one paprgraph which discusses those that say his awards were not justified and even that paragraph has detractions built into it. The Bush article discusses only Bush's attempts, as it would read, to weasel out of service, with only one paragraph which discusses his promotions. That's three comparisons...there are many many more. This article is hardly a neutral treatise on the subject matter.--MONGO 08:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There absolutely should be a picture of Monica Lewinsky in the Clinton article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've compared the Goat pic to the pic of Clinton laughing at Ron Brown's funeral. It may be controversial, but only in a way which actually makes it /more/ appropriate in an article about the man. Like the pic of Nixon desperately throwing victory signs as he leaves on the plane. And I agree, it's ridiculous that there's not a pic of Clinton and Lewinsky together in the Clinton article. The problem is that there are Clinton apologists censoring that article, just like Bush apologists are doing here, and both ought to be ashamed of themselves. Kaz 17:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bush v. Gore in lead section

We had some discussion late last year about the coverage of the election disputes in the lead section. My feeling then was that the controversy over the 2004 election was fresh enough that it would help orient the reader if we gave some information of the type that Neutrality has now put in the lead. Back then, however, some other editors were determined to keep this kind of thing out. Much as I disagreed with them then, I think that, with the Inauguration having passed, the election controversies don't deserve this much prominence. Obviously, the subject should be (and is) covered, but it doesn't seem to me that it needs to be in the lead section. We haven't revisited this question lately; what do others think? JamesMLane 03:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate for the article to focus on whatever is timely. Insofar as the elections are now several months passed, it seems appropriate to focus on more timely subject-matter. If one finds it necessary to discuss the latest controversy, then it seems to me the controversy over Bush's appointments to Secretary of State and Attorney General are more timely than the election controversy. --Xaliqen 13:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the lead paragraphs of this article, which I take it is what we're discussing, I must agree. Bush v Gore was relevent right after it happened, and in fact maybe all through the first term, since it was pivotal to him being President...but now he's been elected with no sane controversey (aside from the long-standing question of the electoral college, ballot access laws, campaign finance reform, et cetera), so it really belongs only in chronological order in the article's body. Kaz 18:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey, why not change it to the "Controversial" tag? Kaz 18:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll on TotallyDisputed tag

Since some people really want to keep the TotallyDisputed tag on this article, let's take a vote on whether we want to keep or delete the tag, a sort of "VfD" for the tag. Szyslak 18:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that is a useful thing to do. Kaz 18:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. I have disputes with the article, but they're more properly sociological disputes, centered around ethics, understanding, and fueled by hope. As passionate as I am about these things, I know that I have to understand that people prefer happy illusions to gruesome realities, and that they need that, emotionally, to get by. I want them to get by. So I vote against the Totally Disputed tag. Kevin Baastalk 19:09, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

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 /Archive 17

yep

most nuetral version of this page I've seen

I say we just not allow edits to this page until 25 years after he leaves office. Because after that point, people will only remember what was relevant during his Presidency, and all the Michael Moore conspiracy bullsh*t will have been forgotten.

"POV" Deletions

It's amazing how positive facts/opinions on people like this can be viewed as "information" while negative facts/opinions are "POV problems". I don't like editing wars like most Wikipedians, but I will not be censored in the name of protocol. If you want to remove someone putting in the word "poop" or something, i'm cool with that, but don't try to squelch different viewpoints. That's what makes Wikipedia great.

--Karmafist 04:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A Way to Stop Vandalism

If we assign someone to "edit" and make submissions only possible after a review, maybe the vandalism will stop. It seems that people vandalize this page most often, and this seems like the logical solution to the problem. --68.161.103.108 22:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, that's representative totalitarianism. Given the diverse opinions on this subject, I recommend we follow Wiki policy. Vandalism happens. Edit wars can be prevented. Two different issues. This page has experienced vandalism for a long time, one of the two reasons it was protected.
The other, more important (imho) reason, that caused the page to be protected, was an edit war containing assertions of bad faith. The way to avoid it is for those who choose to edit to assume good faith and work together to resolve disagreements. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2005 Inaugural and Foreign Policy

I added some information about Bush's inaugural address. Please check it out --Ben 20:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

How can something be considered NPOV if it sounds like a press release from Karl Rove himself? Anything that doesn't pass muster with the Wikihawks who watch this article 24/7 disappears almost instantly.

Thats a good term, wikihawks, I like that. What specifically do you see as a problem. I would prefer a shorter intro, i.e. moving the biographical information from the intro to the biography section. Mir 07:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition to having an obvious left-wing slant, this article is way too long. Can we get rid of the irrelevant anti-Bush commentry and actually talk about his presidency? - Jan 16, 2005

Well fix what looks biased. I think its right-wing slanted. Mir 02:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consistant economic reference points

If you are going to talk about tax revenues as a percent of GDP (which is fine) then you also need to show the deficit as a percent of GDP because the current deficit is nowhere near a record by that measure.

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)

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. VeryVerily 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. VeryVerily 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)

I should say that the 2000 results were significant because they led to all the controversy of the counting and legal challenges, causing the result of the election to be in doubt until the Supreme Court ruled PaulHammond 09:49, 7 Jan 2005 (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)
Of course "candidate who finished second" isn't NPOV either, since it suggests Bush should have lost, and the Electoral College system is a well known quirk of the American system. One of the rules of democracy is that all the candidates know which system is being used beforehand, and it doesn't do to complain about that system when it turns out to work against you. PaulHammond 09:59, 7 Jan 2005 (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)

This is ridiculous, even the damn president is "unelected" given that he is chosen by 538 individuals who happen to be chosen by the people of individual states+dc.

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 [11].
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” [12]), Jesse Jackson (“The extreme right wing has seized the government.” [13]), 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)
There is a large difference between The Dialectics of Nature and the Bible. The bible is a collection of stories and sayings which do not have any justification for the morals they teach but rather that we must accept them simply because. Lenin, political books, and philosophical arguments are all mental constructs which rely upon a developed conclusion from a sequence of logically rejecting and accepting premises to be true. Religion is the very antithesis of this process, as its content is not developed through any process but rather is simply stated. That is why religioun is a form of thought which by definition must exclude reason: it contains no peer review nor any review whatsoever, it cannot be changed, and its lessons and ethics are not derived from any logical processes in themselves but rather through an appeal to a higher deity's "superior" reasoning. Once again, this does not mean that a belief in God is unjustified or wrong, it simply must be taken on faith, like most of religion. Once religion dips into logical justification for its viewpoints (which it smartly does not), it encounters a significant amount of problems. --kizzle 08:23, Dec 7, 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 [14], 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)

2005 Inaugural and Foreign Policy

I added some information about Bush's inaugural address. Please check it out --Ben 20:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverted after three weeks, as it was a shameless and fraudulent mangling of Bush's words. Gazpacho 06:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

How can something be considered NPOV if it sounds like a press release from Karl Rove himself? Anything that doesn't pass muster with the Wikihawks who watch this article 24/7 disappears almost instantly.

Thats a good term, wikihawks, I like that. What specifically do you see as a problem. I would prefer a shorter intro, i.e. moving the biographical information from the intro to the biography section. Mir 07:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition to having an obvious left-wing slant, this article is way too long. Can we get rid of the irrelevant anti-Bush commentry and actually talk about his presidency? - Jan 16, 2005

Consistant economic reference points

If you are going to talk about tax revenues as a percent of GDP (which is fine) then you also need to show the deficit as a percent of GDP because the current deficit is nowhere near a record by that measure.

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)

I hate bush...

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)

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. VeryVerily 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. VeryVerily 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)

I should say that the 2000 results were significant because they led to all the controversy of the counting and legal challenges, causing the result of the election to be in doubt until the Supreme Court ruled PaulHammond 09:49, 7 Jan 2005 (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)
Of course "candidate who finished second" isn't NPOV either, since it suggests Bush should have lost, and the Electoral College system is a well known quirk of the American system. One of the rules of democracy is that all the candidates know which system is being used beforehand, and it doesn't do to complain about that system when it turns out to work against you. PaulHammond 09:59, 7 Jan 2005 (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)

This is ridiculous, even the damn president is "unelected" given that he is chosen by 538 individuals who happen to be chosen by the people of individual states+dc.

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 [15].
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” [16]), Jesse Jackson (“The extreme right wing has seized the government.” [17]), 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)
There is a large difference between The Dialectics of Nature and the Bible. The bible is a collection of stories and sayings which do not have any justification for the morals they teach but rather that we must accept them simply because. Lenin, political books, and philosophical arguments are all mental constructs which rely upon a developed conclusion from a sequence of logically rejecting and accepting premises to be true. Religion is the very antithesis of this process, as its content is not developed through any process but rather is simply stated. That is why religioun is a form of thought which by definition must exclude reason: it contains no peer review nor any review whatsoever, it cannot be changed, and its lessons and ethics are not derived from any logical processes in themselves but rather through an appeal to a higher deity's "superior" reasoning. Once again, this does not mean that a belief in God is unjustified or wrong, it simply must be taken on faith, like most of religion. Once religion dips into logical justification for its viewpoints (which it smartly does not), it encounters a significant amount of problems. --kizzle 08:23, Dec 7, 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 [18], 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 ridiculous 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 are merely a mindless obsession for some.--Silverback 01:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This argument is pretty blatant POV. If you approve of what Bush has done, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's no basis for withholding facts about the elections. If Bush is a shining hero and the facts about this aspect of his noble career take a bit of the luster off, well, that's the way the ball bounces. JamesMLane 02:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He is hero is some areas, mass-murderer in others, lets stick to the facts and keep them in perspective. The election stuff should be mentioned here, especially since it meant he had to overcome a hostile and divisive environment, but it doesn't need to be mentioned in the first paragraphs, if people are opposing its mention elsewhere in the article, I'll support its mention there. it doesn't match the encyclopedic POV of other presidential bio's to include it in the overall summary. --Silverback 02:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
James, I certainly think the election controversies should be fully referenced in the article itself. Anything else would be white-washing. I'm just not sure it needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph of the article. Perhaps adding a simple descriptor such as 'controversial election' or 'hotly contested election' would be a reasonable compromise for the lead-in paragraph. Wolfman 02:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the close question is how much to put in the lead section. My view is still that some people, especially non-Americans, will come to this article having heard vaguely about election controversies, and not even being clear on the distinction between 2000 and 2004. For their benefit, while the 2004 election is "fresh", I'd include brief references in the lead. The lead will have to be rewritten anyway after January 20, and at that time the references to controversies and delayed outcomes could be removed unless there had been major developments. JamesMLane 05:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That seems a reasonable approach to me. Wolfman 05:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I can sign on to a compromise which accepts the election references until Jan 20, and then reduces this early summary paragraph emphasis then, if others agree that they will support the election demphasis in the first paragraphs then. We don't need unanimity, but a workable number from both sides agree to accept and defend the compromise, both before and after.--Silverback 05:47, 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)

Bush administration disinformation about Iraq

Silverback's edit summary asks me "What lies?" His version is not NPOV because it asserts, as if it were an undisputed fact, that after 9/11 "there was a new sense of urgency" about the WMD issue and the possible aid to terrorists. I deny that there was such a renewed sense of urgency. My POV is that Bush knew, because all his intelligence experts were telling him, that Saddam did not have WMDs, was not close to getting nuclear capability, and had had nothing to do with 9/11. It is further my POV that Bush, knowing these facts, cynically and immorally seized on 9/11 as a convenient pretext for doing what he'd been planning to do since before the 2000 election, namely depose Saddam. Now, I don't expect the Wikipedia article to reflect my personal opinions of Our Glorious Leader. We should indeed report the line that the Bush administration was publicly spouting. Nevertheless, we don't assert it as fact. We attribute it. The version I've reverted to says "the Bush administration argued that", which is the properly NPOV way to present Bush's statements. We could, of course, get into more detail about what documentary evidence was available about Iraqi weapons programs, but if we're going to assert that Iraq made claims that weren't documented, then we should also link to Yellowcake Forgery to point out that Bush made claims based on forged documents. JamesMLane 02:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Completely agree with your point. Wolfman 02:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with keeping it NPOV, the yellowcake forgery was not done by Bush, although since it had been called into question, it should not have been used. Nevertheless, the concern it raised, that Saddam wanted nukes was valid, and it is clear from interviews with Iraqi scientists since the war, that Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD programs, and he had the resources to do it. My own POV is that the war was not justified, but that, even so, it was probably the most just war the US has ever been involved in and fought because we only intended to transfer the power and resources to a democratic government by the most just means because we didn't use conscription, and used some of the most accurrate munitions in history, to carefully preserve civilian life and infrastructure. Yes, we have avoided conscription in other recent wars, but in Serbia and the first Gulf war, we purposely targeted civilian infrastructure and in the bunkers in Kuwait murdered over 100,000 innocent Iraqi conscripts.--Silverback 02:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Well, if he wanted WMD, if he had the resources to do it, if the sanctions were not interfering, then why didn't he have any WMD? It's not at all clear that any of the premises above are true. Stating any of them as fact is POV; stating that the situation was urgent is POV. Stating what Bush said and attributing it to Bush is NPOV. Wolfman 03:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Saddam did want the sanctions to end, yet obsfuscated against the inspections because he wanted his neighbors to believe he still had WMD. Of course, it made the rest of the world believe he still had WMD as well. Why he wanted his neighbors to believe he still had WMD is unclear. was it as a deterrent to Iran? or for prestige in the region? to intimidate the shiites and kurds? Frankly, Saddam bears far more responsibility for the war than Bush, he had one of the greatest opportunities in history to open his country, get his borders guaranteed without any need for further military expenditures on Iraq's part, even disolving his military, and to thumb his nose at the west by legalizing drugs and calling his nation the freeist on earth. I would have done it!--Silverback 03:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The french, germans and russians probably also bear more responsibility for the war than Bush, because they gave Saddam hope he could wait out the sanctions and get them removed without the full cooperation that would have given Iraq's claims of having destroyed the unaccounted for material credibility.--Silverback 03:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would say that the person who started the war is responsible for starting the war, but that's just me. Kevin Baas | talk 05:49, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
I say the moral bright line is between sanctions and non-coercive means, not between sanctions and war. Sanctions are acts of war, a gun to the head, so to speak. Sanctions commit one to backing them up occasionally. Of course, one can also take the "start" back to the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam, there has only been a truce since then. Rest assured that another nation imposing a no-fly zone on the US (as the UN did on Iraq) would find it considered an act of war.--Silverback 05:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Admittedly, I am not fully aware of the details surrounding Desert Storm. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing who went to war. The controversial term "preemptive strike" comes to mind. I guess you could argue that it was self defence, but that would be a failing strategy in any court, national or international. In any case, the War, the actual physical battle, was started by the Bush administration (and prepared for long before). I.e. it was a premeditated act commited by the Bush Administration, and insofar as one is responsible for one's actions, the Bush administration is responsible for acting as it did, and all of the consequences resultant therefrom. Kevin Baas | talk 07:12, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
The sanctions were in place after Desert Storm which was only "ended" with a truce (not a peace treaty) and that truce had been violated many times. However, I don't see the "preemptive" element as introducing any moral issues. Saddam lost any right have his rights respected, when he initiated violating the rights of others, the rape room, or the torturing of the soccer players is all the excuse needed. The key moral issue is that taking out Saddam in order to prevent further violations of rights involves the certainty of collateral damage, including the taking of innocent life. But governments do that all the time, even in peace, they use net-lives-saved justifications to delay access to life saving medications. In the United States delays in the approval of clot busting drugs (TPA and streptokinase) and beta blockers (propranol HCL, atenolol, etc) are estimated to have cost over a million lives (they didn't quite achieve a net plus on this one). If net-lives-saved are enough to justify taking innocent life in peace, there is no reason for the standard to be higher war, and given the nature of Saddam's regime and his diversion of humanitarian aid to the military and to the corruption of european and international leaders, the Iraq war may already have met the net lives saved standard. Madeline Albright estimated that over 500,000 infants had died in Iraq, before the oil for food program was initiated.--Silverback 08:34, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Silverback, you're kinda jumping around here. Egregious human rights records do not necessarily justify us to invade a country's soverign rule, otherwise we would be at war with many many countries, with at least a few we have far more of a reason to invade than Iraq. Iran is a much better target, why didn't we hit them? Regardless, the point is that we started the war, we are responsible for the war. The argument that we were provoked into doing so, like KB says, is flimsy at best. Any justification you can use for Iraq can be applied to many other countries... if we must accept this justification by provocation, we are morally inclined to invade these other countries as well and the fact that we haven't done so yet should incite moral outrage. --kizzle 07:55, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

As much as I agree with some of the posters here. It's all off topic. Does anyone have any concrete proof that Bush lied to the American public. Are there any documents that said before the war that Iraq neither had a single drop of WMD (remember that a single drop can kill hundreds), nor wanted to make them? The CIA may have had wrong information, like it's had hundreds of times before, or they could have been moved out of the country, but unless someone has concrete proof that Saddam didn't have WMD, and that Bush knew about it and intentionally lied about it, it shouldn't be in a factual article. PPGMD

Conversly, if and only if the CIA had "concrete evidence that Saddam Hussien possesses WMD." at the time that Bush made that statement, Bush was telling the truth to the public (i.e. x is a true statement). If he was not telling the truth to the public, then he was lying to the public (i.e. x is a false statement). To the best of any informed person's knowledge, the CIA did not only not have any "concrete evidence" of this, but had no credible evidence whatsoever. Therefore, Bush knowingly lied to the public. Simple logic. Sound and valid.
Why knowingly? Because this is the kind of statement a president makes to the public if and only if they know. If he did not know, then he is not only a liar (however unknowingly), but an abhorently irresponsible and incompetent one. That is, I am actually being nice to him by giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying that he knowingly lied. Kevin Baas | talk 20:45, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
No credible evidence whatsoever eh? I am sure the President knows what's going on in the bowels of the CIA HQ. Most intelligence agencies at the time that he made the run up to the war said that Saddam had WMD. There was very little evidence to the to rebut it, the report that they delivered to the UN didn't help anything either, since it didn't account for all the weapons. There was credible, evidence, at least as credible as one can get without any intelligence operatives on the ground.
Once again, show me documents from credible that prove that President Bush lied? This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of conspiracy theories, without concrete proof it shouldn't be in this entry. If I want junk like that I will goto coasttocoastam.com PPGMD
The onus is on the president to demonstrate that there was hard evidence of WMD. As the saying goes, "innocent until proven guilty." Until it is proven that iraq has WMD, i.e. is guilty of a violation. The proof is the lack of evidecne to the contrary. there can be no other proof. how can you prove that something does not exist other than pointing out that there is no evidence of it's existence? This is the logical problem mistake that make people believe in God. By the same so-called "logic" people use to justify their belief in god you are justifying your belief that saddam had wmd. You cannot disprove their existence because there is no possible way for there to be evidence of their "nonexistence"; one cannot be shown their "non-being".
The onus is on the president. Saddam probably didn't think he would go to war. Who can blame him? How could anyone expect a national leader to be so belligerent as to go around invading other countries on the basis of completely unsubstantiated allegations? The whole world, in fact, was rather shocked.
He said there is hard evidence. He does not know the bowels of the CIA! The CIA doesn't even know their own bowels. Where are you getting this from? Your blind faith is scarry. He said there is concrete evidence. There is not concrete evidence. He lied. I understand that this may be difficult to accept. But that's proof. That's as much proof as could possibly exist. Yes, the president of the United States blatently lied to his country. I know that's the last thing you want to hear. It sounds very ugly, it's horrendous. Maybe that's why you're having so much trouble believing it. You're not alone: nobody wants to believe it. But it's the sad truth. He lied and repeated his lies and when he could repeat them no longer because there was too much evidence to the contrary, he shifted them so as to make it look like that's what he was saying all along, and repeated those new lies over and over again. When there was too much evidence to the contrary, he shifted them again. Ofcourse it worked, ofcourse people think that he didn't do this; that he's told the truth the whole time. Have you done your homework? How do you learn something? Repetition, repetition, repetition. Teachers know this. It is the most powerful tool. Repetition. What is repeated is taken to be true, regardless of any connection with the empirical world. It's basic psychology. There was no evidence. There still is no evidence. The CIA knew this (with 2 maverik exceptions), every other country in the world knew this (except isreal. Britian's population knew this overwhelming, and Tony Blair possibly knew it as well.) He lied. People lie, you know. They do sometimes, really. No, really, everyone doesn't always tell the truth. Sometimes people actually do lie. No, really. Really. Kevin Baas | talk 23:52, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
Read The Price of Loyalty by Paul O'Neill, or Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke. We were planning on going to Iraq before we even considered weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the weapons of mass destruction claim came after our plans to invade. While it cannot be technically proven that he did not know, its like he claimed Saddam was planning to invade the U.S., a hypothesis with little to none substantial evidence. You make a statement like posession of WMD after you have the evidence, not before. --kizzle 23:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
This discussion didn't arise because someone wanted the article to say that Bush was lying. It arose because someone wanted the article to parrot Bush's lies uncritically. The demand by PPGMD for "concrete proof" should apply both ways. The article shouldn't state something as a fact if the only basis is that Bush asserted it. I have no problem with our reporting his notable statements in a form like "The Bush administration argued that...." It was the omission of that kind of attribution that caused the disagreement. JamesMLane 01:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
True. Plus the Bush administration did state numerous times that we had incontrovertible evidence that Saddam had WMD. Obviously we did not have undeniable evidence, since no WMD were found. Therefore, the administration did plainly lie about the strength of the evidence. Now whether that's the CIA or the Whitehouse is perhaps debatable. But last I checked, Bush is the leader of the executive branch, and that's where the buck stops so the issue is relevant to this article. Wolfman 04:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It isn't a lie unless the "liar" knows it is untrue. It is a copout to state that "the administration" lied. Who lied? Perhaps someone jumped to a conclusion or assumed the worst. Frankly, it appears the U.S. had inside intelligence high within the Saddam administration or military and believed what they believed. Iraqi unit commanders knew they did not have chemical weapons, but they thought other units did. It also appeared that Saddam himself may have been lied to, and the U.S. believed those lies also. In any case, it all turned out for the best, how lucky can the U.S. get?--Silverback 06:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Silverback is really George W. Bush, that's not a lie by his criteria. Yes, how lucky we are to have invaded Iraq, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, taken 10000 wounded in action and 1200 dead. Wolfman 06:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Touche! There must be some further qualification or criteria for lying that I have forgotten from my ethics class. I would characterize your statement (that I am W) as speculation, with extremely little evidence, but you are right, I wouldn't call you a liar by my criteria, even though I know through personal knowledge the truth or falsity of your statement. It is a very few hundreds of billions, but the casualties are low by historical standards, if only someone could liberate us the from yoke of the US government so cheaply. 8-) --Silverback 07:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I second JML (once again), its just fun to talk about this sometime, but we cannot officially endorse Bush's viewpoint, we must quote and attribute, quote and attribute. Back to debating, whether or not he lied is a question which will never be proved either way, however we do know that Bush wanted a war with Iraq before WMD's, before 9/11, so it just seems a bit convenient at best.--kizzle 09:52, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
You overstate it. There is a difference between wanting Saddam removed and wanting a war. He would have been more patient with other approaches, if not for the unaccounted for WMD, which gave it a sense of urgency. I doubt he would have waited very long however, if the other approaches were not showing promise. All the conservatives were impatient with the resource drain of the no-fly zone and competely lack of credibility of U.N. sanctions.--Silverback 10:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Resource drain, as compared to how much we're spending on the war now? To see the invasion of Iraq as merely a response to a threat of WMD misses the point. I don't think that's what Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld were thinking at the time at the very least. --kizzle 11:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Obviously the army is tied down. But the airpower is significantly freed up. Read the PNAC document for an idea of the strain the no fly zone put on the U.S. Kuwait was not a good base for dealing with Iran, Iraq puts us in a better position, and makes sure the oil revenues are spent in Iraq for the benefit of her people, rather than spilling over into Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. You may think suicide bombers are cheap and in unlimited supply, certainly ones that can penetrate a western country are, but even there, I think there is a big drain on this irredeemable element being thrown against hard targets (U.S. military) and unfortunately innocent Iraqi's. They obviously view democracy as a threat, which proves they agree with the possible consequences of this risky and idealistic U.S. strategy, although of course, they oppose it. This war against a corrupt, depraved dictatorship may look like a bargain a few years out. Frankly, I think a civil war would not be that bad, especially if it resulted in the Kurds and Shiites getting nations, and the discredited bathists getting a middle country but permanently defanged, because they have no oil.--Silverback 12:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For those who missed it, Silverback just said "Frankly, I think a civil war would not be that bad". This needs no futher comment. Wolfman 14:53, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Three Comments

1. The box with the Cabinet appointments is wrong. Although some Cabinet members have submitted their resignations, these do not take effect until their successor is sworn in. So, for example, Colin Powell is the Secretary of State until Condoleeza Rice is sworn in. Same goes for Ashcroft, Evans and the others.

2. Concerning the above talkpage discussion. It is amazing to me how people cannot stop their political viewpoint from obstructing their view of facts. At this point it makes no sense to put Bush's administration in a historical context. Many of the controversial acts Bush has done may be great for America in the future, OR it could be a disaster but only time will tell. For example, TR's action in seizing the Panama Canal were controversial and maybe illegal but in the long run it is recognized as one of his Presidencies greatest achievements, likewise President Buchanan's reluctance to engage the Confederacy is now looked on as a major failure but at the time were seen as necessary to avoid war. So with that in mind, I think the current Bush article is better because it seems to be simply reciting the events of Bush's first term without arguing whether these acts were right or wrong.

3. I noticed in the articles, that there are separate links between Bush's first term and his second (which will happen, regardless of what one of the contributors above thinks). This is unnecessary. It was not done for other two term Presidents, so I don't understand why we need to do it here. Just have it all on the same page.

Thanks Ramsquire 23:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page again because of the spurts of vandalism it has been receiving. Will unprotect as soon as is possible. Any changes, feel free to submit and discuss here. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 02:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. This is an actively worked on page, so the vandalism gets corrected almost instantaneously and gets lost in the noise. It is the vandalism on less active pages you need to worry about.--Silverback 06:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For once I agree with Silverback. Unprotect. Dealing with the vandals is a hassle but a minor one. Besides, how can anyone "unprotect as soon as is possible"? We won't know how much vandalism will occur until it's unprotected. JamesMLane 00:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Failure to Meet with NAACP

Under "Domestic Policy" the following line appears:

Although President Bush did meet with the National Urban League, he is the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.

This is poorly written. A better edit would be:

President Bush has met with the National Urban League as President, but has not yet met with the NAACP as President, though he did address the NAACP at their 2000 convention in Baltimore as a presidential candidate. Should President Bush not meet with the NAACP before he leaves office, he will become the first sitting President to have not met with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover.

This is a significant improvement for several reasons. First, while Bush hasn't met with the NAACP as president, it's unfair to fail to mention that he has met with them in the past. Secondly, Bush isn't "the first sitting President not to meet..." anymore than Bill Clinton was the first sitting President not to meet with the NAACP up until the time that he actually did. The sentence won't be true until Bush has left office still not having met with the NAACP.

I agree. Your statement should be added to the piece.Ramsquire 22:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I too agree sounds more NPOV.--198 04:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
yes, making the edit now. Wolfman 05:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
oh, well then, i see it's protected. at any rate it's a clear improvement. and the page should be unprotected, as it just encourages vandals by making them feel powerful. block them, not us. 05:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First and Second term pages

I don't know why, but some one removed the links to George W. Bush's first term as president of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as president of the United States I added them back to the see also section.--The_stuart 19:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again, some one has removed the links to these pages. I thought that discussion was supposed to come before removing something from this page. I don't see any reason why links to these pages shouldn't be incluided some where on this page. Until there is discussion as to why they shouldn't be on this page I'm going to keep putting them back. I'm not try start any kind of conflict, only discussion.--The_stuart 18:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the link to Bush's first term and second term because I find it strange to point to other articles that are basically discussing the same things as this article. Also, I explained my edit above in the section entitled "Three Comments". I am just confused as to why we would need separate links since the topic of this article concerns the life and presidency of Bush. Ramsquire 21:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because, after only one term, the page is already 57k. Spinning off sections to separate pages (and replacing them with summaries!) is standard practice as articles grow.
—wwoods 21:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
But wouldn't it make more sense to just prune out the unnecessary stuff. It is weird that Bush's one term page would be larger than Clinton's two terms page. Maybe we should try to format the page so that all pages on world leaders follow a very similiar format, but if there are other things the person is noted for, e.g Nixon and Watergate, have that under a separate title. The reason I proposed the edit is that Bush's page is very unlike all the other US president pages, containing sections on world and domestic views on the Presidency, which maybe can be streamlined into the body of the rest of the article. Just an idea.Ramsquire 20:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer to use the existing split by subject matter -- to prune the sections on foreign and domestic policy, moving a lot of the detail to those respective daughter articles. A particular reader is more likely to want to know something like what Bush did on economic matters, regardless of which term it was in, than to want to know what happened specifically before January 20, 2005. JamesMLane 03:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As for the Clinton comparison, recent subjects tend to attract more attention than older ones. The article on Bill Clinton is much longer than the article on Thomas Jefferson. JamesMLane 10:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Bush just happend to be president now, so more things are going to be written about him. Later presidents will also probably get exstensive articles as well. Its just a matter of the timing that his presidency will be so well documented.--The_stuart 16:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that since Bush is in office now, it seems like everything he does will have historical significance and should be included in this article. Things like the SEC investigation will have no historical significance in four years, but yet paragraphs are dedicated to it in this articel. I think we have to fight the urge to include every possible angle and keep the article simple. I know it would be too difficult now, but perhaps we should have a specific format for world leaders that we have to stick to, instead of the add everything we can think of going on now. It is ridiculous that a one term president already has all this information in his article. I do like the idea of using the foreign and domestic policy split over first term/second term split though.Ramsquire 18:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Resignations

I just compared the current version of the page to the version by VerilyVerily at 05:27, 12 Dec 2004 diff. One major omission is the following paragraph. Since I'm aware that this page is being attacked by vandals, I'm copying it here in case it is vandalism that has been missed (it probably isn't, but I'm being extra cautious).

"Within a few weeks after the 2004 election, several Cabinet members announced their resignations: Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, Secretary of Education Rod Paige, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, and Secretary of Health of Human Services Tommy Thompson. Bush has announced his nominations of Condoleezza Rice to replace Powell, Alberto R. Gonzales to replace Ashcroft, Margaret Spellings to replace Paige, Carlos Gutierrez to replace Evans, Mike Johanns to replace Veneman, and Bernard Kerik to replace Ridge, although Kerik has declined the position." --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, I replaced that paragraph with the table of "Proposed second term cabinet" to make it all more readable. I may be a vandal, though, as I've been accused in the past.  :) Jewbacca 04:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected that this might have been the intention, but I thought it was worth querying just the same. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There were some changes during the first term, and some continuity between the first and second terms. I don't think breaking it out this way is best for the long run. When the dust settles after most of the confirmation hearings, we should go back to a single unified table (with dates), and a paragraph noting the spate of changes at the end of 2004. For now, though, a separate table is reasonable, to accommodate all these unconfirmed nominees or intended nominees, who can't yet be listed as Cabinet members. JamesMLane 05:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
My thoughts precisely. We finally agree on something :) But yes, we should merge it to look like the table at Bill Clinton after confirmations. Jewbacca 06:04, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Most vandalized page on Wikipedia?

It sure seems like it. Every time I visit this page, typically half of the current History actions on the screen are vandalism reverts. --I run like a Welshman 22:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if these things are tracked, in a meaningful way, but the impact here is probably less than on other pages because the page is actively worked, by experienced wikipedian's, reverting the vandalism is a minor nusance. You will also usually many substantive changes to the page on any given day. Really, once you gain some experience, it is hardly a bother at all.--Silverback 15:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's probably to do with the amount of traffic this article recieves, Bush being about the most visible figure worldwide. Michael Moore and Adolf Hitler are two articles I've looked at that also recieve a lot of vandalism. At least there doesn't seem to be a revert war going on, like there was with the John McCain page a few weeks ago. Diceman 15:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have not/did not

I changed As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised about inaccurate counting of votes and other irregularities, especially in Ohio, although in 2004 they *did* not lead to recounts that could affect the result. to As in the 2000 election, there were charges raised about inaccurate counting of votes and other irregularities, especially in Ohio, although in 2004 they *have* not lead to recounts that could affect the result.

I'm not making some conspiracy case that the election can be overturned, but in point of fact, it's Jan 6. when 'did not' becomes accurate. Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 20:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed "could" to "is expected to". It is technically more correct. There are enough uncounted provisional ballots and spoiled ballots to overturn the result, besides the fact that it's physically possible for there to have been fraud. Kevin Baas | talk 20:10, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Ohio the focal point of 2004 election "shadiness"

I added mention of Ohio being the focal point for suspicion over voter representation in 2004. I was oh-so-tempted to mention how the CEO of Diebold said they were committed to delivering Ohio's electoral vote to Bush in 2004..but that would've clearly been biased and I didn't want to polarize this entry. MDesigner 21:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

The recount showed a change of only 300 votes -- Get over it and let's move on First Lensman 15:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Get over it and let's move on." Nothing to see here, folks. Classic. 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities -- RyanFreisling @ 00:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other info

The page is about George W. Bush. I am looking, and thinking, things like his beliefes, financial backers, agenda and the like have a place in it. They are legitimate in an article about him, and can and should be shown, albeit neutrally. Its not just about "his acts and history as president". FT2 09:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

agreed--The_stuart 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to agree if we were doing a biography on the subjects in this page. The problem is that many of these things turn out to be apocryphal and therefore don't belong in an encyclopedia. In a biography it is more acceptable to use poetic license and rumors, than it would be in an encyclopedia article. Here we should stick to facts that can be verified (so that we don't have to keep constantly editing and adding things to the articles). For example this article says that there have been rumors that Bush has used cocaine. If it were to come out tomorrow that the cocaine use has unquestionably been verified, either way, then we'd have to change the article. If it wasn't in there, we'd wouldn't have to add it unless it affected policy or his health, or had some current importance. However, I understand I am in the minority here, most people do want everything ever written about a figure in the wiki articles. Ramsquire 22:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An explanation

this page was moved - and there were problems with the move back (someone edited before the page was replaced). Because actions weren't going through - it ended up with a move and a delete happening at the same time - and so the real page was deleted (by me!). The restore function also wasn't working - possibly because of the size of the history. Now it seems that the history is duplicated - but at least the page is back and koo got it in the right state! -- sannse (talk) 01:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History is quadruplicated. :-) Evercat 01:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep - not sure what can be done about that... hopefully a dev will be able to fix it. what a mess! -- sannse (talk)

Thanks to User:Tim Starling, the problem is fixed, so long as nobody tries to undelete the page again. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 15:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

robert jordan redirect

Someone filled out the entry for Robert Jordan as the author for Wheel of Time, so when someone clicks on the entry mentioned in Bush's business career it goes to that. How can that get fixed as a redirect or something? --kizzle 22:37, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've dabbed it into Robert Jordan (lawyer) and will now do a stub. JamesMLane 18:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bush was a cheerleader.

Bush was a cheerleading captain, at Andover, I believe, if memory serves. Somebody look it up. One of the notes to the edits to this page mentions it and assumes it's vandalism. But, no. Wrongo. He was a cheerleader.

Is it important?Ramsquire 18:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
David Letterman frequently uses an old photo of Bush as cheerleader and says, "That's exactly what our country needs, a cheerleader."--Pharos 17:53, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is the fact that he played baseball and rugby any more important? Should that be removed as well?

If I had my way the rugby, baseball, drunk driving, his religious conversion, rumored cocaine use, the details surrounding the Harken incident, the anecdote about his jury service as Texas Governor, the entire public perceptions and assessments section and the trivia section would be removed, but I am in the minority here when it comes to how this article is presented. I believe that these articles should reach for brevity, as do most other encyclopedias. It is sort of ridiculous that a one term President has an article that is almost three times the size of two-term President and major historical figure Thomas Jefferson.Ramsquire 21:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Now a TWO (2) term President (Thank God) First Lensman 15:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's be adult about this. The issue isn't whether Bush was a cheerleader or not; it's the context in which it's presented and NPOV. This could be viewed as a "color" item—an interesting fact about someone, at least as significant as that John Kerry named his boat "Scaramouche." But simply saying "cheerleader" without context implies a short skirt and pompoms, an attempt at ridicule (POV) and an undercurrent of homophobia (worse).
IOW, I don't know the circumstances of Bush's cheerleaderness, but if its mentioned as a "color fact," we should know what "cheerleader" meant. Was he one of a bunch of guys who performed dance moves? Was he a token male in a groups of girls? Did he hold a megaphone and call out cheers while others danced? Was there anything special in his decision to enter this activity? Do it right or don't do it. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I for one never thought it was important at all, just passing along information. If anyone wants to know, in the Letterman picture, he's just yelling out of a megaphone and looking cheery.--Pharos 19:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with the length of the article, Ramsquire. Bush is a present day figure. We know a lot more about him than we do about Thomas Jefferson. Every bit of information that is preserved about him on here is, IMHO, good. Displaying everything can help prevent bias (for or against) and will help ensure that that information will be there for future generations. Imagine if the people of ancient times had had a Wikipedia in which to inscribe everything they knew about their culture and political leaders. -- J. Jensen 16:36, 14 Jan 2005 (CST)

Cocaine

The now-blocked 216 has a point, does he not? Should we really carry accusations without giving any real evidence at all? Evercat 19:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see we've not reverted his removal of same. Fine. Evercat 19:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The cocaine "allegations" are just endearing and humanizing personal anecdotes. Supporters probably think they add color to his testimony, and opponents can hope that someday he'll remember that prison would have denied the country a great leader in its time of need, and end the hypocritical drug war.--Silverback 19:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We give the evidence for what we state, namely that Bush has been accused of having used cocaine. It's NPOV to report that accusation, which has enough currency in the political world to be notable whether or not it's true. We don't assert it is true. JamesMLane 21:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The cocaine allegations have no place in this encyclopedia. The source of the allegations came from a single book from a discredited man. Just because something is alleged in a book (particularly one from a no-name author instead of say, Bob Woodward) does not mean it needs to be given space in an encyclopedia. I saw a book that claimed Bill Clinton was part of a murder conspiracy that resulted in the death of Vince Foster and others. The book is at your book store right now. Does that mean the murder "allegations" should be included in Clinton's entry? Of course not. And in the very least, if we must include "allegations" from a discredited author and a discredited book, we must at least say that the allegations were never proven and are not widely considered credible.

Let's not discuss the vetted fact concerning ALL the drugs John F. Kennedy was hopped up on While He WAS President. Noooooo! But, Let's just state every innuendo, every speculation, every lie, fostered on the public by rabid Liberals bent on the character assassination of George W. Bush, and present it as fact in this encyclopedia. Just because a Liberal spouts something doesn't make it true. These items need to be vetted. Place them in the discussion area before posting to the article. FirstLensman 16:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


=Hayes

although in 2004 they have not lead to recounts that would affect the result. George W. Bush is the only President to win re-election after losing the popular vote in his first election. The other three, John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison, were each defeated in their bid for a second term.


I don't believe has ran for a second term in 1880 or at least he was not the GOP candidate Garfield was.

Cut down the article

The foreign and domestic policy sections have already been placed into other articles but are still too large in this article - it's 56k last I checked. I think it'd be best to further summarise those sections where possible. I would do it but have no particular interest or knowledge about this topic. violet/riga (t) 23:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oil companies

What the article stated about Bush's career in the oil business was that he founded Arbusto; Arbusto changed its name to Bush Exploration, and under that name was sold to Spectrum 7; Spectrum 7 had Bush as its CEO and went bankrupt; Spectrum 7 was saved by Harken Energy; Bush became a director of Harken Energy, which encountered some financial difficulties, from which it extricated itself through an arrangement with Harvard.

It appears to me, however, that Spectrum 7 did not go bankrupt. It lost money and might well have gone bankrupt except that it was saved by the Harken deal. There's a detailed account of Bush's career in the awl bidness in this cached Village Voice article by the reputable James Ridgeway (I hope this link works): [19] To my mind, "bankrupt" implies a formal filing, by the company or by one or more creditors, in a Bankruptcy Court. Even if it turns out that Spectrum 7 actually did go bankrupt, I find no support for the statement that was added to the lead section of this article that Bush managed "several oil companies which went bankrupt". Accordingly, I've reworded that passage in the lead section and the more detailed discussion of these companies later on. JamesMLane 04:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that what seems to me to be the undeniable and somewhat germane fact that, prior to getting elected partially on the promise of 'running the country like a business' his experience with running a business seemed to consist mainly of overseeing their accumulation of massive deficits, is being NPOVed over. Perhaps the use of the words 'unsuccessful businessman' to refer to someone who presided over the serial running of several oil companies into the groud is too NPOV; but at least the observation that the companies over which he presided have not, on the whole, exactly been models of competitive economic success should be able to be presented in some sort of objective wording. Gzuckier 17:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For the lead section, I think what we have now is appropriate. I agree that his poor track record in the private sector is germane, but it should be presented in the section about his business career. There, I think the objective wording is simply to describe the history of his companies, as we do. JamesMLane 08:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I think we should take out the part that says his term is scheduled to end on jan 20 , 2009. It sounds like the writer is anxious to have him out of there. In other words, not a NPOV. --Dmm246 06:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You could read this passage in the article as being POV in either direction -- reassuring Bush admirers that he's in for four more years, even if he can't hold the support of members of his own party, or consoling Bush detractors that the nightmare will end in 2009. The reason to leave it in has nothing to do with POV, but because it's useful information. Many readers will be more familiar with a parliamentary system (like the UK's) in which a leader doesn't serve for a set term. JamesMLane 08:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I really doubt that most americans don't know that the president serves a four year term. Regarding you comment "it's useful information" I am sure there is a lot of useful information that negative POV users would like to put in which didn't make it but I think this is one of them. You don't have to put a positive spin on saying he got for more years and fill it with praise but I think we should just leave it out. I am more just voicing an opinion than saying we must change it. If more people think we should change it then thats fine.--Dmm246 17:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that most Americans would know. That's not the criterion, though:
Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. The people who read it have different backgrounds, education and worldview from you. Try to make your article accessible to as many of them as possible. The reader is probably reading the article to learn. It's quite possible the reader knows nothing at all about the subject: the article needs to explain it to them.
(from Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Think of the reader) That's why I mentioned above that many readers would be more familiar with the systems used in other countries, in which the leader doesn't serve a fixed term. JamesMLane 20:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This seems to me like an fairly innocent, utterly harmless idea. It's a fact. I think having it in there is educational and appropriate. -- J. Jensen 16:44 14 Jan 2005 (CST)

Medical diagnoses by political partisans

Those who feel that the "dry drunk" and "cocaine" allegations are appropriate and NPOV say that the allegations have been made, and we are just reporting them, without stating they are true. Taking it in good faith that these statements are sincere, we need to give the reader context. The "dry drunk" allegations do not come from medical journals but from political partisans, with one article illustrated with Bush as a wino. As for Cocaine, those charges have been made against other politicians (including Clinton). The only significant source for this allegation is Hatfield's book. We could also note the man was an ex-felon (convicted of trying to have a former boss murdered) who sets up the perfect unprovable journistic setup: "Bush was arrested but his father had the record expunged." Most of the people who have taken Hatfield's book seriously are the ones who want to believe it's true and the man himself committed suicide as he was being pursued for credit card fraud. Ah, the reliable sources that Wikipedia depends on to inform the people. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your edit gives the false impression that the cited article was written by Cockburn, when in fact it was written by a professor who'd previously authored a book on addiction. I'm deleting the language about Cockburn. If you want to convey the point accurately, it would have to be something like: "(This article, written by a professor of social work who had co-authored a book on addiction treatment, was published in Counterpunch, a magazine edited by Bush detractor Alexander Cockburn, who also writes for the leftist magazine The Nation.)" One could give a similar treatment to the Bisbort article. I think all this is more detail than the point warrants -- readers can figure out for themselves that statements strongly supportive or condemnatory of any controversial person might be influenced by the writer's bias -- but I could live with including it if people feel it necessary to get in a dig at Counterpunch. JamesMLane 09:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK. I will accept your wording if noone works to dilute it further. Please remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If we read something like this in the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, I doubt we would say, "well the editors expect us to assume that they've included this highly prejudicial material with the expectation it was written by fire-breathing partisans." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 10:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You placed my suggested wording after all the links, giving the impression that it applied to all of them. I moved it so that it followed only the reference to the Wormer article. (Note that I said, "One could give a similar treatment to the Bisbort article." If you want to undertake the effort of drafting yet another gratuitous slam at a Bush critic, go ahead, but I think the paragraph already looks pretty silly.) JamesMLane 10:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think the paragraph looks pretty silly as it is, since the subtext is innuendo that Bush's policy are a result of his being a "dry drunk." I know Jimbo Wales' opinion doesn't necessarily carry any extra weight in Wikipedia, but I agree with his statement that the choice of what to include and exclude is in itself POV, even if the material is described accurately.
But before leaving this subject, I want to make one point: I was a lifelong (and proud) liberal from 1953 (McCarthy) to c.1996 when liberals I knew suddenly decided they weren't anti-war anymore, and a sometime socialist. I never voted for a Republican for president until 2004 (I voted for Nader in 2000). I voted for Dukakis, for chrissakes—I voted for a man who looked like Rocky Raccoon in a tank because I was worried about the rightward drift of the Supreme Court! Arrrrgggh! So there is a point I wish liberals would take to heart: it has long been a habit to portray those who don't vote for the people liberals want (or the politicians liberals don't like) as stupid, or ignorant, or wicked, or deceived, or "troglodites" (popular in the 1970s) or now, as non-drinking drunks. As long as this attitude, which runs from condescension to operate hostilty persists, liberalism will not come back. Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's well-known in liberal circles that all conservatives are lowbrow idiots. It's equally well-known among conservatives that liberals are latte-sipping elitist wimps. Oh, and we all hate America. So the only lesson here is that people with strong political opinions are happy to believe and repeat unflattering stereotypes about their adversaries. Anyway, while I appreciate your advice about how we can "come back", I must note that the Democratic candidate has gotten the most votes in three of the last four Presidential elections. Now, obviously, we're going to get slaughtered in 2008, when voters look at all the thriving democracies in the Middle East, and the robust economy and federal budget surplus produced by the tax cuts for the rich... well, sarcasm mode OFF, back to editing. JamesMLane 04:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, you see, sarcasm or no, therein is the problem. This isn't a duel of which side has the juiciest epithets against the other; it's that Democrats have been sinking, and the explanation is to blame it on the Republicans, or on the voters. Isn't possible that the fault, dear JML, lies not in their enemies, but in themselves, that the Democrats are now underlings?
But to one subtantive matter, yes, the Democratic candidate got the most popular votes in three of the last four presidential elections, but lets look at that. Clinton (who I voted for twice) pointed the way to Democrats getting the white house. Play to the middle, reform some of those Democratic icons (like welfare) that need reform, leave the economy alone, look to the middle class. But right now Clinton's DLC is dirt in the mouths of many, if not most, Democrats. And Al Gore? Yes, he got 500,000+/- more popular votes than Bush, but he should have been a slam dunk. A good debater over an uneasy one. Mr. Technology. Intellectual. And the Vice President under a Democratic President with high popularity ratings, a booming (until the last year) economy, and apparent peacetime. And all he could do was barely more than tie dumb little George W. Bush. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You touch on an important subject. Quite a few Democrats agree that a better campaign would have produced a cheatproof victory in each of the last two elections. The trouble is that half of them think "a better campaign" means a move to the center, and the other half think "a better campaign" means a more vigorously left-wing program. Resolving that dilemma is somewhat beyond the scope of this talk page, however. JamesMLane 06:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course, the diagnosis was reached without a direct physical examination or medical history which might have revealed or been able to rule out other possible causes of the symptoms inferred from the public record and the diagnosis is not an officially recognized medical condition. Note, that co-authoring a book may get you on the talk show circuit, but is not a peer reviewed publication. That said, I think wikipedia should reflect its manner of creation and not merely attempt to duplicate the dryness of brittanica. Not including obviously controversial material might induce users to over trust it. --Silverback 10:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I will also note that Katherine van Wormer, the author, is not a Doctor of Social Work (I checked) and certainly not a medical doctor and therefore no more entitled to make a diagnosis than I am, even if she had examined Bush. I'm quite familiar with this. My younger daughter is autistic, and couldn't be educationally placed as such until she had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist (not a psychologist), who is an MD -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 11:25, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

vascular dementia and Alzheimer’s disease

Boy, this will be controversial as hell, but what the heck. It looks like the bulge observed during debate is actually a medical instrument instead of a radio receiver. Below are the two articles related to Bush's bulge. [20] and [21]

"It looks like the bulge [...] is actually a medical instrument [...]? Oh, please, you need more than a speculative piece in a European leftist web site. If CNN or some other outlet with a press reputation says so, it might mean something. The belle ciao article is really a stretch. SO Bush is on powerful statin drugs. Oooooooooo, so is a huge hunk of the otherwise healthy US population. I've been on statins for several years and I'm Bush's age and have no cardiovascular disease. Simple high cholesterol--it's supposed to help me in the future. We'll see. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush Picture

We need to change the picture of Bush because in this picture his eyebrows are bushy and it makes him look like an ape

We usually use the official picture. You can confirm that this picture is Bush's official picture if you Google the phrase "miserable failure", which will take you to his bio on the White House website. JamesMLane 19:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey, do not insult apes now! -- Nils 12:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bush Picutre

We really should change that bush picture it makes me wanna puke!

Drunk / Drugs / etc

It seems that every time I return to check this out, someone has edited out my completely factual info about his past as a drunk and a drug user. Also, it seems that just about every somewhat unfavorable fact about George W. Bush is removed as well, such as the cheerleader thing, etc.

Most recent example: someone edited stuff out and put "this was written by angry democrats." True I am a democrat, but I don't stoop to the level of vandalism on an educational resource, as many republicans tend to do on John F. Kerry's page.

What is there that I can do to keep people from editing out my facts? Should I leave comments with sources or what? I mean... a video of him taking back shots at a party in 1992 would seem to be enough, right?

I believe these facts and accusations of alcohol and drug use are very important and educational. They should not be left out because some republican doesn't seem to like it. If John F. Kerry had been arrested for DUI, I would want that on his page too.

I agree that this article seems to have been seriously messed up, although I don't agree with all your points.
  • A whole paragraph of completely uncontroversial information, such as his birthplace and parents' names, was deleted. I've restored it.
  • Also deleted were two pictures, one of Bush with his family and one of Bush in his National Guard uniform. I've restored the pics.
  • The addition of the statement that Bush signed up in the Guard "Specifically asking to not be sent to Vietnam" wasn't sourced. I've deleted it unless someone can provide substantiation.
  • There was unacceptable POVing in both directions. The NPOV approach is to report controversial points without taking sides and without wording that's biased one way or the other.
    • The language about Bush's drinking was full of "supposedly" and "claim" for his side of it, and said that the opposite view is "well documented". I understand the temptation to take sides -- the people editing the Killian documents article just aren't satisfied with listing all the evidence, they too have to make sure that the article echoes their view of the weight of the evidence. It's wrong when Bush partisans do it there, and wrong when Bush detractors do it here. That Bush isn't drinking any more should certainly be presented as something he says, not as an undisputed fact, but we can make clear that it's his statement without going out of our way with the "supposedly" stuff to cast doubt on it. I've tried to clean up these passages.
    • The Hatfield allegations should be reported as allegations, not suppressed and not reported as fact, and with the responses also reported. I've restored the first paragraph about Hatfield; the text of the article when I looked at it just now quoted Bush's side of the story ("He also called Hatfield's book 'totally ridiculous'.") without naming the book or summarizing its content. At some point, however, the paragraph about Hatfield's book picked up a statement to the effect that the record of Bush's cocaine arrest was in fact expunged. That's Hatfield's allegation, not an established fact.
  • One point I still have doubts about is this insert about the space exploration initiative: "in January of 2005 the White House released a new Space Transportation Policy fact sheet which confirms the plan is still on track." My preliminary impression is that that's a POV overstatement and should be reworded. I've left it alone for now, but I think it needs attention. JamesMLane 10:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Maybe somebody could update the article as to how Bush's previously announced War on Steroid Abuse is coming along. Grin grin. Gzuckier 21:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The source for Bush asking not to be sent to nam is all over the place. a google search found this ...which you may agree is a valid source (his own form). Andsat 04:40, 19 Jan 2005 (EST)

Oh come on here, I see Kerry's signature on his form, but I don't see Bush's on the part that is supposed to be from his form.--MONGO 12:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the allegations should be mentioned although not given undue weight. If someone has a problem with the weight and context given at present, perhaps the thing to do is to edit to add more context and adjust weight, rather than try to remove all mention of the allegations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Inuendo and slander

When I came to this page for the first time, it was after I had utilized another article for reference and dechiphered an obvious non NPOV. This POV was left leaning and I as surprised as I have used Wiki for some time now. So on a hunch, I queried George Bush and was appalled! The rampant slander was so apparent, I thought it was written by some left wing extremists and decided to start editing. I haven't decided as to whether I will continue to edit this page, becuase I have lost all faith that the major contributors to this article are to the extreme left. I find it funny, reading through others bios how young, perhaps not American citizens, and how liberal in attitude are those that I am arguing with here. I mentioned to one, that since he lived in Germany, perhaps I could utilize the same techniques employed by the likes of him and quote or state as fact that a book had been written by unreliable sources that Adolph Hitler wasn't such a bad guy and he had little to do with the murder of millions. These books do exist, in published form, and they are AN OPINION, yet we know that the opposite is true and therefore in good taste, we exclude them from any discussion here in Wiki. In a nutshell, this article utilizes POV and that POV is anti bush. Anyone that thinks that this rubbish of an article is NPOV is blind. I have been warned and etc. and I really don't care. So in an effort to show what ridiculous is, I created my user page and made it as preposterous as possible. MONGO--MONGO 11:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess it shows how wide the gulf between some editors can be that I, a European, at first took your reference to "how liberal in attitude are those that I am arguing with here" as a compliment. Indeed in British English this sentence is impossible to take as anything other than a compliment as far as I am aware.

That aside, I notice that the Adolf Hitler page does indeed give room to some fringe speculation: the theory that Hitler had some Jewish ancestry. The presentation of the theory (which is well known enough I think that many people reading this will have heard it) does not amount to an endorsement. Nor does the presentation of the allegations of Hatfield and Salon magazine's speculations with respect to the drug testing program amount to an endorsement of those positions. They shoud be mentioned as opinions, with such factual basis as might exist to support or refute them., because they are common opinions held by educated, intelligent people about Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget the words of Churchill when he spoke of political leanings....it goes somewhat like> a man under thirty who is not a liberal has no heart, but a man over thirty who is not a conservative has no brain. Being liberal is a good thing...being blindly so is not. I hope you're no older than 29.

Liberal has an entirely different meaning in Europe. Don't confuse them with US democrats, hippies or guerillas ;)

The major contributors to this article are brainless or lacking in enough of a brain to see that the entire article is speculative and that I am convinced that the insertion of the Salon story and the book by Hatfield are unworthy of mention in that they are opinion, inuendo and without the ability to stand up in a court of law. I don't care if because they were written then they should be mentioned. I care about quantifiable truths that would be accepted as facts and be fact based. Lets get the inuendo of Hitler having Jewish ancestry out of that article too and then, just maybe, this stuff will start to become NPOV. --MONGO 13:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Churchill himself switched from Conservative to Liberal and back again at key points in his career. He had no problems with the term "liberal". I have not yet reached the age at which Churchill ceased representing the Liberal party in Parliament.

Now on the section that you have removed, it reports some claims that were made in Salon and were widely reported during the election campaign. Why then did you remove it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salon.com's February, 2004 report

MONGO removed this:

In February, 2004, Salon claimed that Bush's cessation of flying in the spring of 1972 and his subsequently refusal to take a physical exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which, Salon said, meant random drug testing for pilots, including Guardsmen.

I believe it's adequately referenced--if preferred I can include a complete citation for the precise article, or even quote a relevant paragraph. Is there anything else you think should be provided to satisfy your problems with this, Mongo?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/index_np.html

See article referenced above --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Gentleman" Cs

I see alot of detractors trying to make hay about George W. Bush's "Gentleman" Cs he received in Yale. I'd like to amend this section to at least consider another POV regarding his performance in Yale. Here is a conservative (some say ultra-conservative) gentleman attending a liberal institution. The instructors are stubbornly Liberal in their views. A student who tries to argue their conservative beliefs would be labeled wrong and be given low grades. I am not saying that Bush is a genius. But, I am saying that he was disenfranchised (to use the term du jour) and his grades were depressed because of this conflict. He did go on and do much better when getting his MBA. Because Yale is a Liberal institution, I also wouldn't give much credence to the notion that Yale let Bush skate through. First Lensman 15:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • If you have a public source for someone making this point about Bush's Cs, please feel free to add it. But if you just thought of this and there is no external source then it may be "original research", not encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:58, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Original research? Wishful thinking more like it. I second the call for external sources. -- Nils 12:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that I got you dangling on the hook, check out the New York TImes article titled "[Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's]. As you can guess, it is an unflattering article about the President's Yale years. But three items can illuminate some of the discussion here. The first is the quote "Mr. Bush was pressed during his years at Yale, 1964 to 1968, to take sides in the great battles then unfolding over politics, civil rights, drugs and music. Mostly he was a noncombatant in those upheavals, but when forced to choose, he ultimately retreated to the values and ideals established by his parents' generation, and to their accepted methods of rebelling." My interpretation of this is that he remained conservative in his views. This would not have been looked upon favorably by the faculty or his fellow classmates in Yale. The second relates to the alleged drug usage mentioned in another section, that "For all the buffeting that late-night television has given Mr. Bush over questions of drug use, he was in most respects a very conventional young man, and classmates say they do not recall him ever using marijuana or other illegal drugs." This from the New York Times??? If there were any evidence that President Bush used drugs, the New York Times would have plastered it all over the place. Finally, the article addresses President Bush's intelligence. While going through some anecdotes about his grades, the most telling quote is that: "This guy is very smart," said Lanny J. Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton and a supporter of Al Gore, as well as a fraternity brother of Mr. Bush at Yale. "This notion of lightness is totally missing the point. There are many smart people, intellectually smart as well as street smart, who don't have the energy or motivation at times to act smart, but that doesn't mean they're not smart. There are times when George coasted through Yale courses or through exams or seemed overly facetious. But don't mistake that for not being intellectually acute." The article then reaffirms my point by stating, "yet ever since he showed up at Yale as a freshman in 1964, Mr. Bush has resolutely cultivated an anti-intellectualism and chafed at what he describes as the arrogance of liberal intellectual elitists." Because this is a New York Times article, I say that the Yale establishment chafed at Bush's attitudes as much as Bush chafed at them. The article also states that "Mr. Bush's tension with what he sees as an arrogant Eastern elite, and his perception of himself as outside it, seem to have arisen initially from the clash of generations that occurred while he was at Yale." Again, I state that the tension went both ways, causing Bush to form an "...association with a community of gifted people with whom Mr. Bush would form lifelong friendships -- and Mr. Bush's strategy at Yale was clearly to build great friendships, more than a great transcript. It was also a perfectly reasonable strategy, for one could argue that Yale graduates in the 1960's got further on the networks they made than on the grades they earned." Anyway, does this suffice as a source? First Lensman 14:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you haven't found a source for your main thesis, indeed the article seems to be saying that Bush was essentially apolitical and that he personally feels that he may have suffered some prejudice because he was a Texan. But you have an excellent source for the fact that Bush isn't thought to be dim by some of his former classmates and indeed demonstrated a keen social intelligence at his fraternity house. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to read between the lines to extract cause and effect information. I think I have done so here. While the article stated that the prejudice he suffered was because he was a Texan, I have cited other statements in the article that shows the prejudice was because he was Conservative in his views. First Lensman 15:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you're drawing an inference and you're entitled to do so. I don't see anything in the article or in the sections that you have cited from it that demonstrate that the prejudice, if it existed, was because he was conservative--indeed as I have pointed out Bush himself thought that any prejudice that might have existed might have been regional. That is, those eastern intellectuals thought a guy with his Texan background and accent was dumb and probably only got in because the college had a regional quota for admissions.

The upshot of this is that if you can find someone notable drawing the inference that you draw (in the media) then you can cite that. Otherwise it would be original research. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would consider the Salon article to be original research as well. I read through it and found not one credible source mentioned. I failed to find anyone notable in that article yet you portray it to be creditable.--MONGO 13:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However you personally might want to describe it, citation of an article in Salon is not original research in the sense used on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Items that Wikipedia reports on may well be primary sources, which would comprise original research (everything starts as someone's original idea). Or like Salon they may comprise secondary sources (the research is originated by third parties and Salon reports on them). Wikipedia is a tertiary source in this instance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Alright, stop it. I'm an ultra-liberal, Kucinich-supporting, Democrat, and yes, it is very tempting to vandalize this page, esp. today. I even wrote up a vandalized edit making reference to his last name. But actually posting it is only a detriment to the Democratic Party. It makes us seem immature and juvenile. Democrats, stop it.

Would someone please protect this page for twenty-four hows or something?

  • You voted for Kucinich? Seems like you and I made a good choice at least. I agree on the lock though, we could be spending our time doing much more productive things. :)


That amount of vanderlism recived by this article in the last 24 hours doesn't seem hugley exceptionalGeni 03:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Related links

I agree with the edits made by 69.92.137.107 that have since been reverted by Rhobite. For example, why is it necessary to link to a some random website where people try to collect signatures to impeach the President? Is this really something that important to link to?--BaronLarf 06:30, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

The VoteToImpeach item deleted by 69.92.137.107 was not a link to the website in question, but to a Wikipedia article which said, inter lia:

In the days leading up to the 2004 election, the group was cited by some conservative pundits as proof that opponents of Bush believed President Bush would win.
So it was hardly an anti-Bush link. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I didn't claim that it was an anti-Bush link. Just not necessary and not something really topical in a 32k discussion of a president who has never had any serious threat of impeachment. I can see that going in the George W. Bush Category, but not in a short list of related links. But I know that trying to get a serious article about a conservative American politician written on here is like spitting in the wind, so I'm not getting my hopes up. Cheers. --BaronLarf 16:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

That has been my point...the leftist have determined that irrevelent is relevent. Thank you for a keen eye as I havene't even been able to get beyond the personal life section of the article yet due to the level of bias there alone.--MONGO 10:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "Dry Drunk" nonsense

This article is a partisan opinion NOT based on fact and NOT based on a physical or mental examination. I've left in all the stuff that the President has admitted to, the "reckless youth", the "DUI", the cessation of drinking at 40, because they are admitted to by the president himself, or substantiated by documentation. The article does not demonstrate a NPOV. Items should be put up in the discussion area first so that the information can be vetted by the users. (See "Gentleman's Cs section above"). Then, there will be some massaging of the information that would eventually wind up in the article. Just posting information directly into the article is just not productive. First Lensman 23:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"This article is a partisan opinion NOT based on fact and NOT based on a physical or mental examination." I assume that, by "this article", you mean the Wormer article, not the Wikipedia article. You're completely correct about Wormer's opinion concerning Bush. Of course, exactly the same could be said about Bush's opinion concerning Saddam (he had WMD's, he was involved in 9/11, etc.). Should we censor out Bush's pretexts for launching aggressive war just because they've largely been exposed to be pretexts? No. We report these opinions and attribute them. To say that Saddam had WMD's is opinion. To say that Bush claimed he did, however, is an undeniable fact. A point that that people often miss is that reporting and attributing a POV is perfectly consistent with NPOV. JamesMLane 00:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't Bush's opinion concerning WMD. He was informed that they did have WMD by the United Nations, NATO, The members of the European Union, and the U.S. Intelligence Services. First Lensman 01:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Don't blame Bush for his faulty intelligence. For what it's worth, I agree with James - decribing POV opinion is not POV. To understand and contextualize an issue, POV's must be explored, in an NPOV way. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
James, I think if Wormer based her claims on observations similar to those a medical professional might make, people might not have such a problem with the paragraph. But she's claiming that Bush has a behavioral disorder because his rhetoric is not to her liking. She cites "regime change", a phrase that predates his presidency, as an example of his "extreme language." A remark from one speech, not repeated to my knowledge, indicates an "obsession" with revenge. She cites a sentence, "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients..." that would sound absurd if replaced with its negation "We need not be prepared..." So her conclusions end up looking shaky and random to someone who doesn't share her political bias, not much more credible than the report of the Lovenstein Institute. We could put a paragraph here for every allegation on Bush family conspiracy theory, but we don't. If Wormer's article has a place here, I think it's the External links section. Gazpacho 09:01, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're deluding yourself. We have been involved in an aggressive war with Iraq since 1991. Repeatedly we bombed Iraq because of their consistent violations of the cease fire agreement. We maintained at tremendous cost in tax dollars a no fly zone and imposed sanctions which were detrimental to everyone because we were forced by agreements with our partners to not invade Iraq, overthrow their government and establish a democracy. Bush asserted that there were WMD because the evidence supported it, and it is therefore not a POV. Regardless, the fact that none have been found doesn't mean that they don't or didn't exist. The major contributors to this article seem to fail to understand that and blame Bush for making a decision based on the evidence. --MONGO 10:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, I don't think we need to turn every content dispute (or any content dispute) into an open argument about Iraq. Gazpacho

Most of my argument has been about content, this is my first about Iraq...what are you refering to?--MONGO 12:39, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my comments in the page history as to why I deleted the "dry drunk" info from the main article again, I meant to say I would post a comment, not a link, in discussion. Anyway, it seems to me this info really does belong in the exlink section because there are some issues of partisanship in the study itself. There is also the fact that this study is not well-known among the general public which might account for an exception if that were the case. I don't see anything wrong with having this link in the exlink section, but it does seem rather biased to put in the main article. That's my opinion. --Xaliqen 01:00, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean suppressing all criticism of Bush

People keep trying to remove passages that are unflattering to Bush, notably by arguing against the criticism -- Hatfield was a felon, Wormer didn't examine Bush, the Yale professors who graded him were probably liberal bigots, etc. The NPOV policy certainly requires that we not endorse any particular opinion, pro or con -- but NPOV permits, indeed requires, the reporting of those opinions, properly attributed. I'm restoring the huge mass of material that's been removed. That's not to say that all of it is perfectly OK. For example, there's this statement about Bush's governorship: "His tenure in office featured a positive reputation for bipartisan leadership." Now, that's an opinion, and unlike the negative things about Bush, it's not properly attributed and sourced. An article about a controversial subject has a particular need for editors to cite their sources. Someone notable could probably be found who said something like that, which is why I'm leaving it in for now, but it should be attributed. JamesMLane 16:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As I've stated already, I left in the DUI, the "Irresponsible youth", the drinking, et. al. But, when someone puts out an attack piece insinuating that He's a "Dry Drunk" without ever examining him either physically or mentally, I say that it has not been vetted properly for inclusion in the article. First Lensman 13:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I could pick this entire article apart with the constant unfootnoted inuendo such the repeated use of the terminology of "others have said" "it is the opinion" and each and everytime, this is without a reference to a source of who the "others" are. Let's look at another figure who may be considered to be a controversial leader, namely Robert E. Lee. Now in Lee's case, there is plenty of room for allusion, opinion and positions that are not NPOV. Yet I fail to find them there...the entire article meets the criteria of size and shape and offers a basic synopisis of the facts though in a brief format somewhat lacking in details that may be of importance to those that need more to diet on. I believe that the vast majority of the articles in Wiki are without bias and without inuendo based on weak and transparently leftist or right wing bias and take a NPOV. In the case of a few though, primarily those of more recent political aspects, it is hopelessly biased and the truth is that this bias is to the left. Constant reference to the kind of inuendo by those that perpetrate this to be good science fail to see that the support of the leftist arguments are no more reliable for truth than the National Enquirer would be. The reasoning that since it was written and therefore an opinion and is mentioned along with detractions that the source is without support is a built in refutation of the evidence and therefore it should be excluded. "This guy or organization said this, yet this guy or organization is essentially an unreliable witness to said events"...how does that philosophy make it credible to be included in what is supposed to be a NPOV article? With that in mind, it seems no different that an article on North American mammals should discuss Bigfoot because on at least 50 occasions, Bigfoot was spotted here or there as reported in certain issues of the National Enquirer. Editing out the inuendo of this article is good reporting. If anyone thinks I edited out all the "bad" or negative information about Bush, they are gravely mistaken. JamesMLane and similar charged persons are passionately opposed to Bush, while I am no fan of his, I am conservative and would not have voted for Kerry under almost any circumstance. Yet, polical affiliations aside, the negative aspects of this article are placed here without regard to their questionable source due to the fact that the detractors of Bush wish to slander him.--MONGO 21:06, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can assure you, MONGO, that there's no leftist bias in favor of Robert E. Lee. (Remember, it's leftists who want to remove the Confederate flag from U.S. state flags, who criticize Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University because of its segregationist policies, etc.) Instead, the difference between the two articles is that Bush is a contemporary politician. Articles on such people attract editors who support the subject and editors who oppose him or her. Both sides have a wealth of online source material (far more than in Lee's case). A better analogy would be John Kerry. He actually served in Vietnam, yet you'll see that the Wikipedia article reports the criticisms of his service. For example, it notes that "two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott ... have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved." In fact, just as with Bush, the back-and-forth about what he did during the Vietnam War got so extensive that it was spun off to a separate article, leaving behind only a summary. That's why the articles on George W. Bush military service controversy and John Kerry military service controversy were created. As for unfootnoted statements, we don't need to provide a reference for noncontroversial stuff like his place of birth. Although you complain about "the repeated use of the terminology of 'others have said'", I searched the article for the word "others" and found only two uses: a quotation from Bush, and a reference to other previous elections. I invite you to call our attention to any specific passages that you think should be sourced. JamesMLane 23:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did that aleady when I mentioned the Salon article. Where is their source for their allegation? I could start on online magazine or paper which made plenty of inuendo and provided propaganda of some sort or another. Because I said it in my paper, would it be a citable source for Wiki articles even if it itself provided no references or named sources? Depending on which version of this article you are talking about is the number of times you can find the passage of, in essence, "others have said" or similar. I once counted it 5 times. Naturally, I wouldn't expect a footnote in regards to his date of birth. I do expect, since a simple query in Yahoo brings you to this article within 5 links, that less innocent ones may wish to research the subject without having to be subjected to it's obvious left wing sentiment and unsubstantiated propaganda.--MONGO 07:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "others have said" and the like, at least where it presents controversial unsourced material, is not acceptable. Your edit was unacceptable, MONGO. Citation of a report under NPOV does not require that the primary source of newspaper/journal-reported allegations upon which we report be available. The newspaper/journal report is encyclopedic in itself (though the lack of a named primary source can be and should be noted). The removal was also far more extensive than justified by your criticism of the Salon report. You removed the entire section starting "Katherine Van Wormer" and ending with 'knew random drug testing was going to be implemented"', with the exception of the paragraph starting "The New York Times article". I am reverting the sections you removed for these several and distinct reasons. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What Rules Should Govern Opinion Piece Links?

I created the 'Opinion Pieces' sub-section so that some of the partisan commentary could be referenced there as opposed to in the main article. However, there should probably be some rules governing what sorts of opinion pieces are best-suited to the section and the article. It seems logical that, if an opinion piece is intelligently written and references factual circumstances or sources, it should be included. It's a bit tricky, though, to know when to draw the line. Perhaps the best policy is to review each link on a submission-by-submission basis. I'd say that a good goal for this section could be to avoid simple-minded propoganda for one viewpoint or another and aim for intelligent pieces. But, I know opinions will vary. So, if anyone has any input, it would be well-appreciated.

I think we can do without the opinion pieces actually. The factual information they may contain can be gotten elsewhere, and the opinions themselves are not relevant to George Bush. I say we stick with "give people facts and let them make their own minds up." --fvw* 23:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
I think the opinions are relevant to the article because one can only gain so much insight from facts alone. But I do think they should be limited to representative intelligent examples of each viewpoint and placed in the exlinks section as opposed to within the main article. The reason I think opinions are important for this article is because of the sharply differing viewpoints over the subject-matter. It would be nearly impossible to provide solely factual information and come away with an informed perspective. --Xaliqen 23:30, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Comment on content

The article still appears as somewhat left of NPOV, yet the current revision is the best one I have seen yet as of 12:30, 24 Jan 2005 Ferkelparade. I can concede this as an adequate series of alterations, and would not disagree with internal links to the Salon reports, Hatfield's book and van Wormer's discussion, so long as they don't constitute the main body of the article and remain as links to further reading if someone chooses to read such items.--MONGO 13:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Gazpacho's summary

The summary simply eviscerated all mention of substantive reports except to repeat Bush's own denials. Since the President's past life does attract a lot of interest (the afterword to the Hatfield biography, Boehlert's Salon piece, van Wormer's bizarre ad hoc diagnosis) I don't think a summary is appropriate here, and this summary in particular does not capture the breadth of speculation directed at the President by the media both before and during his Presidency. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you admit that it's speculation, then why on earth should it be in the article? The article does need a statement of when and how long the press focused on the cocaine allegations during the 2000 campaign. But aren't citation links a better way to present claims that are just based on someone saying "maybe"? Gazpacho 18:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that the administrator(s) of this page and major contributors to this article wish to present, as a major component of the article, unsubstantiated drivel as part of the basic synopsis of the life of Bush, which explains the current protected article. Repeatedly, it has been mentioned that I consider this to be poor reporting which should be eliminated. I conceded that I would support a brief mention of the unsubstantiated bias if it were linked to another source and out of the main body of this article. Those that say that I wish to see no negative aspect of the man here are deluded. I simply wish to see the facts, without the leftist bias, that are worthy as a form of communication and worthy of this forum. That the page is protected in situ in an earlier form makes it obvious to me that the administrator(s) are not to be persuaded that their position is not NPOV and that instead they use this medium as a way to argue that the irrelevent is relevent and that what rational human beings would regard as speculation, opinion and slander would be permissible in this article. The mention of these items of dispute is one thing, the elaboration of them is another. Obviously, this article is a poor example of what normally appears in Wiki, in that it is not NPOV...it is leftist bias, plain and simple. The page was protected because the adminstrators(s) wish to filibuster any attempts to weed out bad reporting.--MONGO 20:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The source given for the van Wormer thing was CounterPunch. In my opinion this is a fairly obscure source. I propose to remove the reference to the van Wormer "analysis" unless she should be shown to be notable or a more prominent source is found than CounterPunch. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, much better. I traced the original to the Irish Times. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Wormer Article

I still say that this entire paragraph needs to be removed:

"Katherine van Wormer, a professor of social work and writer on addiction treatment, claims that Bush seems to have the mindset of a "dry drunk," an alcoholic who still exhibits thought patterns that accompany alcoholism[6] (http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html). She bases this view on her perception that his public speeches express rigidness, obsessiveness, impatience, and grandiosity. Wormer's assessment was published in Counterpunch, a magazine edited by frequent Bush detractor and Nation writer Alexander Cockburn. (See also [7] (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info/a/aa081397.htm), [8] (http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html), and [9] (http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy1019.html).)"

It has not been vetted through an actual physical or mental examination. If there were a report by a Bush physician that hinted there was "Dry Drunk" syndrome, I'd say leave it in. What we have here is someone who is trying to negatively label someone whose opinions and actions she disagrees with. Why don't we have a new article called "Wild Accusations About President Bush"? This would be a much better place to put this article! First Lensman 13:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion Wormer's claims are absolute bilge. However what is worthy of note is that a published author on addiction wrote this extraordinary nonsense about Bush and it was published in the Irish Times. We're writing a NPOV article here and this is encyclopedic by the standards we're using. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I guess I just don't agree with leaving "bilge" in. Just as I wouldn't put in the Pat Robertson claim that Bush has been sent by God to lead this country. In both cases, there is no proof. We need to have stricter criteria. Why not use the credo of Detective Friday on Dragnet -- "Just the facts"! First Lensman 14:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it is a fact that Pat Robertson claimed that Bush has been sent by God to lead his country, then Pat Robertson's prominence, and the prominence with which the claim was published, would establish whether the claim was worthy of note. The fact reported would not be "Bush sent by God" but "Famous televangelist with massive following claims Bush sent by God." This is the essence of NPOV. We don't say Bush was or was not sent by God, we say Pat Robertson says this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it isn't a proven fact, then it shouldn't be included!!! First Lensman 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:NPOV. "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." If Pat Robertson said that, it's a fact about his opinion that can be asserted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What swung it for me was The Irish Times. Published author in CounterPunch isn't much. Published author in the newspaper of record of a European nation of four million people and a longstanding US ally, that's quite a lot. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A reprint in a foreign newspaper doesn't validate an article. First Lensman 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I agree absolutely that it doesn't validate it. (I believe the article was originally an opinion piece in the Irish Times, actually). What it does is make it noteworthy. If we only reported opinions that were validated, Wikipedia would be a very small website. Instead Wikipedia reports opinions that are published prominently enough to gain wide circulation. If something is in the Irish Times, I can read it by popping down to my local newsagent in London. I should expect the same is true in most large US cities. That's what I call prominent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"If we only reported opinions that were validated, Wikipedia would be a very small website." -- well at least small-er and I'm all for this !!! My concern is that by having a whole paragraph so prominent concerning an unproven opinion printed in a foriegn newspaper will make students believe it is truth, which it isn't. This encyclopedia is a resource that is not only used by adults, who can make the determination that it's hogwash, but by students, who can't make that determination. That is why we have to stick to "proven" facts and place a reference to the opinion piece in the Irish Times down in the "opinion" section that was just started. First Lensman 15:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If "students" will believe something is true just because it's printed in a newspaper, Wikipedia cannot help them. It is not Wikipedia policy to suppress reporting of opinion for fear of being seen to endorse that opinion, but you're welcome to start your own fork of Wikipedia that operates on policy to be determined by you. If we stuck only to proven facts we'd have to get rid of all reported third party opinion--this on a person who owes his office to the opinion of third parties. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, elected officials are especially appropriate subjects for inclusion of third-party opinions -- although, as Tony Sidaway has said, reporting the facts about opinions is our general policy anyway. If someone wants to add Robertson's opinion that Bush was sent by God, I think that would be an appropriate addition, if it's properly sourced. (I did a quick search and found Robertson saying a year ago that God had told him Bush would win in a landslide: "I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004." [22] I didn't find Robertson saying specifically that Bush was "sent by God" but I didn't check all the hits.) Robertson's opinion is quite clearly bilge (at least, it's clear to me), but we can let the readers decide for themselves. JamesMLane 17:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to continue off-topic, but I suspect that any such claim by Robertson would be an urban legend from those who never see his show. He has denounced Bush repeatedly. Others may have made such claims. Gazpacho 18:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standard for evidentiary inclusion into our legal system? The DUI stays in because we have the record of the DUI. The drinking stays in because the President admitted to drinking and then giving it up. The "AWOL" charge is much more problematic. If you look at the President's record, he earned enough points (842) his first four years, which amounts to over 16 years of service credits at the minimum of 50 rate. So, he's more than earned his honorable discharge. He did skip some months, but the National Guard allows people to skip months as long as they are made up, which the president did. But, it has to be included not because of it's veracity, but as a note about the rabid attacks against the reelection of this president. The "Dry Drunk" was one article written without any substantiating proof and was not carried by the U.S. press or the Democratic party. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it doesn't warrant a whole paragraph in this article. A citation at the bottom under the new "opinion" section would suffice. First Lensman 19:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Protected

It is more apparent than ever to me that those that disagree with some of the context of this article are to be denied the opportunity of editing and that the administrator(s) pretend to open this up to a forum of discussion whereby a concensus will be reached that will result in those that are not to the extreme left and wish this article to actually be NPOV will find appeasement. Rubbish. The page is protected in an effort to maintain the bad reporting and to extend as encyclopedic left wing bias and propaganda. I doubt anything disussed here will result in any major improvements to this rag of an article because the administrator(s) are hopelessly POV, anti-Bush and determined to slander his character. They impose martial law because they are unwilling to admit that their position is weak. We can argue about the situation forever, but there is no doubt in my mind that unless you agree with the major contributors of this rag you will never get appeasement. Let's not pretend to think that we can hash things out here. Open to discussion...it's like farting in the wind.--MONGO 20:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"They impose martial law because they are unwilling to admit that their position is weak"
1. What position?
2. How is this position weak?
--kizzle 00:14, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. It's a core wiki premise and without it, pages wind up protected and uneditable... -- RyanFreisling @ 20:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with MONGO on one thing. The current protection of the page does not seem to be justified. There is a minor content dispute but nothing that is likely to cause great acrimony, and all parties seem to be behaving well. There has been some vandalism but I understand that is normal for this article and the regulars have all dealt well with that (a vprotect would be more appropriate in such a case, anyhow).
Has the administrator who protected the page made an entry here explaining why he did so? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Protection of this page was requested by two separate people on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and if you have an problem with it being protected, raise it there. You will also find entries in the protection log and on Wikipedia:Protected page where my action is recorded for review.
On the other hand, if you want to believe that this page is "protected in an effort to maintain the bad reporting and to extend as encyclopedic left wing bias and propaganda", and that I am "hopelessly POV, anti-Bush and determined to slander his character," or that I am imposing "martial law" because I am "unwilling to admit that [my] position is weak," then I invite you to take the righteous fury that consumes your heart from within to Wikipedia:Requests for comment and mark your territory there instead. silsor 22:04, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

You quoted me three times and then belittle me with inuendo that I am a dog. I accuse you of being biased and having deliberately protected THE WRONG PAGE. I guess in one paragraph you did a sufficient job of proving that the protection was done as a hostle act. Perhaps you are not worthy of being an admistrator to this article. Prove me wrong and unprotect or perhaps I'll follow your advice.--MONGO 11:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the links provided by silsor, anyone who wants to fight against this blatant use of page protection as a tool of leftist bias will find some useful suggestions here. JamesMLane 01:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I feel that you're partially responsible for the locking of this article. I've watched the revision history and it seems to be a good deal of people vs MONGO. I don't care if you're a fan of President Bush, you are removing factual information from the article. Just because said information has negative connotations does not make it untrue. Even references were provided.

Therein lies the problem, the term "factual information". An article by a biased source in a biased magazine, that just happened to have been regurgitated in the Irish Times, is being pushed as fact. The Wormer article is nothing more than smear since it was not substatiated by any physical or psychological examination of George W. Bush. This paragraph needs to be either eliminated completely, or the article needs to be footnoted in the "Opinions Against" section that was started. Something like this happened to my family. A family member, who was in the medical profession, convinced my wife and I that my daughter has ADD and should be put on medication. Turns out, after an examination, she was deemed highly intelligent and was just bored with the material presented in school. My daughter explained to the doctor that she knew that stuff already and wanted to move on to other, more interesting topics. So, you see, even the supposed "experts" can get it all wrong. This is the crux of my concern with stating this article as "fact". First Lensman 17:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, many of you mistake firm disagreement for anger and use of strong tone as wrath. I mean no harm here. I have mentioned previously that I wanted to see the elimination of certain passages because I considered them to be bad reporting. I moderated that request to say that I concur to the BRIEF mention of the articles I keep deleting with a sentence that explains and directs the informed reader to a link which can elborate as much as necessary to support the commentary. I did not and do not think that the Salon article, the J.H. Hatfield book nor the van Wormer material to be reliable witnesses and have compared them to National Enquirer level of reporting. But, as I stated, I would agree to a link to these articles. No sooner do I make this concession do I find this article protected and hence my disappointment and accusations. Trust me in this: I still find that even with these articles completely removed, the entire article is biased. In the eyes of a conservative, I consider much of it to be revisionist history and smacking of left wing slander which I have a serious problem with. Without trying to insult further, I also have serious doubts that my efforts and or my concession will be honored.--MONGO 09:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. I requested the page protection of George W. Bush at WP:RFP due to all the reverts being made at the page history. Some of them were vandalism, and some of them were disagreements over POV/NPOV. In any rate, it seemed some of the vandalism and NPOV corrections were being lumped together. It looked as much as edit war with vandalism in progress. As I can not personally approve the request myself, even though I am an administrator, I went through the proper channels and waited for other people to agree and approve the request. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:53, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)-

AllyUnion, thanks for going through the appropriate channels to get this page protected. I do appreciate that. However I disagree that there is any substantive edit warring going on. Mongo making edits to remove stuff and a few different people restoring it, and the odd attempt at producing a compromise, in my opinion doesn't merit protection. The vandalism is a different matter but apparently it is normal for this page and with all the eyes watching it the page content is in no danger from vandalism.

I'm not in agreement with Mongo that the page is biased (or rather, I remain to be convinced on the matter). I also don't have any problem with people who disagree with me and think the current content dispute or the vandalism merits protection--it would be a dull old world if we always agreed all the time. But I remain of the opinion that the page should probably be unprotected to enable us to use normal editing to work out a good compromise on the content that Mongo disagrees with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UNprotected

Thank you for proving me wrong and unprotecting the page.--MONGO 08:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Explanation of excision of "validity..uncertain"

I removed the following statement

The validity of the claims asserted Amy Reiter and Salon.com is uncertain.

However it is a fact that in 1999 Amy Reiter of Salon.com reported on the rumor and also reported on Salon's phone conversation with the director of the center, Madge Bush, who she reported as saying of George W. Bush (no relation): "I've never heard of him doing community services here at this agency, and I've been the only director for 31 and a half years." There is no reason to cast this in an uncertain light. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see it to be bad reporting. Why would you put this inuendo in here, if it is self discrediting unless the goal was to allude to Bush having used cocaine. If that constitutes what should be considered encyclopedic than there is no reason I cannot begin to edit in articles from known right wing periodicals which are also self discrediting. Quid pro quo, my friend. I say remove all the inuendo from this article which includes unsubstantiated reporting such as one would expect from Salon. I think it has been twisted around in here long enough and discussed and it seems that some folks here would like it to be true, when it is not. Personally, I would be surprised if Bush didn't use cocaine! But I would rather it come from a more solid resource that can truly support the allegation.--MONGO 10:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None of the sources report that Bush used cocaine; like you they wouldn't be surprised but unlike you they have actually investigated, they have followed up what leads they could find and reported factually on the outcome. Omitting the sources would sound like a cover-up; everybody knows the rumors and it is a matter of legitimate public concern on a man's fitness for public office. Putting them in and detailing the investigations (which are generally of reasonable quality) and the conclusions (largely negative--little or no evidence found to support the allegations) is fairer to the reader, whom I presume to be reasonably intelligent and able to evaluate the evidence presented for himself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider all readers of this to be intelligent and able to make up their own minds, I consider a large number of them to be "innocents" in that they may be coming to this site so that they can reference what is in most cases, reliable reporting, and using the references for a term paper, etc. I'm sorry, but I do not consider Salon to be NPOV and I have clicked the links in this article and am shocked that anyone would consider this to be any better than National Enquirer type of mish mash. It is all argumentative and as such, it should remain outside of this article. I do not appreciate the innuendo that I didn't do my research as well. As I said, I think many would like it to be true, and maybe it is, but nothing you have offered is anything other than liberal anti-Bush POV, and the continued use of this type of poor reporting is unworthy of Wikipedia.--MONGO 11:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't claim that Salon is NPOV--indeed few if any sources cited in Wikipedia aspire to the NPOV. But if you read the Salon article you will see that they did investigate the report and did come up with a pretty conclusive blank. It is very unlikely that the young Bush worked on a community service program at MLK in Houston. The gist of the evidence for this (specifically Madge Bush's assertion) is quoted in the current version of the article.
On your concerns for the intelligence of the reader, well I'm afraid there's nothing we can do about that. Many will be able to understand what is being written, others will not. Wikipedia policy is to write accurately and to NPOV, and while we should certainly avoid ambiguity, we don't have a policy of writing in such a manner that what we write cannot under any circumstances be misunderstood. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then at the least, since you yourself seem to be unable to prove the allegation due to the unsubstantitive and weak argument provided by Salon, for the sake of the innocent reader, return the statement that the article is not substantive: The validity of the claims asserted (by) Amy Reiter and Salon.com are uncertain. I would consider this to be less POV and to be more in line with NPOV. Yeah, I know, NO ARTICLE REALLY IS NPOV....but this one doesn't come close! The inclusion of anything from Salon, which specializes sensationalist reporting is certainly not of the level of say The Washington Post et al and other more traditionally liberal/centrist mediums. This article might be substantive in a treatise on Bush under the label of mud on the President, but I can hardly accept it as worthwhile to be placed in here. To most readers, this article is an example of how NOT to write a term paper and thesis....--MONGO 19:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Salon does a pretty good job of documenting its assertions 'sensationalist' though they may be. So, just to clear the air, exactly what kind of evidence would be expected to be unearthed to prove that somebody did not serve somewhere where they were supposed to, if the absence of any positive evidence that they did is insufficient? A report from someone who followed the person for the entire time in question and can state that they never did what they said they did? The impossibility of proving a negative is well known and well used by those who can just glance at each new piece of evidence and state 'Not convincing enough. Try again'. (See also, 'Global Warming Skeptics'). This is why in an ideal research world, one must frame the question first, and decide what evidence would result in a positive or negative outcome before gathering the evidence, rather than evaluating each chunk of evidence as it comes along. Although this doesn't happen in the political world, it's never too late to start. Can you state what kind of evidence would convince you of the Prez's absence, in the purely hypothetical possibility that he was absent? Gzuckier 19:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Argument circular...the entire treatise makes and or alludes and imposes on readers the thought that whether it is true or not, there is the possiblilty that he is currently a cocaine user. I repeat that it is a slander based on less than creditable sources. I would not consider the Salon innuendo to be anything other than hypothetical.--MONGO 20:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think your position presupposes that this stuff about George W. Bush being a bit of a playboy prince during his teens and twenties originated in Salon. It doesn't; Bush himself is a self-described recovering alcoholic. I think you should trust the reader more--Bush himself trusted the voters and was rewarded well for it. The bottom line is that rumors have surfaced about Bush's younger days and the better journals investigate before publishing. In that Salon investigated and drew what amounted to a negative, and stated so in its report, Salon is one of the better journals, at least as far as that report goes.
This is emphatically not restricted to yellow journalism. A New York times editorial in August, 199 said: If Mr Bush never used illegal drugs, he should say so. If he did, he should 'fess up. The Washington Post as early as February, 1999 carried a piece about Mr Bush's evasiveness on this issue. I don't think the subject merits more than we have put in, but I could expand with quotes only from the Times, the Post and some other more reputable dailies if you prefer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. I didn't say anything about him never using drugs or being a former alcoholic. I just said that the remarks allude to make the reader think that this is still the case. Whether it says it is the case isn't the point, the point is that the illusion is that he still does. Round and round we go. I am quite familiar with all the charges and they are unsubstantiated. Why is it so difficult to wish to stick to the facts that can be proven unless the piece is supposed to be an exercise in slander? Examples: we know the facts such as his name, where he was born, comments from his speeches, legislation he dealt with, his confession to being a drunk, the premise he had to go to war with Iraq...we know these things are as solid as concrete. But when I see this type of innuendo, that is all written based on circumstantial evidence or heresay, then I see no place here for it. Sure, state facts about opinions etc. I have read all that and that's fine....but isn't this supposed to be NPOV....how is circumstantial evidence that is not backed up by facts appropriate here unless you are trying to push a point of view? Example: I've seen the video of Bush at the wedding, acting goofy and at the end he does certainly appear to swallow down the nasty lasty of a glass of something....but is it beer, is it alcohol, or is it water? Who knows! It can't be proven that it was alcohol and there is no one to collaborate that it was alcohol. These type of items are not appropriate because they are conjecture and they are misleading. Once again, I know, facts about opinions...well, that doesn't suffice. Then whowrote this opinion?: Should Bush not meet with the NAACP before he leaves office, he will become the first sitting President to have not met with the NAACP since Herbert Hoover. How can anyone ascertain future? ybe he will meet with the NAACP and maybe he won't...but the innuedo suggests that he is a bigot to the casual reader. The FACTS that Bush appointed Powell to the highest cabinet post ever held by an African American man and followed that up by having Rice confirmed for the same post, becoming the highest level attained by an African American female, is hardly alluded to....just a comment that his cabinet is the most ethnically diverse. My extrapolated point is that the entire article is filled with uses of certain words, inclusion of circumstantial evidence and omission of some positive issues which makes this thing look almost like some childish prank.--MONGO 08:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I still get the impression that you're uneasy about this piece because, firstly, it could be misread by an inattentive or unintelligent reader as an assertion that George W Bush once used cocaine, and secondly you believe that we should only include facts about opinions that can themselves be proven to be factually correct. I've addressed both of these points already.
In my opinion there would be no problem with including a reference to the wedding video and the interpretation that some commentators have put on it, provided this was reported prominently enough to break out of a narrow niche. As it happens, that piece was reported by Drudge and picked up by Slate, who went to some journalists for opinions. Christoper Caldwell, who writes for the The Weekly Standard and the Financial Times, was quoted (he was a fence-sitter on the subject, and gave some good reasons for and against). Writers from the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the New Republic, Vanity Fair, and the New Yorker also gave their opinions. By themselves, I don't rate Drudge or Slate very highly, but I think the fact that Slate got the opinion of some first rank journalists makes it relevant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a perfect world, I would like to see all this stuff...Hatfield's book, van Wormer's opinion, the Salon referenced issues, and other skeptical sources of knowledge to be withdrawn. I would settle for them to be greatly condensed and then linked to another piece which can be as detailed as anyone would wish, based on the Wikipedia standards, which I would not edit. ie: It is the opinion of some that Bush has used cocaine in the past, has consumed alcohol after claiming that he no longer drank alcohol, has been considered to be clinically a Dry Drunk....etc.....for further clarification on these issues the reader is directed here.....and then create a "Bush substance abuse controversy page"...outside of the main body of this article. But, I am still not satisfied...as witnessed to my bringing up the issue of Bush not meeting with the NAACP. I don't think forecasts of the future should be in here....unless you can find where it was referenced from, which I suspect may be hard to do. But if anyone can, the Wikihawks can.--MONGO 11:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why would you want them removed? It is a fact that there has been a great deal of speculation and rumor about Bush's younger years. That this speculation exists is not controversial, it's a solid fact upon which any honest biographer would have to report. I don't think it's important enough to spin off into an article on its own, though. A few paragraphs in the main article should be sufficient.
Actually what the NAACP says is this: Although candidate Bush appeared at the NAACP’s Convention in 2000, in 2004 President Bush became the first President since Warren G. Harding to refuse to meet with the country’s oldest and largest civil rights organization when he declined an invitation to speak at the 2004 NAACP Annual Convention in Philadelphia.
So the point NAACP is making is that he's the first leader since Harding to have turned down a specific invitation to address their Convention while in office. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that is a FACT...and should be included, but it doesn't address the speculation that he will not still meet with them...so that part needs to go. See, you Wikihawks are so resourceful....continue to find true FACTS and you'll never get an argument out of me...--MONGO 12:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

The newer version of the box (as found in this version of the article) seems to me to be not an improvement. Wikilinking some key points, like Bush's predecessory, wife, and VP, is helpful, even if they're also linked in article text; this pulls them together. Inclusion of the lines for death information is redundant when the box already says that he's the incumbent. More generally, use of the template makes it harder to edit. My attempts to edit within the changed format produced various forms of mess, so I finally gave up and went back to the old one. JamesMLane 09:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i love george w. bush. he is by far one of the smartest men to serve our country !

Keep article about Bush

Noticed reversal of edit I made which took out comparative statement of Bush and Clinton regarding federal budgets/deficit. This article is about Bush, not Clinton. The only relevency of reverting back to the the comparison would be to continue to cast Bush in a negative fashion which suits the leftwing and is therefore a POV. Everyone knows that Bush has created a gigantic federal deficit and that information is a FACT and should be included, but the article is not about Clinton, so his budget surpluses are not relevent.--MONGO 13:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The text removed reads: In the last year of the Clinton administration, the federal budget showed an annual surplus of more than $230 billion. [23] Under Bush, however, the government returned to deficit spending.
In my opinion the fact that the final Clinton budget had a surplus is relevant to Bush's fiscal performance. Had he inherited a huge deficit this would mitigate his fiscal record; conversely the fact that he did not adds to our understanding of his performance. We could remove Clinton's name if you prefer. In the last year of the previous administration...' --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Still feel that that this alludes to and enhances the reader's view that Bush has done a worse job than his predecessor and everyone already knows who that was. It passes judgement and doesn't take into account that the main reasons for the deficits are related to such things as a downturn in the economy (which was already happening prior to Bush's first election), the impact of 9/11, the fact that Bush cut taxes, and then had a huge military spending bill passed...something that Clinton didn't have to do per se. I say state the facts and let the reader be educated and enlightened, not state the facts and let the reader decide...this constitutes the great rift between myself and many of the editors here. Likewise, could we put in there that so far, Bush has had a better professional relationship with his White House interns than Clinton, in that he has yet to use his position of power to use that as a magnet to young obsessive women? I think not.--MONGO 21:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The federal budget is huge; even a President, for all the power of the office, can't turn it around completely in a short time. Therefore, the information about what kind of budget a President inherited is relevant. If Bush had come into office facing a $700 billion annual deficit and had managed to whittle it down to "only" $400 billion, that would reflect a different fiscal history of his administration than what we actually see. If you think the baseline Bush inherited in other areas was similarly significant, feel free to include it. The treatment of interns obviously wouldn't be a good example, because that's something that the President can change immediately and unilaterally, regardless of what the situation was under any prior administration. JamesMLane 21:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well like it or not, MONGO, fiscal performance is something that US Presidents have been judged on since Carter at least. Chasing interns around the Oval Office, while not compulsory, doesn't seem to have hurt the last incumbent's reputation in the long term. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, without going to far off on that tangent, I was not the least bit unhappy with Clinton until the situation with the intern came up, so his reputation in my eyes from that point on went downhill. Iused this contrast to show that I didn't want to do comparisons, not because I do...and you can't predict the future.--MONGO 08:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Who put up the disputed page tag?

68.49.191.97 please identify yourself by contributing here in discussion or remove the tag please.--MONGO 09:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll remove it with an edit comment asking whoever to make an entry here explaining why he disputes the factual accuracy of the piece. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I thought it was a good idea, but agree with you that if it is to be done, they should hash it out here.--MONGO 12:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)



Business man?

Where is the proof?

--Relaxation 18:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The parts talking about the businesses he owned/ran? That's your proof. RickK 23:46, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Information.

[delete copyright violation] - RickK 23:49, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

--Relaxation 20:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So? We call Gerald Ford a President. - Calmypal 20:58, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Objectivity?

Neither "positive" or "negative" facts belong in an encyclopedia.

Also, Taking a statement like "Bush is a fool, a charlatan and a criminal"... and changing it to "X said that `Bush is a fool, a charlatan and a criminal'"

is an extremely transparent and futile attempt to make such statements seem neutral.

80% of this article has a hopelessly transparent political bias.

An encyclopedia should only contained generally accepted information that everybody agrees is true, not a debate.

This page needs peer review... if there's any hope for Wikipedia at all.

I second that. The article is approached with one goal by major contributors and that is to cast Bush in a bad light. It is not a NPOV article by any measure of the imagination. We need to be careful with the wording of positive and negative facts...if they are facts, then they belong...but these facts are based on concrete evidence and without any major skeptical sourcing or innuendo. There is no doubt in my mind when some of the people that have reverted my edits claim to be to the far left politically...."left of scary leftists", "hostile to the right", or display a Soviet Union Hammer and Sickle medal on their user page (as if that is something to be pround of in light of what it was like to be in the Soviet union in the 1930's for the average citizen) etc., etc. that those that wish to continue to leave this work as the benchmark are doing so to push their opinion and that opinion is to slander Bush from a left wing perspective, not to educate based on the provable evidence.--MONGO 16:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I added this to illustrate what a piece of junk this entire article is: "Eric Alterman, some political columnist that I just googled off the web 3 minutes ago, said in The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=alterman) that "Bush is a liar".

A friend of mine once said that Bush was mentally retarded. He based this view on listening to Bush's speeches - particularly his use of poor grammar. He hasn't written an opinion piece for any newspapers, but he's probably a lot smarter than whoever the hell Katherine van Wormer is."

Ironically, I don't even *like* Bush - but I have some idea about what sort of material belongs in an Encyclopedia and what doesn't. I shouldn't have bothered but, hey, it's a Sunday and I'm bored.

This page demonstrates everything that is wrong with Wikipedia. Heading back to the mathematics section which at least isn't full of raving mis-guided lunatics. - anonymous (guy who made a good-faith effort to improve this article the first time around anyway)

The statement that 'Neither "positive" or "negative" facts belong in an encyclopedia.' is mystifying. It seems to imply that an undisputed fact shouldn't be reported if it would tend to put Bush in a good light or a bad light. That wouldn't leave very much.
Also wrong is the claim that attributing a controversial opinion "is an extremely transparent and futile attempt to make such statements seem neutral." It is neutral to report someone's stated opinion. This is Wikipedia's general policy, not the product of a cabal of Bolsheviks who are out to undermine Bush. Here's an excerpt from the policy:
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. . . . (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)
The foregoing is from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#A simple formulation. If you disagree with the policy, you should take it up on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view instead of trying to make Bush a special case who's immune from any report of the criticisms he's received.
Finally, with regard to "peer review", Wikipedia will never have peer review in the sense used in academia. I do note, however, that MONGO's attempt to suppress anything unflattering to Bush included this edit, in which, among other significant deletions, he removed not only the comparison of Bush's fiscal record with Clinton's, but also the news reports stating the undisputed amounts of Bush's deficits, and the open letter from more than 100 professors of business and economics ascribing the deficits to Bush's tax cuts. Indeed, in the MONGO "encyclopedic edit", the very fact that Bush had run a deficit was omitted. It's hardly encyclopedic to conceal from the reader all information about one of the most aspects of Bush's presidency. JamesMLane 00:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I liked that edit, and would have edited out more but sensed that it was foolish to engage in edit wars, so I decided to hash it out in discussion. Truthfully, being new to editing, I mistakenly took out more than I thought I had. Repeatedly, I have stated that I feel that this article is a vehicle of exercise in how not to write an encyclopedic NPOV article, and have stated that I expect that this article if any would be filled with POV, both left and right wing. I doubt that the major contributors to this are anything other than very intelligent people, but am mystified at their choice of quotes and quality of evidence. A large portion of this article reads like a left wing slam fest, not as a NPOV article. I have also stated that what appears to be the hawks that watch over this page have openly stated in their user pages and in other written form that they come from a far left perspective on the matter and are therefore incapable of remaining neutral, especially in this situation.--MONGO 08:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The underlying issue here isn't a left-versus-right divide. The underlying issue is how to handle controversial subjects in general. Wikipedia policy, applicable to many, many controversial articles that have nothing to do with George W. Bush, is not to exclude statements of opinion, as you seem to think it is or should be. Instead, the policy is that opinions, when held by large numbers of people or prominent spokespersons or qualified experts, can be reported, if properly attributed, and if presented in a way that does not give an appearance of Wikipedia's endorsement. (For example, I've frequently edited statements along the lines of "So-and-so pointed out that...." because "pointed out" suggests that it's true. "So-and-so argued that...." is preferable.) Certainly a different policy could be formulated and logically defended. Unless and until some other general policy is adopted, however, we should treat Bush the same way we treat other controversial people or topics. JamesMLane 08:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Really? What about Bush is controversial? I mean isn't he universally liked...what with the "Mandate" he has! But here's the thing, if known left leaning periodicals and other forms of reporting which use sensationalist forms of editing suffice to be considered good sources for this forum, then why not the National Enquirer...why not Rush Limbaugh??? I mean I could reluctantly go into Rush and find all sorts of grandstanding about Bush...but I consider his opinion to be right wing, not NPOV. I dunno, it still looks to me like this thing is hopelessly POV. Also liked the editor (silsor) linking me into the boilerplate complaints page...saw that yesterday...but then he took out the link from there back to here...I thought I was almost famous! infamous?--MONGO 09:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trying to get some clarification here -- Do you disagree with current Wikipedia policy on NPOV? Do you disagree that that policy, as applied to someone like Bush, calls for reporting opinions about him, even leftist opinions, even opinions with which you disagree? Do you take both these positions? Or do you take neither, and your objection is on some other grounds? I keep getting the feeling that you think Bush should be given the benefit of a different set of rules from what's applied to all our other controversial articles, but perhaps I'm misinterpreting you.
Incidentally, if the National Enquirer reports that Bush is actually a reptilian kitten-eating space alien, that comment would not merit inclusion in the article under current Wikipedia policy. JamesMLane 10:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: Lest anyone think that my hypothetical example means that I've been using a few controlled substances myself, let me add that I didn't make it up. It comes from our friends to the north. See Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet. JamesMLane 10:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is my point isn't it? If the sourcing for your version of encyclopedic citation is as it is then why not include all subversive horseradish on the guy even if it is about Bush being a reptillian kitten eater from another planet. Is it really postulated that books that are pulled from shelves, vague little known social workers with obscure opinions cited in vague obscure sensationalist POV magazines and other sources of what you refer to as creditable witness should be included in this article, then why not the National Enquirer...or Rush Limbaugh? I understand that Rush Limbaugh has a large following on the air and on line...so certainly his right leaning bias should be admissible, that is if your left leaning mumbo jumbo is. I look through the John Kerry article and I consider it to be much reduced in POV...much more neutral...there still is the supposed controversy over his military service etc., but the article isn't some effort to be a slam fest by either the right or the left wing political factions. The leftist bias in this rag are as plain as the nose on your face! I think some are so caught up in vilifying Bush that they can't get around their hatred of him enough to ever be neutral.--MONGO 11:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the coverage of Kerry and the coverage of Bush (both in multiple articles) are largely in keeping with Wikipedia policy. I say "largely" because if I looked over all those articles in detail, I'd probably find something that could usefully be edited for greater compliance with policy, but after months of being haggled over by editors of varying political views, the articles show no great deviations from policy. JamesMLane 12:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


":I believe that the coverage of Kerry and the coverage of Bush (both in multiple articles) are largely in keeping with Wikipedia policy. "

OK - that's your opinion. A lot of people (including myself) strongly disagree with you. That makes this material controversial, and this article, as it states at the top, is already way too long and difficult to navigate. A compromise that has already been suggested is to place this stuff in a separate "Bush drug controversy" article. People could then still debate the accuracy/relevancy/objectivity of including the claims there.

In a normal Encyclopedia, the editor retains control of the content. That can be bad, if she is biased, but at least her name goes on the article. Everyone knows who she is, and history can judge what she wrote and whether she was a true scholar or not.

In Wikipedia, it is only those who are willing and able to tirelessly revert/change edits that keep control of the content. This won't be the smartest, or most knowledgeable people. It will be those with enough time to sit and monitor a page day-in, day-out. IMO, that's going to rule out the people most qualified to write the article.

Even better! It has already occurred to the conspiracy theorist in me that if a political party really cared enough about the content of this site, they could *pay* someone to watch and edit pages like this. i.e. the highest bidder can effectively buy what is written on Wikipedia, just by paying some individual (or group of individuals) to "watch"/"revert" it continuously.

Worse, because this editing can be done anonymously, no-one can even allege/prove that it is happening (unlike normal political advertising).

Perform a google search for "George W Bush" and this Wikipedia article makes it on the first page. That's got to be worth some votes, if the page says what you want it to say.

Right now I'm not getting paid, but if you can persuade the Democratic National Committee to come up with the dough, I'll cut you in for a 10% finder's fee. JamesMLane 01:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now that is scary...and it brings up my point made before and that is that when you run a search off almost any browser for George Bush, this article comes up in one to five links. I doubt the conspiracy theory, but it's as possible as thinking that this van Wormer fool who has never had a one on one personally with Bush should be able to be considered a creditable witness regardless of her level of expertise on the issue of who is and who isn't a DRY DRUNK. Her innuendo of slurred speech...expert opinion...hogwash. But there is a lot more...I can hardly wait for her expert opinion...[24]. Who would buy the books people like her sell if they weren't full of their "expert" opinion. If someone can cite any known clinical proof based on an actual medical and or psychological evaluation and diagnosis from a person to person examination of George Bush and which shows validity to the argument that Bush is a Dry Drunk, then by all means, it should be in here...but to quote some person who has never met with Bush in a patient/doctor scenario is tantamount to pushing a POV.--MONGO 12:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Subpage for drug use allegations

The parties in this dispute seem to be on a path that usually leads deep into the dispute resolution process. Have they considered taking the same approach that was done with the national guard allegations, and moving the details to George W. Bush drug controversy, or something similar? Gazpacho 10:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A move like that is appropriate for topics that are accumulating so much detail that they overwhelm the article. I don't think that's the case here. Furthermore, even when a lot of the detail on such a topic is moved to a daughter article, it's appropriate to leave a summary in the main article, as is done for both Bush and Kerry with the allegations about their military service. Yet, in this case, we've seen repeated attempts to delete even the very terse summary of the Bush military service allegations. The underlying dispute isn't over the level of detail in the passages about drug use; it's about whether the information should be completely suppressed. Therefore, I don't think that creation of a daughter article would help. As long as anyone keeps trying to suppress the subject, the dispute will go on. JamesMLane 10:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My argument is over the entire article. It is over the content, the dubious quality of the evidence, and the use of verbage. I suggested before that the entire area of discussion in regards to his drinking, drugs and other related weaknesses be placed on another page, and there the user can decide. But for the bulk of this article much would still need to be done to make it neutral. I say let the reader be enlightened and educated with FACTS...not by opinions which can be construed as facts by the less articulate.--MONGO 12:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It looks like you're losing your right wing propaganda censorship war, Mongo. Propose and/or create separate pages for any positive facts as well as negative facts, and you probably wouldn't have any problem with anyone other than the vandalizing idiots. This page and this talk page is getting way too big. --Karmafist 02:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right wing propaganda censorship war? Hardly. If you are leftist enough to think that I have ever deliberately edited out any substantive negative facts then there is no hope for you. I say the major contributors that hawk over this page come here with a predisposition to use much less than credible reporting and then attempt to pass it off as encyclopedic. The reason this article is too long is because of all the mish mash. I haven't made continuous editing to his oil deals, his Texas Rangers profiteering, the argument that he lied essentially about why we needed to wage war in Iraq...once again, I have stated that the innuendo of his cocaine use, the dry drunk garbage and all that other stuff takes up 80 percent of the section on his personal life section. I think folks like you just want to use this medium as a way to lampoon Bush, not as a way to educate.--MONGO 11:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well here's one of your edits: [25]. You edited out quite a lot of good reporting of the various negative opinions, rumors and whatnot that Bush has tended to accrue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do think you have deliberately edited out substative negative facts, and there is hope for me, regardless of what your censor-happy extremist opinion is.

And if you don't realize by now that his reason for going to war with Iraq (Weapons of Mass Destruction) was a lie, then i'm sorry MONGO, but there is no hope for you.

--Karmafist 20:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow, what a revelation you bring, Karmafist...is that possible? Is it possible that we went to war with Iraq due to a lie...or maybe it was to finish what Daddy couldn't...or maybe it was purely due to oil...oh, yeah, so Halliburton could reap a big windfall...sure, it's possible that Bush has killed thousands just because of his vanity. Let's agree to disagree. As far as editing, Tony, I see that the vast bulk of your arguement is based on sensationalist POV reporting from known left wing sources.--MONGO 20:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cocaine allegations

Gazpacho, I think your edit omits too much. To Bush supporters, it's important to note that Hatfield had a felony conviction and that his original publisher withdrew the book. To Bush detractors, it's important to note that Bush said he had no drug use in the 15 years preceding 1989 but refused to answer as to the period before 1974. I do agree with you about the anonymous email as a source, and I've tried to clarify that the email was contradicted when journalists checked with the very contact suggested in the email. Also, in looking into this, I found that our article copied too much verbatim from Salon, so I reworded some passages. I also put in more sources. You removed the link to Bush's characterization of Hatfield's book as "totally ridiculous", but I think that, on a controversial subject, it's especially important to cite sources. JamesMLane 11:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hunting.

What's his view on hunting?

--Relaxation 17:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eliminate Opinion Pieces Section

I noticed that opinion pieces were briefly discussed above. However, I don't believe a consensus was reached on whether this section should be kept or what links should be included. I'm raising the questions again after I noticed that the "Against Bush" links outnumber the "For Bush" links 6 to 1. All of the links (on both sides) are extremely partisan (as would be expected) and add very little, if anything, to the article. I propose that this section be eliminated. I don't believe this section serves any purpose other than to give biased users a chance to insert POV links into the article. Carrp 20:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No one is stopping anyone from adding "For Bush" links. And the whole purpose of opinions is a POV -- these viewpoints on this extremely contreversial president add to the depth of this article. However, it would be good if made some more spinoff articles.

--Karmafist 20:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you added the three most recent links (in one edit [26]). How exactly do those links "add to the depth of this article". What spinoff articles would you like to see? I just don't see these links adding anything except POV. Carrp 20:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Carrp in that this could easily turn into an extremely large section mostly comprised of editorials which simply state what many other articles have said. I think we should put a cap to this (like 10-12), split it down the middle both pro- and con-, and select only the best articles which are not redundant and add more to the discussion or at the very least make us use our head rather than pull at our emotions.--kizzle 23:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Don't rationalize with him...he is only here to push a leftwing bunch of rubbage...I don't think Bush is extremely controversial...only those that are extremist to the left would label him as such.--MONGO 21:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith Mongo...basic wikipedia etiquette.--kizzle 23:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently, by MONGO's definition, 48% of the American voters are "extremist to the left", along with majorities of the adults in many of our longtime democratic allies.
Putting aside that indefensible view, the fact remains that there are a lot of websites about Bush. There are supporters and opponents, but opponents are probably more strongly motivated to put up a website. We don't want to try to list them all or any appreciable fraction. Wikipedia articles aren't "[m]ere collections of external links." ([Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files|Wikipedia is not...]]) The question of when to add external links hasn't been definitively settled within the community (see Wikipedia:External links and other pages cited therein). The question is particularly problematic in a case like this one, with so many links out there clamoring for attention. My inclination would be: (1) A particular external site that's a source for an assertion in the article should be linked at that point in the article, and needn't be repeated in "External links". (2) External sites that focus on particular issues might more usefully be linked in the appropriate daughter article rather than here. (3) There might be some particular value in linking to sites that are frequently updated. If a site's main value is static information, we could just steal (uh, pardon me, incorporate) the information rather than linking to the site. (4) Some people get touchy about links, so, as a practical matter, I usually wimp out and refrain from removing links, even when I think the linkomania is getting excessive. In this particular case, I haven't looked at the "Opinion Pieces" links. MONGO, if you want to add more pro-Bush links, I'll probably think the whole exercise is getting out of hand, but I also probably won't bother deleting. (5) This might be an appropriate subject for posting on RfC if anyone feels strongly enough about it. I suspect there are several people who have no interest in the Bush article but who would jump in to present their strongly held opinions about when we should or should not include an external link. JamesMLane 05:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No I said that those pushing the leftist bias of this article are extremist to the left. I suggest that many others here need to assume good faith and put it into practice by making some attempt at transforming this article into a neutral one. I could hardly agree that there is a conspiracy here to present a left leaning viewpoint and I anticipate that many of the folks here are from academia (which has a natural liberal tilt, no insult intended)or are not in favor of presenting a neutral article because they do not agree with Bush's policies, his actions or his deeds. That is fine, but if they can't let go of this bias, then they shouldn't contribute here if they expect this article to ever be neutral. I have been accused repeatedly of removing ALL bad information in the article and that is simply false. What makes you think that all those that voted for John Kerry did so because they believe that Bush is controversial? Perhaps they voted against Bush more than for Kerry...in that they oppose the current Iraq war and are dissatisfied with the economy, etc. You stated: "there are a lot of websites about Bush. There are supporters and opponents, but opponents are probably more strongly motivated to put up a website." So in essence you answered my premise that the major contributors here are, in all liklihood, opponents of Bush. If you look for answers to support your premise then you'll probably find them. If you come here with a predispostion against someone or something, then in all liklihood, that will be produced in the evidence you gather. I say get rid of the opinion pieces...they are opinion and have no reason to be here.--MONGO 09:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that millions of Americans wanted to remove Bush from office, and given that millions of Europeans and others consider him a graver threat to world peace than Osama bin Laden, it's incomprehensible to me that anyone could suggest he's not controversial. Heck, I voted for Kerry, and I'd have no problem saying that Kerry is also a controversial figure. With regard to the websites, I don't understand your comments. I wasn't suggesting that we should do a headcount of all the sites out there and tailor our coverage accordingly. The point that you keep missing, though, is that a certain amount of reporting of POV's is within the NPOV policy. You repeatedly delete specific, duly attributed opinions, and you make general comments that suggest you don't understand the NPOV policy or you don't want to apply it to Bush. External links to opinionated websites can help illuminate specific points in the article. The tough question is the kind of general external link we find in "Opinion pieces", not cited in support of any specific assertion. To say that opinions "have no reason to be here" goes too far, though. JamesMLane 10:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, MONGO, I find your latest edit interesting. You removed all the opinion pieces, which were clearly labeled as opinions. You had no problem, however, with the recently added passage that stated -- without attribution, without a reference, but simply as a flat Wikipedia assertion -- that the Afghan elections "were a huge success". Should I infer that you didn't happen to notice it? Or do you consider that an expression of opinion of that sort is justified? I return again to the idea of treating this article according to generally applicable policies, rather than giving Bush his own special rules, so I'm deleting that and related passages that clearly violate NPOV. JamesMLane 10:42, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You should infer that I didn't happen to notice it. I removed the opinion pieces because they are , uh, opinions. Who cares about someone's opinions. I continue to say the opinion pieces should be removed. I don't know that the Afgan elections were a huge success. But I can say that since elections were held, and though they may have been seriously flawed in comparison to what us lucky westerners get to enjoy, they were still a step in the right direction. I bet some here wish democracy in Afganistan and Iraq would fail, just so you could enjoy the opportunity to see the policies of the current administration also as failures. I also remember quite vividly when Reagan was President and how all the leftist said he was leading us down a path towards nuclear war and how he was a threat to world peace. Time will tell.--MONGO 12:18, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I stated before that the purpose of an opinion pieces section would ideally be to have a few select external links for each point of view that are well-chosen in that they are referenced, cogent and defensible. I believe the value in this is to provide for greater understanding about the various viewpoints which surround the current President. There are things that do not belong in a strictly encyclopedic article that are, nevertheless, informative and important in gaining a clearer understanding of the 'greater picture' surrounding an issue. If the consensus believe this section should not belong, then it should be removed. However, I do not think a final agreement on the matter was reached before MONGO removed the section. I do not lightly make judgments about this sort of thing, but MONGO, I believe you have a very strong point of view. I respect that, but I also believe that occasionally your point of view clouds your judgment as an editor. I think this is something you should keep in mind when you're contemplating removing entire sections of an article. I will leave it for the community to decide whether it is appropriate to re-add the Opinion Pieces section or something akin to it. I strongly believe that the standards of NPOV should be adhered to, but, for the reasons stated above, I also strongly support a section wherein controversial subject-matter can link to the varying salient opinions on an issue. Xaliqen 02:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I don't check this page for a day and there's already a slew of replies to this discussion alone, let alone Bush himself. If you can't realize there's contreversy in this topic, then you don't understand what contreversy is.

Heck, Bush is easily one of the most contreversial figures, let alone presidents, in American History. One just needs to look at his polling numbers from 9/11 when they were around 90 percent to just before the election when they were around 50. In a mere three years he managed to piss off 40 percent of the American population, and if he didn't secure Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell's wrongdoing, he'd probably have sprung a coup by now.

As for your POV concerns, you should follow your own advice, you constantly censor things that don't jibe with your world views. Opinions are never correct or incorrect, only facts are. Unfortunately, facts are often shaded with people's opinions, so what can be proven and what cannot is blurred(read up on defamation for more on this). I don't delete extremist right wing opinions unless they are presented as false facts because I am a liberal, and one of the key beliefs of being a true liberal is taking everyone's opinion into account(those on "our side" who think otherwise are just as conservative as Bush, if only as a counter-conservative)

And as for spinoff articles, my suggestion was meant towards making the main page into basically a directory of Wikilinks in order to shrink the page down to a managable size.

--Karmafist 05:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Haven't heard that one...well, I did hear it but it was swept under the table...the Ohio vote I am referring to...but maybe it didn't make a big splash in the press because they have all become right wing nut cases and are therefore duty bound to suppress all negative views on Bush. Just as I have been doing here, right? Let me state this very clearly..I consider a large portion of this article to be leftwing bias. I would like to delete a lot more than I ever have in any one single deletion. Those that think that I have edited out all the negative are not being factual. I could go into lots of right wing articles and link them into this and I don't because I think that would be pushing a POV. I am not asking for anything other than for everyone here to make an attempt to be neutral. But remarks about coups, fixed elections or how 40% of the American people became pissed off can hardly be construed to be anything other than your political bias clouding your ability to remain neutral. Just because 40% of the people became dissatisfied enough to voice a negative opinion poll doesn't mean they were pissed off. People rallied around the national leader in a time of crisis and his polls rose, when the economy slumped and then the war in Iraq bogged down, the polls dropped. Bush alienates most liberals because he is quite conservative for our time. But that doesn't mean that this forum should be used as a medium to demonize him. I don't go into the John Kerry or Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton articles and force some right wing sensationalist allegations and opinions there. Weren't we talking about opinion pieces? I say get rid of them...the opinions are not that illuminating anyway.--MONGO 10:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the 40% fact is untrue, remove it. If it is simply a "negative opinion poll" or whatever, we should use the original wording from wherever that source was found. However, removing it is not ok. The more detail one can draw to a subject, the better, as long as its organized in a proper fashion. It is 100% encouraged to make text more resemble the prose that its citation is based upon, but do not remove material simply because it paints Bush in a bad light, and thus is "liberal." (or the converse). The meat of wikipedia articles is fact, we try to skin off the fat of opinion or of taking sides contained within the articles. However, linking to opinions is also correct. In my philosophy reader at school, we had two different opinions on ethical topics so that we could come to our own conclusion. Same with the Supreme Court and dissenting opinions. We would not detail a Supreme Court case without linking to both the normal and dissenting opinion. Opinions are not meaningless in themselves, we must be careful to balance them with each other. In addition, since everyone on the internet has an opinion about Bush, we must be careful to select a few choice opinions on both sides and not just any blogger who has an audience of more than 1000 people.--kizzle 20:03, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Why is it the folks who know the least, lecture the most? The statement of a 40% drop in the opinion polls isn't in the article fully...the above was my response to it being labelled as an example to prove that people were pissed of...which has no correlation.--MONGO 09:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attributing opinions

Although MONGO says, "Who cares about someone's opinions", there are plenty of instances in which the objective reporting of a subjective opinion is sufficiently informative to be included. The Wikipedia policy to that effect also calls for attributing such opinions, though. I've therefore removed this unattributed sentence: "Advocates of the conquest of Iraq have responded by pointing out the billions of embezzled dolalrs those officials at the UN, and in several of the other opposing countries, had gained from the corruption of the Iraqioil for food program." Even aside from the improper characterization "conquest of Iraq", I don't think this belongs in the article about Bush unless the Bush administration commented on the subject. I'm sure the administration has criticized the Oil for Food program, but linking that program to other nations' stances at the UN is another matter. Putting it in this context implies that Bush has drawn that link, which shouldn't be stated unless it can be sourced. If it's only some other people raising the charge, it should be covered in Oil for Food program but not here. JamesMLane 18:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


The opinion as expressed above is also making or relying on unsupported factual statements. The use of the term "pointed out" implies that the expressed opinion (that officials at the UN, etc, embezzled billions of dollars in funds) is true. There are assumptions there too (that any embezzlement was exclusively by or on behalf of non-US nationals). It's a bit of a mess. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
One way of recognizing when someone is trying to add PoV when they dispute part of an article is that they complain about specific parts of something they find embarassing to their agenda, but instead of fixing the questionable details, they simply delete the whole thing. If it mention of the opposition to the conquest of Iraq by France and the UN are acceptable, then the counter-arguments popularly given, attributing their motivation to their profit in the food-for-oil fiasco, is equally appropriate. You can arguably dispute the precise delivery, but not the validity of the information itself. Kaz 18:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the above, JamesMLane and I have indeed questioned the validity because it was not attributed. If there is an attribution that would be verifiable and there would be no problem. Sometimes an item when it first appeats is no more than hearsay and weaseling, but the originator if he makes the effort can find an attributable source and transform it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is duplicated

van Wormer's Opinion

Why is Katherine van Wormer's opinion that Bush displays "all the classic patterns of addictive thinking" included in this article? As this is simply one person's opinion, shouldn't this be an external link in the opinion section? Carrp 16:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, in general we shouldn't relegate significant opinions to external links (the opinion section of links serves no meaningful function in my opinion). Van Wormer's piece is significant because she's a professionally qualified specialist and published author on addiction and the piece was published in the Irish Times. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree that she is qualified, but it's still only her opinion. Without extensive testing and, at the very least, interviewing Bush, her opinion cannot be considered an official diagnosis. It's very common for doctors to disagree about psychological and behavioral diagnoses. How many other qualified specialists concur with van Wormer? There is already information in this article that details Bush's drinking and drug problems. Van Wormer's opinion doesn't add much factual information. I do think the Irish Times article is worth adding to the external link section (I also agree that the opinion section is fairly useless). Carrp 16:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the piece is not illustrative in any legitimate sense of Bush's psychological state. Perhaps it needs reworking to make it plain that it isn't in the article to back up any factual statement. All it actually says, which I think is extraordinary enough, is that this published expert on addiction came out with this extraordinary pseudo-diagnosis and got it printed in a major European newspaper. I find Bush's behavior inexplicable, but I think that's more because I'm a left wing European than because he is or ever was an addict. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's a disputed statement, so you're certainly right that it shouldn't be presented as if it were purely factual. It was first included with the line "It has been observed that", which was clearly improper, because "observed" has a connotation that the statement is correct. I was the one who made the change to "It has been argued that". (I still think "argue" is better than "claim" but I haven't cared about it enough to fight over it.) Either "claimed" or "argued" is enough to convey the point that it's someone's opinion, not a statement of undisputed fact. JamesMLane 21:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is only here to cast Bush in a bad light. It is not a definition accepted by the medical community, not based on anything other than her opinions which were not reached in a typical doctor/patient scenario, and they are her words she has opinionated because she disagrees with Bush on a political basis. It is best off in the opinion pieces which I think don't belong here either. Just think, if you put it there, I have only one edit to do instead of two!--MONGO 10:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How does it cast Bush in a bad light? I agree with you that here, apparently, is a professional prostituting her credentials in order to score a cheap political point. So how does it reflect badly on Bush? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because it is a cheap political point.....it is her opinion. Her opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine on this subject regardless of her supposed credentials because it is not based on a typical doctor/patient relationship and would not be rendered as fact by any medical journal or institute. Lots of opinions are published and lots of them are not based on facts...that is why they are opinions. It alludes that because she thinks he is suffering from this malase it explains the reasons why he acts the way he does and for the decisions he has made but it does this in an effort to push a POV, not because she is behaving in a typical concerned doctor manner.--MONGO 12:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but could you try to answer my question? How does van Wormer's behavior reflect badly on Bush? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where did her behavior come in? Her behavior reflects badly on her, not on Bush. She is using her "expert opinion" to push her POV and to sell her book(s). I don't think I can make it simpler than that.--MONGO 13:10, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good, then we're agreed that it doesn't reflect on Bush. Therefore by arguing for it to be there I'm not doing so in order to "cast Bush in a bad light", as you put it. I'm only putting it there because it's part of the story of the Bush Presidency that, like Clinton before him, he has sometimes experienced some rather overheated attacks upon his character in the quality press. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We haven't agreed on anything as far as this goes. It has nothing to do with her behavior...it has to do with her unmedical opinion...and your continuous insistance that it is worthwhile reporting just because it appeared in a foreign newspaper...Her opinion casts Bush in a bad light because it insinuates that his behavior seems similar in her eyes to what she has come to know as a "dry drunk". Look, while assuming good faith, I cannot agree that her opinion is anything other than that and it is here because it helps support your own biases about him. Your question about her behavior has nothing to do with the point.--MONGO 09:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bush is commonly known as...

I removed this recent addition:

Bush is commonly known as extremely conservative in nature, opposing gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, and misleading the nation over the invasion of Iraq, typically governing from a Christian perspetive, despite our separation of church and state.

It's really just a "well my friends and I think this..." kind of insertion which isn't a lot of use (practically my whole city think that Bush is a raving nutcase but that isn't going into this article unless we run a poll). I think this kind of thing (especially the bit about misleading people) should have some kind of psephological basis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Extra pro-Bush articles?

Perhaps some extra pro-Bush articles could be added to the opinion pieces links. There's 1 pro link and 6 con.

I cut the Against link section down to three links which is, I think, a pretty good number to keep things at. If you have two good links you could add to the Pro section, then please do. --Xaliqen 12:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some NPOV edits

In response to MONGO's latest edits "to make this more of a NPOV article", I made several changes, some prompted by his edit, some that should have been changed a while ago.

  • I've restored, yet again, the information that MONGO keeps trying to delete -- that Bush's record budget deficit is in the context of his having inherited a record surplus. I previously pointed out that Bush's actual performance, of turning a $200 billion surplus into a $400 billion deficit, is significantly different from, as a hypothetical example, trimming a $700 billion deficit to $400 billion. Therefore, the context is highly relevant. MONGO, you haven't answered that argument or any of the arguments that several other editors advanced.
  • This constant harping on "van Wormer never examined Bush" is pretty silly. It would be obvious to the reader. Nevertheless, since MONGO makes such a cause about it, I've left it in, but as long as we're stating the obvious, I'll add that Bush has never submitted to such an examination. Even leaving in this silliness, the conclusion that van Wormer's opinion "therefore carries little weight" is POV and must be removed. Also, although it wasn't in MONGO's latest edit and I forget who inserted it, the crack about this being "an easy target for the press" serves no purpose but to denigrate one side of the controversy.
    • Mongo, if you disagree with the above, read Wikipedia:Spoon Feeding --kizzle 23:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • The van Wormer material was recently expanded to include a longish quotation from her article. I think the previous, shorter version was better; anyone who wanted to see her elaboration could just click on the link. Nevertheless, perhaps the Bush partisans prefer it this way on the theory that it makes her opinion look like just a rationalization for disagreeing with his politics. I prefer the shorter version but I can live with it either way.
  • I removed another silly remark, "According to CBS news and Dan Rather, he never served in any army at any time."
  • There's no reason to censor the controversy over Bush's TV appearance in the matter of Tucker's execution.
  • The "Pet Goat" episode has been prominent in the public discussion of Bush's presidency. I've restored the deleted photo.
  • There is language in here, which MONGO didn't change, about U.S. sale of WMD's to Iraq. That's the kind of controversial point that needs a citation. I've left it in for now, but if it can't be sourced (possibly with an attribution instead of being a flat assertion), it should be deleted.
  • Similarly, I previously commented that the passage about Oil for Food shouldn't just be ascribed to unnamed "critics". It's been rewritten but the flaw is the same. The passage should identify some notable person or entity that supports this view. If none such can be identified, it should be deleted.

JamesMLane 11:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your constant harping that van Wormers unmedical opinion should be in here at all is pretty silly too, James! How could the insertion of this be anything but support for your liberal bias....for the last time, it is a bunch of hogwash! The pet goat picture is another tired innuendo that Bush was perhaps perplexed...unknowing what to do next, after being told about the planes hitting the WTC towers etc...you have it here to support your bias that he is unintelligent...what other purpose could it serve other than that? What does that picture have to do with anything else? Tony sidaway keeps putting that picture back in after others take it out stating that he likes the picture...so what. What purpose does it serve except to allude to something untrue that was, in all liklihood, taken out of context. Show me where the grade point average is in the John Kerry article, or Bill Clinton. The left likes it here because they think it makes Bush look of average intelligence. Well, Lincoln had little if any formal education as did a number of other people highly regarded as intelligent. As far as budget comparisons, it is the same deal...you want it here because it continues to support your point of view. You think it is significant but it is taken out of context and fails to address the reasons. It is done as an innuendo to suggest that Bush is less capable than Clinton at managing his budget. I see little you add here that has any basis in neutrality, James. You even state that the issue of WMD sale by the U.S. to Iraq should be referenced, but you leave it in anyway. If it was an issue I had deleted you would quickly scamper to find some vague periodical that would support the claim, no matter how poorly regarded that article may be, just to bolster your neverending effort to display your radical left wing ideas of neutrality. Hence my discussion that we might as well cite the National Enquirer! There is every reason to eliminate the issue of Bush being cynical about the Tucker execution. Where is your reference for this? This article states "The execution of Karla Faye Tucker, who repented in prison and become a born-again Christian, was particularly controversial, in part because Bush appeared on television publicly mocking and mimicking her appeals for clemency." What television, and where? When I read this article it is so full of things taken out of context, falsehoods, innuendo which supports a leftwing bias and misconceptions it reminds of me of reading a treatise on evolution written by creationists.--MONGO 13:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, your personal attacks are growing very tiresome. I left in the part about sale of weapons for the same reason I left in the unattributed slur on several UN members that dared to disagree with Our Glorious Leader: I was following the Wikipedia standard of assuming good faith. On these two points, which could be seen as one pro-Bush and one anti-Bush, I didn't just delete, but called the editors' attention to the need for citation. Do you agree with me that, unless they can be properly sourced, both points should be deleted? Beyond those specifics, if you want to think, without evidence, that I automatically "scamper to find some vague periodical" in support of anything anti-Bush, fine, you go right and think whatever you like. JamesMLane 20:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, first of all, exercise some judgment and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, don't call it a bunch of hogwash. Keep it simple, simply disagree and submit an argument for your perspective of how the article should be, and shut up about everything else. My personal feelings about the Van Wormer piece are undecided at this point. Has her book or opinion been cited on television or any other avenue for public exposure? If the group thinks that the book for better or worse has received enough public attention than I think it should be included but with JML's explicit disclaimer that Bush has never submitted to such an examination. If its not prominent in the public eye, however, I'm not so sure that it should belong here simply for being a low degree of relevancy and significance. However, JML is dead on about several other things. The context of Bush inheriting a $200 billion surplus and turning it into a $400 deficit is vitally important, as dropping the former changes the meaning and significance of the latter. How is mentioning this in any way taking things out of context? Just use the line that every other Bush supporter uses, "it was due to 9/11". But don't censor the fact that he started out way on top. Another thing, "according to CBS news and Dan Rather" is obviously laced with so much innuendo it can hardly be called neutral. The Pet Goat episode is one of the primary bones of contention for opposers of Bush and is one of the most memorable scenes of a movie that grossed more than any other documentary in box office history. However, if there are no references to the passages you cite, then they should be removed until someone can find a source for the information. Stop bitching about left and right interests on this page, just make your point and back it up, there is no wiki liberal cabal that rules all here, the only currency that carries weight here is properly referenced non-analytical descriptive sentences. One is a lot more likely to listen to your viewpoint if it contains much more reasoning and less complaining. --kizzle 23:17, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that the pet goat picture was in that documentary...but in light of the fact that that documentary was not seen by me, it should be no wonder. I'm sure I would have found it enlightening. You complain about me "bitching" and also tell me to "shut up". That's very nice. Here's my answer: when this article becomes neutral, then I will do both of those things. Incredible that you would tell me to assume good faith then demand that I shut up. I never claimed to say that Bush isn't to be credited with a huge federal deficit, only that it isn't necessary to compare it. The pet goat picture is only here because most of us remember that Bush did sit quizzing himself after being told about the WTC...so what..who wouldn't be in a state of shock somewhat...which is what I took it to be. I do not see the importance of it, especially since it isn't referenced. I didn't know it was in the documentary because I didn't see it. The issue of Karla Faye Tucker's execution and the supposed public mocking of the event by Bush isn't referenced either...where is the proof. Put the proof in there and it stays for sure, for I am opposed to the death penalty anyway. As far as WMD being sold by the U.S. to Iraq, I am not familar to this issue and need to research it more before I can discuss this matter. I have discussed Hatfield's book, which isn't even on the shelves anymore, as also being a less than credible source. I do see in this article many many links to other references, but I do not think they are in some cases very strong unbiased treatises on the issue referenced. If you wish to prove to me that you and others that find this article to be neutral then you won't do so by lecturing me, being condescending or by telling me to shut up.--MONGO 08:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Why do people who know the least, lecture the most?", now that's condescending.
In analyzing how a president did, we take what the country was like the day he took office to when he left. When Bush took office, he had a $200B surplus, now its up to a $400B deficit ... that's a net loss of $600B under Bush's term. Seems to me like an important thing to note. Like I said, if that's taken out of context, then apply the context that is missing, don't censor the existing essential facts (i.e. "blame it on 9/11"). I must correct myself that the picture of the pet goat probably does not come directly from F9/11, the event was just made public for most people by the movie, of which that scene where he waits 7 minutes is one of the most memorable. I had said it earlier, maybe I didn't word it correctly, that I agree that if certain aspects of this page like the death penalty mocking incident isn't referenced, then take it out. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that unless they can find a source. --kizzle 19:39, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't so much the comparison, it is the context. I do not think it is up to us to analyize how a President did...to such a degree. The deficit can be blamed on many things, some of which include...reduced corporate profits and therefore reduced tax revenue, reduced taxes to citizens, increased spending especially for defense, and much lower on the list is the issue of 9/11...but that is still causal to some of the other tax hikes. I think it is enough to simply say that Bush has the largest federal deficit in history...and then the comparison isn't necessary. However, in comparison to the current GDP, the current deficit is still not a record. But to put that in would be a positive for Bush, so I don't add it because I do want this to be neutral.--68.13.116.52 21:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yowza!

What a gobshite! How the hell did he get a second term? do Americans read te newpapers? are they aware of politics at all? god help us.--Crestville 03:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The goat picture has to go

I think this article has major problems. Even if the tone is NPOV, virtually all the information cited gives a negative impression of Bush's background, accomplishments, etc.

Removing that "The Pet Goat" photo would be a good improvement. It's not even mentioned anywhere else in the article, and seems to exist here only to portray Bush as a buffoon.

Um, pet goat picture? RickK 06:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
All the other pictures in this article appear to be official portraits or posed publicity shots of GWB. If they give Bush a "negative impression", then there is really nothing that Wikipedia can do about that. The "pet goat" picture provides a good counterbalence to the clinical posing of the official photographs.
If it would help we can add text about where the "pet goat" picture comes from. DJ Clayworth 06:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was on the side of it being an attempt to make a naughty point, but if it's an official publicity photo, then I'd say its incidental connotation is no worse than the pro-Bush spin clearly behind all the other publicity photos.
If we're gonna yank it, then we should also yank the one that has him looking so presidential, and the one that has him next to another world leader all statesmanlike, the pic of him as a good family man, et cetera.
And understand this: While there are many criticisms of Bush which I find credible, I consider the pet goat thing to be sheer nonsense. He could not have accomplished anything by running willy-nilly from the classroom and trying to "take command" seven minutes earlier. That's authority-worshipping silliness. But I still say that, if it's a legitimate, official publicity pic, it should stay...one is taking a PoV stance by wanting to remove it. Trying to censor something which appears embarassing to their "side". And, again, I say this despite thinking the complaint implied in the pic is bogus. Kaz 20:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I understand the desire for less stilted pictures than official photos (though other presidents' articles don't seem to suffer from any such problem). However, I think the choice of the Goat image is suspicious. It seems more like a tie-in with Fahrenheit 911 than a candid snapshot of the president that just happened to make it onto the page. Anyway, thanks to DJ Clayworth's edit, the complaint is no longer implied, so it's even less NPOV than before. At least the link to The Pet Goat provides some counterbalance, although none is given in the article text. Ultra Megatron 07:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
I made this edit because someone complained that the picture wasn't in context, so I put some context in. Feel free to remove it if you prefer. DJ Clayworth 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Goat picture should be there, I think--it's what he did after being informed of the attack. I'm not happy with the current caption, however. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The goat picture is misleading. Most of those who know of the incident can look at it from one of two ways: that he is an idiot and it took him 7 minutes to break free from the excitement of the book about the Pet Goat and deal with the 21st century version of Pearl Harbor (it was worse than Pearl Harbor)or, that it was a combination of shock and digestion and gathering a course of action to handle this momentus event, which is my impression. As far as it being in F911, I didn't see the documentary, but knowing that the director of that movie is prone to putting things out of context (in much the same way creationists do when writing about evolution), I do not consider any innuendo to that documentary as neutral, regardless of how much money it made. I see no reason for the picture to be here...I've got a personal impromtu picture of Bush from just last week of him speaking at a venue where he discussed social security reform that I attended...it isn't flattering and one could make all sorts of deductions from it as well. I do not see that only White House approved pictures should be displayed here, but this one is subversive and is here for one apparent reason only, and that is to cast Bush in a bad light, and can therefore never be construed by me to be anything other than pushing a point of view.--MONGO 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why replace an image that will be familiar to the millions with an utterly obscure image? It hardly matters what you think of the movie - the picture wasn't shot for the movie, it just used the footage. Again, if you think that use of an image by a biased source invalidates the image then any images used by GWB's machine (not just created by them) should also be treated with suspicion. The picture is a rare one of a world leader at a defining moment in history. It's hardly irrelevant. Any interpretation you place on it, such as the rather negative one you give, is entirely your own issue. DJ Clayworth 20:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really, really like JamesMLane's recent edit, making the caption read: Bush reading The Pet Goat in a classroom after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center. He was criticized by some for his apparent nonchalance, but praised by others for not alarming the schoolchildren. I think that encapsulates the issue very well. I know people who don't even like Bush who think he did the right thing that morning, and I'm sure there are pro-Bush people who think the President could just stand up and say thank you kindly to the children but he has some Presidenting to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, the fact that you have an alternative interpretation of the picture proves that it does not push a single point of view. Gamaliel 00:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
IN other words, my alternative...the positive one is the opposite of yours which must be the negative one, hence your argument that the picture is substantive based on your viewing the picture and thinking negatively. If you come here with a liberal predisposition then that will cloud YOUR ability to be neutral.--MONGO 12:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think the caption should make clear that Bush has not just been told about an attack, but that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. He actually went into the Florida classroom already aware of AA11 hitting the north tower, which might have been excused or explained as a terrible aviation accident. As is obvious from the unedited footage (with sound) of the entire classroom visit,[27] which if anything is more chilling than the abbreviated version Michael Moore used (with his own voiceover) in his Fahrenheit 9/11 excerpt, Chief-of-Staff Andrew Card waited for an opportune moment when it would have been entirely appropriate for Bush to rise, say a few words, and plausibly excuse himself. As has been widely quoted and acknowledged, Card told the President two phrases: a second plane had hit the towers, and that America was under attack. Bush didn't move or get up, perhaps out of shock, perhaps because Card had not specifically told him to get up, or perhaps because he didn't want to "upset the children," although I think that was a rationalization after the fact, because he had been given the opportunity to leave. I think it entirely appropriate for this photo to be part of the George W. Bush page, since indeed 9/11 is the defining moment of his first term. The use of this photo on Wikipedia's page should have nothing to do with whether Michael Moore used it in his film. We all remember -- and indeed can never possibly forget -- where we were at the moment we heard or saw what was happening. We should remember where Bush was, and his reaction. Sandover 00:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The picture is here to push a POV. The point of view is that the President didn't react fast enough. You can all twist it any way you wish but that is why the picture is here and that is why you all keep pushing this issue. I consider his defining moment of 9/11 as the speech he gave a few days after that event...perhaps one of the finest in Presidential history...where is that picture? I said it once and I'll say it again...you cannot undue the fact that he is the President if you wished he wasn't by slandering him. If it must stay why not word the caption: Bush reads the book The Pet Goat after being informed of the second plane hitting the WTC. Some have said that he was waiting for a break in the reading to depart so that the children wouldn't be upset, while others have critized him for not responding to the call of duty quick enough. Though this is long for a caption, it shows that in this article, the negative must always go before the positive, as far as the way much of it is written. Why not put a positive view before a negative view?--MONGO 09:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The alternative points of view are that Bush went into a funk and that Bush displayed great restraint so as not to upset the children. Those are significant opinions on Bush and should be reported in the article about him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Negative. No one really knows what he was thinking but him. But the critism of that pause, moment of momentus decision, effort to be tactful etc. has been misinterpreted by the liberal media and perverted to make most folks think that he was dumbfounded as to what to do next. That is what everyone has been led to believe. Therefore, the picture is here because it helps the left wingers perpertrate their myth that the President is an idiot. You and yours demand the continuance of it being here because it helps you support your attempt to slander. I say replace it with a picture of Bush deliving the speech he made a few days later. With those pictures, we can KNOW what he said...with this picture, we can only DEDUCE what he was thinking and most folks have been brainwashed into believing that he was not thinking at all.--MONGO 12:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's assume hypothetically that there was a vast left-wing conspiracy to convey a false impression about Bush, and that this conspiracy succeeded in using this picture to brainwash millions of people. On that assumption, the picture is notable and should be included. That's the issue, not whether some people are drawing an incorrect conclusion from the photo. We could go into a whole big thing about the different interpretations, giving more detail about each side. I personally think the subject isn't important enough to warrant that, however. The photo is notable and should be included; because the subject isn't addressed in the article, the caption should summarize why a seemingly routine photo became important. I think that's enough detail on it because I don't think there was a vast left-wing conspiracy, I don't buy the anti-Bush argument that there was something useful he could've done in those seven minutes, and I don't buy the pro-Bush argument that he couldn't have politely excused himself without panicking the children. Therefore, let's not clutter the article with the blow-by-blow about Bush's activities on September 11. JamesMLane 13:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
MONGO, you're absolutely right when you say that we look at the picture and deduce what he was thinking. Nobody knows. He's the most important politician in the world and the kind of person he is--how he acts in a calamity--is important to a lot of people. So they look at the video and they try to work out what it says about Bush.
Now replacing it with a picture of a guy making a speech would probably be the wrong thing to do. Politicians rehearse speeches, and usually the speeches aren't even written personally by them. Here is a picture of Bush at a time when, perhaps for the first time in his Presidency, he had to make a decision without access to his staff. He had to think on his feet. I look at it and I see a man beset by indecision, others may look at it and see a man being considerate to the children whom he is there to meet. Whatever you think, it's a pretty powerful portrait of President Bush unmediated by the usual White House smoke and mirrors. A rare chance to see the man beneath. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think both of you saw too much news coverage of that situation and or F911 and reach the conclusion you do about him being indecisive. I say it is here and you support it here because it supports your biased opinion of Bush. I don't use the word biased in a hostile manner. We all have our biases...no doubt. But I think that the entire issue of this photo is a misrepresentation in that the media, which tends to be leftwing, has looked at it from that manner and has passed it on to all of us. I do not see controversial pictures of this nature in similar articles. I do not see that at all. It sits solitary and alone and is not connected to the article...but due to the bias of the media, we have all been well indocrinated to what that picture was guessed to mean about what Bush was doing which appeared to be nothing. As far as Bush having the chance to show independent thought...well, some of his staff were right there with him...and no President acts alone anyway...I say the picture should be replaced with this one for, as I said, we know what he said.[28]. That would leave no ambiguities and would be neutral because it is attributable to a known, not some perception.--MONGO 13:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, sidestepping the issue of whether to keep the pic or not, I don't think people have been biased by the leftwing media to see the photo as an indictment of Bush. Quite the opposite; everybody, without exception, I have talked to who has seen the whole clip of him just sitting there for a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time has said the same thing: 1) it clearly portrays him as rudderless and 2) why the hell hasn't this clip been shown in the media before? Gzuckier 15:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, which is why I think my opinion on this is significant; I think it's utterly ridiculous to pretend that Bush could have accomplished anything more if he'd run out of the room (panicking the children) and started trying to micromanage the situation seven minutes earlier. This is the kind of authority-worshipping nonsense that really irks me about our society in recent years. People "taking charge" doesn't automatically improve a situation or crisis. And yet I agree the pic should stay. Especially if it's a Bush PR pic. If we don't censor PR pics for making Bush look good, we shouldn't censor them for supposedly making him look bad. And, anyway, the fact that the pic is historically significant makes it that much more appropriate, good or bad. One of the most famous individual pics of Clinton is the one of him laughing at Ron Brown's funeral. Because the pic is so famous, it would be appropriate in his article, though of course the Clinton apologists would try to censor it purely out of their own bias. Kaz 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's utterly ridiculous to pretend that the only alternative to Bush sitting there continuing his photo op was to run out of the room screaming. He could have easily excused himself in a calm manner without scaring anyone. Despite what Mongo thinks, all these possible interpretations prove that one single POV is not being pushed by including the picture. This is an important, unrehearsed moment in American history as it is happening and should be included, and is much more important than some varnished, rehearsed picture of a politician's speech. (Incidentally, someone should put a Lewinsky pic in Clinton's article.) Gamaliel 17:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bush's behavior since September 11, 2001 is something about which I have a particular interpretation but that is not something for discussion here. I will simply say that it is possible to have interpretations of Bush's reaction to the incident (and American's reaction in general) other than the one that is loudly promoted by the White House.
You can rest assure that, being European, I have never had the opportunity to become "indoctrinated" by the US media, since I do not have access to their output and my local media have their own independent US political correspondents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's be realistic here...if the premise is that people might get a bad impression of Bush from the US media, that's true cubed for European media. I still say the pic should stay, but you're not exactly gonna get a positive impression of Bush in Europe. Kaz 17:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed you won't. But my point handily demolishes MONGO's belief that there is a small clique of Washington "liberals" or whatever the mot-du-jour is engineering bad PR for Bush. If anything, the Washington press corps is seen by outsiders to be a bunch of spineless bootlickers for Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

reordering books

just wanted to maybe sort the book section by author's last name, unless someone has a problem i'll do it later tonight. --kizzle 19:45, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

Karla Faye Tucker

The statement we had, that Bush mocked her on television, was wrong. She appeared on television (on Larry King). Tucker Carlson wrote a magazine article (in Talk) that reported on Bush's mocking of her TV appearance. I haven't looked up the paper copy of Talk, and website (like the magazine) is defunct, but the passage was quoted on many websites, so I'm comfortable with it unless and until someone finds it's an error. (Talk magazine, September 1999, page 106 is the cite I saw.) The link I gave is to a site quoting the article and also quoting a Salon interview with Carlson. I don't subscribe to Salon; maybe someone who does can check out the Salon link to verify it. (An amusing sidenote is that Carlson was worried that his profile would be seen as "a suck-up piece", but Salon characterized it as "the most damaging profile of [Bush] yet written". JamesMLane 21:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is a link to some further info regarding the Tucker incident: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17670 and here is another link from the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr080999.html --Xaliqen 21:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realize that you'd already linked the NY Review of Books article --Xaliqen 21:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyone will have to forgive me for this and will probably chalk it up to what may be perceived as a pro Bush agenda...but I do not find either of these links satisfying. I know you researched it throughly but do not believe it to be substantial enough, and I would like to see a link to the original interview or quotes as they were reported in Talk. These links are secondary to the main article. If you can find a copy of that Talk edition, scan it in and create a website for it, I doubt there would be any copywrite enfringement in light of the magazine being defunct. The interviewer may feel otherwise...in that he is a conservative. I searched for the information myself and cannot find any to add. I will say that a quote from a magazine or article that quotes a now defunct magazine isn't sufficent unless the original citation can be accessed.--MONGO 07:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to exclude widely reported information simply because the source is not internet accessable. A proper citation should be more than sufficient. Also, we shouldn't be a party to a copyright violation simply for our own convienence. The magazine may not be around, but the company who owned the magazine probably is, and the editor of the magazine and the author of the article are still alive. Gamaliel 07:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then it needs to be found as I do not consider third party citations as qualifying.--MONGO 09:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that I'd like to see a link for every point in an article, but it's not always possible. Wikipedia frequently cites printed sources that aren't available online. It's not our usual practice to scan such sources and create a website. Furthermore, Gamaliel is correct that printed material doesn't pass into the public domain just because a magazine stops publishing. I've given a link to my source. Any reader who shares your skepticism about third-party citations can see that this one is a third-party citation and can discount it accordingly. Such a reader can also do a Google search and discount all the many other websites that quote the Talk article to the same effect. JamesMLane 14:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The objection that we can't include widely documented information unless we can link to a direct version of an article in a periodical which no longer exists is absolutely indefensible. It is clear from the articles linked here, if one bothers to examine them, that this incident did indeed happen, unless Carlson, a pro-Bush pundit, was lying about his own interview with Bush. This does indeed seem like yet another PoV censorship trick, trying to keep a fact embarassing to one's own agenda silent. As with the goat pic, allowing this is a matter of principle, regardless of whether one likes the perception it creates. We should defend the posting of factual material that we dislike more stridently than the stuff we support, just as a society can only have liberty if people are free to make unpopular choices. Kaz 18:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've tracked down the publication details, the volume and number (it was vol1 no 1), the name of the article and the page numbers. Thus we have a verifiable citation. The incident, from Carlson's article as source, was widely reported in news media at the time and has often been referenced since. I'm not happy with the wording we have now, however, until someone can track down a copy and verify. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I am coming accross as an obstructionist on this issue. Probably I am. It goes back to my belief that I don't think Salon or some of the other sources of information are very creditible in that they do tend to be sensationalistic and left wing. I've read up on this Carlson guy and it appears to me that his family influence is the main reason he is employed in his field, as he is not all that respected in his field, kind of a Rush Limbaugh type, going off the deep end on a number of issues, being insulting, etc. In that, he appears to be somewhat sensationalistic too. I am conceding defeat on this issue because I know now after looking hard myself that it isn't probably possible to find the original citation and all of you have found more credible citations than were here before. Furthermore, being a conservative, though I don't trust him, Carlson probably did witness this event during his interview with Bush and it is unlikely he would have recited it if it wasn't true. I still do not think the van wormer opinion or Hatfields book or anything from Salon to be creditible however. No, it's not that I accept bad information about Bush solely from conservative sources, I just find these three areas to be unworthy of Wikipedia standards.--MONGO 20:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well MONGO, I sure don't think the National Review is left-wing. First of all, it was founded by William F. Buckley Jr. Second, if you go to the front-page of their web-site, it's quite clear that the focus is on conservative issues from a conservative perspective. As for its reliability, it's been published since 1955, not that longevity determines reliability, but it is certainly a respected publication in a number of circles. --Xaliqen 21:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, National Review is a Neo-Conservative magazine, which means that right now it's devoutly Bush League, for better or worse, since he's successfully advancing their number one agenda. Kaz 04:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well Xaliqen, if you read my discussion then you would see that I had indeed praised those that found more credible sources in this matter. So why are you still unsatisfied?--MONGO 08:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed tag

This article doesn't need the TotallyDisputed tag. The way I see it, that's a heavy-duty tag that goes on articles that are blatantly biased, like, say, all those "Palestinian children" lists. George W. Bush is a controversial man, as all US Presidents were to some degree. No matter how neutral or accurate this article is, there will always be someone out there who disputes its neutrality/accuracy. Also, and I know this is no reason to take off the tag, this is obviously one of Wikipedia's most visible articles. Think of what that says about us, when one of our most basic, vital articles has an ugly tag reserved for the worst of the worst POV offenders. In addition, I haven't seen much of a case made on the talk page that this article truly is biased or inaccurate. Szyslak 02:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. I think this article is nowhere near as neutral as other contemporary articles in which you would expect to find disagreements on context, sourcing of information and discussion. When I look at the pages on contemporary politicians such as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry etc., there is little if any flag waving either way...they appear to be tremendously more neutral than this article is. Let me provide examples: (1)The use of the Pet Goat picture here has no purpose except to put Bush in a bad light...why isn't there a picture of Monica Lewinsky in the Bill Clinton article? The ordeal is discussed and it represents one of the most disgusting abuses of power of any President, but it is discussed only briefly. In the John Kerry article there is a picture of him when he got arrested for an anti Vietnam protest but the entire connotations are different from the Pet Goat picture. (2)In the Bush article, there are numerous paprgraphs detailing his alleged drug and alcohol abuse, but all the sourcing is from conspicuously less than authoritative sources. Whereby in the Clinton article the issue of him smoking dope but not inhaling is mentioned but briefly. (3) In the John Kerry article, there is paragraph after paragraph detailing his actions which resulted in him winning numerous awards and only one paprgraph which discusses those that say his awards were not justified and even that paragraph has detractions built into it. The Bush article discusses only Bush's attempts, as it would read, to weasel out of service, with only one paragraph which discusses his promotions. That's three comparisons...there are many many more. This article is hardly a neutral treatise on the subject matter.--MONGO 08:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There absolutely should be a picture of Monica Lewinsky in the Clinton article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've compared the Goat pic to the pic of Clinton laughing at Ron Brown's funeral. It may be controversial, but only in a way which actually makes it /more/ appropriate in an article about the man. Like the pic of Nixon desperately throwing victory signs as he leaves on the plane. And I agree, it's ridiculous that there's not a pic of Clinton and Lewinsky together in the Clinton article. The problem is that there are Clinton apologists censoring that article, just like Bush apologists are doing here, and both ought to be ashamed of themselves. Kaz 17:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bush v. Gore in lead section

We had some discussion late last year about the coverage of the election disputes in the lead section. My feeling then was that the controversy over the 2004 election was fresh enough that it would help orient the reader if we gave some information of the type that Neutrality has now put in the lead. Back then, however, some other editors were determined to keep this kind of thing out. Much as I disagreed with them then, I think that, with the Inauguration having passed, the election controversies don't deserve this much prominence. Obviously, the subject should be (and is) covered, but it doesn't seem to me that it needs to be in the lead section. We haven't revisited this question lately; what do others think? JamesMLane 03:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it is appropriate for the article to focus on whatever is timely. Insofar as the elections are now several months passed, it seems appropriate to focus on more timely subject-matter. If one finds it necessary to discuss the latest controversy, then it seems to me the controversy over Bush's appointments to Secretary of State and Attorney General are more timely than the election controversy. --Xaliqen 13:19, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the lead paragraphs of this article, which I take it is what we're discussing, I must agree. Bush v Gore was relevent right after it happened, and in fact maybe all through the first term, since it was pivotal to him being President...but now he's been elected with no sane controversey (aside from the long-standing question of the electoral college, ballot access laws, campaign finance reform, et cetera), so it really belongs only in chronological order in the article's body. Kaz 18:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hey, why not change it to the "Controversial" tag? Kaz 18:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poll on TotallyDisputed tag

Note: The section "Poll on TotallyDisputed tag," which was previously on this archive page, has been moved to the main talk page because at the time it was archived it was an active poll.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/o/Talk%7EGeorge_W._Bush_Archive_18_53c4.html"