Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Revamp for succinctness and bias

Okay, I understand that some of my edits may be seen as partisan by others (I don't deny I'm a Bush supporter), but the article is far too long and is far too quick to jump to negative interpretations of Bush. Perhaps much of this could be moved to a new George W. Bush controversy page, leaving this page much cleaner. As a matter of fact, considering the fact that the page is so long, let's create new pages for each section (e.g. George W. Bush: Personal Life and Education, etc.) That way we can allow a lot of the controversial stuff to stay in, while providing only his picture, the info box at the top, and links to the new sections. Any takers? Savantpol

Disagree. Putting all "controversy" in a separate section, or worse, a separate article, is awkward. Let's try for a balanced article, not an official White House biography. Thanks. Neutrality 05:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Assessments

As I already wrote, I cannot see why the assessments section should be here. The article is about Bush, not Moore. The "clouded election", the "walkaway" from the Kyoto Treaty and the "actions towards Iraq" are dealt with in a neutral way. As I told Pjamescowie, maybe a note can be included in another way since it is unique for Bush to get such a strong opposition from prominent film-makers, musicians and others and that this opposition is so successful in spreading its message. Get-back-world-respect 21:59, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Abstract from any consideration about George W. Bush or the sentiments surrounding the president specifically, I would say that, in principle, it is usefull to have an "assesments" section for a person in a role of great social and physical consequence. In Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", an entire chapter is devoted to assesments. It is wise to assess matters of high-risk and high-yield. It is wise to assess political figures, however controversial it may seem. It also serves as a good summary, and completes the picture by preserving historical knowledge of social sentiment. It can be nuetral. It can discuss a plethora of disparate assesments, and organize them into groups that reflect the respective social cohesions of the assesments. This would be highly information to future researchers, who would otherwise have frustrated access to such information. Kevin Baas 22:29, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
It could be neutral, e.g. when naming prominent supporters and opponents and referring to their articles. It is not neutral when including a paragraph about Michael Moore. Get-back-world-respect 22:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As it stands, it does not seem neutral to me, either. Yet, I don't see what to put for the supporters other than insipid and banal, almost sardonic statements, like "consistent leadership", as that is all I've heard in his favor, and I've heard it repeated about as many times as I've heard Bush paraphrase "iraq=evil, war against iraq=good". Perhaps someone more knowledgeable of pro-assesments could countervail the con-assesments? I would not like such a valuable section to be partial and thus disreputable. Kevin Baas 23:02, 2004 Jun 20 (UTC)
I, too, think that citing currently anarchist Afghanistan can hardly be seen as an only supportive argument for Bush. However, the controversial aspects are dealt with in other paragraphs and the assessment one is not phrased neutrally. Get-back-world-respect 07:56, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I replaced the Assessments section, which I created, after it had been removed, citing precisely the grounds for GBWR's removal: the critics of Bush are well-organised and in the public eye - it is precisely this phenomenon that makes inclusion of some note of Moore's campaign, for example - mounted specifically against Bush and his re-election - both noteworthy and newsworthy..... How can we truly understand Bush's presidency without some mention of the assessments made of it, both now and in the future?? I have already called in my edits comment for someone / anyone to come in and add some information regarding positive assessments, i.e. public champions of the Bush presidency. I'll even add the same myself if / when I get time to research it. This can be a balanced and neutral section..... I only cited Moore in particular as a critic, on the grounds that the upcoming movie release is so newsworthy at the moment. Pjamescowie 17:09, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Job creation seeing a gradual increase?" - Firstly, the issue is not job creation, the issue is unemployment rate - jobs per capita. Secondly, that is, after the wording has been changed to unemployment rate, is there a histogram to cite? This figure does not seem right. And BTW, thanks for contributing to this section.  :) Kevin Baas 20:51, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
The section remains ridiculous: Those critical of Bush tend to see praise for him as superficial. ... Those who praise Bush levy the charge of superficiality at many of these criticisms in turn, All topics are dealt with neutrally above, and both the euphemist mentioning of "restructuring of the government in Afghanistan" and the "job creation" distort the picture. Get-back-world-respect 22:00, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree. This is becoming an all-out war over who can last longest (Praise vs. critics) on a topic that's already been dealt with Ilyanep 23:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This is far from an all-out war. There's been few edits and even less aggresion. I think that the section is in dire need of attention and expansion. Perhaps Rush Limbaugh has some assesments of Bush? Perhaps there's been some flattering books written about him? Put these in the section, and the assesments espoused by these books. Maybe we should put this page on peer review, soliciting contributions to this section.
I don't think these topics have been dealt with. What's been dealt with are a number of objective statements. What has not been dealt with is the context that different people put them in and how they add them up. The context is information not presented here. An assesment is discursive, whereas a narrative is narrow. The discursive nature of assessing provides ample opportunity for information that is not in the narrative and has no other means of being on this page, but is relevant, representative, and helps to weave together the tapestry, creating a lucid and complete picture. Instead of abandoning a noble prospect, we should encourage its growth and refinement. Kevin Baas 06:47, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
There is a page about the presidential campaign, endorsements should be there. Get-back-world-respect 11:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We're not here to say weather we like bush or not, the average reader doesn't give a damn. We want to talk about his policies, and we want to say their effect with a NPOV (which means we need references, and not just anti-Bush references). Personally, I'm pro-Bush and I could edit that assessments section from either way...I could include a sentence in there about the most favorite phrase 'bush is an idiot'. But my point is that, I have to agree with Get-back-world-respect. There's no assessments section for Ronald Reagan, and this section is getting ludicrous. Ilyanep 14:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, it wouldn't really be possible to make such sections for old presidents, as the information is no longer in the contemporary social consciousness. Since it is therefore impracticable, the fact that it is not on other presidents' pages is no counterargument. Regarding references, this is no counter-argument either - just put up references! Stop complaining and start contributing! Esp. if, as you say, you are pro-Bush, because right now the section is pretty unbalanced. We've already discussed POV in regard to this section, and the conclusion was that it is entirely possible to make this section NPOV. I agree, we're not here to tell them whether we like him or not, but that's not what this section is about - it's about how the general population of america assesses him, like an "approval rating" chart, except it's qualitative instead of quantititave. Where do you get the ideas that we only want to talk about his policies? Then why is there a section on popularity, a section on background, etc? Assesments are not endorsements. A letter of recomendation is different than a progress report. I have countered every point you made. While I agree that, as it stands, this section is ridiculous, I disagree on the solution. Ilyanep, you said you have a lot to contribute to it. Go for it! Let's give this a genuine effort, and after some time we can use the quick-polls to get an outside-vote on whether this section should stay. Kevin Baas 17:35, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)
One reason why there are no such sections for old presidents is that in the long run it is regarded as irrelevant whether a president was liked by country singers and film makers. An encyclopedia should have a tendency to restrict itself to what stays important permanently. References are a counter argument as long as there are no good ones, you cannot just put that off by saying that others should seek references for what you want to include. The discussion up to now did not come to the conclusion that it is entirely possible to make this section NPOV, but several editors have expressed their concern about this section. Main arguments were that the criticisms were dealt with neutrally elsewhere and that this article is about Bush, and neither about Moore nor endorsements. I find your argumentation rather complacent. My personal feelings regarding Bush would be best characterized with the word contempt, and I think that this section discredits wikipedia. Is it possible to nominate a paragraph for deletion? Get-back-world-respect 02:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Several editors" mean you and you alone. Ilynap has not expressed those views except the question of POV once in your following. I'm just up for giving this a try. I don't think you can put a para up for deletion, that's why I suggested the quick polls. Kevin Baas 17:50, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
Ilyanep wrote This is becoming an all-out war over who can last longest (Praise vs. critics) on a topic that's already been dealt with. and I have to agree with Get-back-world-respect. There's no assessments section for Ronald Reagan, and this section is getting ludicrous. 67.3.212.175 wrote (Assessments - This Article is about President Bush NOT M. Moore - Left link to moore's page where the reader can get moore info). Grunt wrote (Attempting a compromise: agreed elsewhere that there should be more than just one line, but not as much as was there before.) and you see what Buster2058 wrote below. Get-back-world-respect 21:23, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Meat meat meat! Come on! This section should be triple what it is now in order to have any value. Kevin Baas 18:40, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)
It looks like a press release for mikey moore. Is wikipedia endorsing moores books now? Nothing about moore rates neutral! This must be removed. I personally think the whole assessment section should be removed until president Bush leaves office. Buster 22:25, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
I think this issue is getting long enough to be a RFC issue. But, I agree about Moore. Ilyanep (Talk) 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bush Vs. HSD

Those critical of Bush tend to see praise for him as superficial. For instance, some critics maintain that any chief executive, after an event such as 9/11, would be hard-pressed not to create a homeland security department (and further note that Bush was opposed to said department until it became obvious that Congress was determined to create it);

Anybody have a source for this? Ilyanep 18:58, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I removed it and placed it here, along w/it's compliment. It's no longer relevant, as the wording of the praise has changed. I think we should focus more on expanding the praise and criticism, and these paras are distracting. We can discuss the need or lack thereof for them when the essential sections are fleshed out. Kevin Baas 22:24, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

"Those critical of Bush tend to see praise for him as superficial. For instance, some critics maintain that any chief executive, after an event such as 9/11, would be hard-pressed not to create a homeland security department (and further note that Bush was opposed to said department until it became obvious that Congress was determined to create it); therefore, under the circumstances, the creation of this department is not particularly remarkable or indicative of personal virtue.
Those who praise Bush levy the charge of superficiality at many of these criticisms in turn, such as faulting Bush that there are not enough jobs, as they maintain job creation is actually seeing a gradual increase."


Mubarak

This has been removed from the article:

Egyptian President Mubarak commented Bush's policies had led to an 'unprecedented hatred' of Arabs for the US. [1]

Texture considers this "aggressively POV against Bush". Mubarak's comment itself is, of course, his POV, but as an attributed quote I think it was not inappropriate. Comments? Gzornenplatz 03:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think this quote is appropriate. Being Mubarak a sovereign, it is a specific and concrete indication of the diplomatic consequences of George W. Bush's actions. There might even be a section under "diplomatic relations", which takes a quote like this from leaders of important countries. This is a very typical diplomatic statement. Point being, the comment is perfectly appropriate. Kevin Baas 16:19, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is on topic in that Egypt is part of the middle east and particularly that region of conflict, and the comment made is pretty significant - "unprecedented hatred" has a lot of social and political ramifications; the feelings of the populace is something that must be taken into acount when trying to resolve a crisis. Kevin Baas 16:28, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)

While I'm usually opposed to such quotes, in this context I'd vote for keeping this one. The president of Egypt is more respectable then Al Franken or Michael Moore. Ilyanep 17:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Ilyanep - and Mubarak. Get-back-world-respect 22:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:Alcoholics

Such a category exists (I created it) but I'd expect trouble if I add George to it, so I thought I'd discuss it rather than be bold and then deal with the tide of protest. Would there be a problem with me adding GWB? I think his problems with alcohol are well documented. Unfortunately many of the best refs I have are in a British right-wing newspaper which requires registration, but here's the search results: [2] (posted by User:Bodnotbod. Might want to sign the next controversial one)

Well, he himself admitted to "drinking too much". I'd say put it in. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:35, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm opposed to that. There is a difference between somone who "drinks too much" and an alcoholic, which is a medical diagnosis, unless we have a better source than British tabloids. John Kerry has admitted to giving testimony to the Senate that he should have known was false (relative to soldiers' actions in Vietnam) and meeting with representatives of a nation with which the US was at war, an action prohibited by the USCode. Is it OK with you if I list Kerry under "traitors"? -- Cecropia | Talk 18:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Total agreement on my part! Ilyanep (Talk) 19:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would also caution the poster (who didn't sign) that creating a category like "Alcoholics" plays with the edge of libel, and not just for GWB. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, I won't fight about the category, but I would like to note that the category doesn't come that close to libel, esp. for figures like GWB. The law gives a lot of leeway when it comes to private public figures--I believe it has to be done with "intentional malice" and in the knowledge that it was false. IANAL. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:48, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think you mean the law gives a lot of leeway for public figures, cf. the New York Times case. That doesn't mean it's right for Wikipedia to be a vehicle for classifying people in such a harsh way. GWB is not famed for being an alcoholic, except in a select crowd. And in that crowd, there is plenty of malice indeed. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:51, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is malice in the crowd. Cecropia does not like his president to be linked with alcoholism. Ergo, it must somehow be libel. Get-back-world-respect 22:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
That is unfair. Cecropia is not alone in not wanting GWB listed as part of Category:Alcoholics. And I, for one, am by no means a fan of GWB. For example, I would not be unhappy to see him impeached, but Wikipedia is not the place to make such an argument--only to report about it after it happened.
I would not include Bush in such a category either. What indeed is unfair is that Cecropia continuously writes off-topic election propaganda and uses twisted "logic" like the one I pointed out regarding "libel". Get-back-world-respect 23:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To address the above:

  • Apologies for not signing the initial post - it was completely unintentional. I hope you'll see by my other contributions that I've been here long enough, and am intelligent enough to know that, signed or unsigned, it would be a matter of moments to identify me signed or not.
  • "I'm opposed to that. There is a difference between somone who "drinks too much" and an alcoholic," I completely agree, so references would be key.
  • "unless we have a better source than British tabloids" - actually none of the sources listed on my Google search are tabloids. I hold them in no more respect or esteem than you do. They are broadsheet, respectable papers. The Telegraph, notably, is pretty right wing and pretty favourable towards the Republicans and Bush.
  • "John Kerry has admitted to giving testimony to..." Utterly irrelevant.
    • "cough cough* Michael Moore *cough cough*" Utterly irrelevant.
      • If you start saying you can't add something to one article because you deem another article to be factually incorrect nothing would ever be edited at all. I'll hope you'll accept that these aren't valid arguments at all.
  • "creating a category like "Alcoholics" plays with the edge of libel" - Many alcoholics are well documented as being so. Often they confess as much in official biographies, other times there's interviews where they allow their problems to be known. Finally, and more controversially, you can divine as much from their record of (repeated) treatment in a clinic or what have you.
"Many alcoholics are well documented as being so." - Many adulterers are well documented as being so as well. Starr Report, anyone? Would you care to add Bill Clinton to an Adulterers category?
Yes - Tεxτurε 19:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Then what of Thomas Jefferson? And then why stop there, when we could categorize each of the US presidents according to their character flaws? I am not a fan of Mr. Bush, but I can see that adding "Category:alcoholics" to the page will seem like a slur to casual visitors, even if that was not the original intent of the category. Bush is easy enough to criticize without referring to his past alcoholism. I'd rather that there be no alcoholics category at all; any celebrities/politicians/notable people who have had problems with alcoholism ought to have that mentioned explicitly in a section of their respective articles. --Ardonik 07:34, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Don't mistake me. I don't think George Bush qualifies as an alcoholic and don't believe he should be labelled incorrectly. However, adulterers, especially admited ones, should be labelled as such. - Tεxτurε 22:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To be honest I created the category more to put entertainers in, many of whom I greatly admire but have struggled with alcohol problems. I confess I sometimes feel bad actually assigning them "the label", however, as mentioned - they often readily admit to their problems. Eric Clapton, for example, is now very active with charities who help alcoholics and is very open about his past. Frank Skinner wrote about his alcoholism in his autobiography. George Best would have a hard time convincingly arguing that he is not an alcoholic.

I guess it's on my shoulders to provide some decent references. So, that's what I'll attempt to do now (or soon). --bodnotbod 18:17, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

References (for and against)

  • Against: Dr Younger said: "I certainly wouldn't have called him a clinical alcoholic. But when he had a drink he was kind of an all or nothing guy." [3] (sorry, may need registration, not sure if my Google Cache trick gets round that, please let me know).
  • For: A reformed alcoholic and born-again Christian [4]
  • For: The president, a reformed alcoholic [5] (may need reg. as above).
  • Questionable(?): Bush knows at first hand about addiction. He himself underwent a "faith-based" cure for his alcohol problem under the supervision of Billy Graham. [6]
  • Questionable(?): Bush scored particularly well here. He tells the well-used story of how he broke his long and deep relationship with alcohol the day after his 40th birthday in the wake of a raucous night out with friends - just about that time he found God. [7]
  • Important - Bush's own words on the subject from Oprah Winfrey interview [8]
  • For: Bush these past weeks is of an exercise fanatic - a man who has replaced his much-documented earlier addiction to alcohol with a fitness compulsion. [9]
  • More: There are a number of things I particularly like about this man. The first is his self-discipline. One morning in 1986 he woke up with a hangover and decided that his drinking was excessive and had to end. He does not believe in lengthy psychoanalytical agonising over such things, telling a Washington Post journalist two years ago: "I am not really the type to wander off and sit down and go through deep wrestling with my soul. I just quit drinking. Enough. Totally. I stopped. Not that complicated. Can we talk about something else?" He decided and he stuck to it. His motivation to do so, and strictly to look after himself with rest, exercise and good diet, is supported not only by the memory of what he was doing to himself with alcohol but by a powerful sense of moral responsibility. [10]
  • For: The next US President is a reformed drunk. [...] Until his 40th birthday, Bush was a typical fraternity drinker: the sort who, after a couple of bourbons, cannot pass a table without wanting to dance on it, possibly with his trousers round his ankles. [...] In truth, the public doesn't seem to care. If anyone is offended by Bush's reputation as an ex-hellraiser, it is America's political class. By swearing off alcohol because he likes it too much, the new president is asserting a sort of moral superiority over colleagues who drink more heavily than they would like their constituents to know. [11]



I've got some other stuff to read through, but mine is all British media - be interested to know if any other nations can add to the ebate from their press's perspective. --bodnotbod 18:46, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

As I've told you before, this material is inappropriate. Making such a linkage serves no purpose other than to be yet another attempt to place a biased interpretation in the Wiki, on someone who is already being piled on. The very fact of your anxious desire to include this designation shows you inherently in violation of NPOV policy. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:34, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Does the very fact of Cecropia's anxious desire to keep you from researching about Bush's alcoholism show him inherently in violation of NPOV policy? Get-back-world-respect 22:30, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Again, this is unfair and uncalled for. Including GWB in Category:Alcoholics in no way obscures the relatively uncontested fact that Bush had a problem with alcohol. What is disputed here is whether anyone who has ever at some point in their lives admitted having a problem with alcohol automatically makes them an alcholic. I, and several others, think that paints with an inappropriately broad brush. older≠wiser 23:42, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Again, I never supported adding Bush to the alcoholics category. What I dispute is that Cecropia should blame others for engaging in his own favourite hobby. Get-back-world-respect 23:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia, I think you missed the whole point of Bodnotbod's reasoning. Let's say, hypothetically, that there was a category, "things that are blue", and there was a cube, that was blue, and person A wanted to include that cube in the category "things that are blue". Person B objects, saying that this is POV. Now would the cube's ommission from or inclusion in the category be more bias/POV? Would it be more NPOV to put all blue objects in the category "things that are blue" or to give preference to some and deference to others, on account of considerations other than their color?
Bodnotbod's argument is then that the only question about whether the cube should be included in the category is whether the cube is or is not, objectively, blue. He goes on to show that, by objective criteria, the cube is blue. This is the grounds upon which he justifies the inclusion of Bush in the category of Alcoholic. In order to refute this justification, you must either refute it on these grounds, or refute the validity of the grounds. Kevin Baas 20:14, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
Whether an inanimate object meets a simple physical definition is not the same as trying to classify someone, especially when that classification is politically tainted. In addition to Kerry's possible classification as "traitor" (or at least "federal law breaker") how about a category of "men who have never held a private sector job but became rich by marrying into money (twice)." We need not play innocent that we are merely objectively categorizing. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Provided that there is a category Alcoholics (or whatever), which includes public figures, and Bush is a public figure, there remains only one thing, as you point out: For BodnotBod to demonstrate that he is objectively categorizing. That is exactly what he is trying to do with the references. It appears that he's a step ahead of you. Kevin Baas 20:31, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
Listed on WP:RFC -- Cecropia | Talk 20:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the listing on WP:RFC, I think that will help. I grant that putting someone in the category alcoholics seems a slur or stain or what have you to some people. However, it becomes then a question of your own prejudices. For some people an alcoholic is worthless, for others - and especially other recovering alcoholics - the fact that they have palpably overcome alcoholism (he is The President!) - might make them feel even more in awe of their achievement.

I feel that the blue cube argument is completely valid and should be the NPOV way of objectively classifying things (and people). So, the question simply becomes:

  • Given that you understand the definition of an alcoholic: is GWB an alcoholic?

On a broader level regarding categories, the whole system of categorisation is very young and I feel that someone as huge in the public imagination as GWB will eventually be added to tens, maybe approaching a hundred categories. Once that happens, alcoholics will be almost lost in the listing as, indeed will GWB be on the alcoholics page. So, only those who are looking will find it.

It won't loom so large at the top of the page, in time. In fact, if this really offends you, you could start adding him to more categories now. --bodnotbod 21:55, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a simple, widely accepted, and relatively uncontroversial definition of alcoholism by which other persons can objectively and conclusively determine that someone else is an alcoholic? If not, then we have no business attempting to diagnose a condition to which there is not conclusive medical evidence or a self-admission. older≠wiser 17:45, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Read the references. Kevin Baas 17:50, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
Umm, yes I did and I saw no conclusive evidence (or at least from what I'd consider an authoritative source). older≠wiser 17:55, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Let me copy a few down here for you, in case you overlooked them:
"conclusive medical evidence":
  • Bush these past weeks is of an exercise fanatic - a man who has replaced his much-documented earlier addiction to alcohol with a fitness compulsion. [12]
  • Bush knows at first hand about addiction. He himself underwent a "faith-based" cure for his alcohol problem under the supervision of Billy Graham. [13]
"self-admission":
Kevin Baas 18:19, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
I see, so the Guardian is now the conclusive arbiter of what an alcoholic is and who is or is not one. Neither of the items you repeated here as "conclusive medical evidence" are either "conclusive" or "medical". As for the "self-admission", here are the exact words: "Alcohol was beginning to compete for my affections - for my wife and my family," Mr Bush told the studio audience. "It was beginning to crowd out my energy and I decided to quit, and it's one of the best decisions I've ever made." I don't think anyone disputes that GWB did indeed have a drinking problem in the past. The problem is whether that necessarily equates to a clinical definition of alcoholism. Certainly, in colloquial terms, he could have easily been labelled as an alcohol abuser. But note the past tense. Even if we could conclusively determine that he met established criteria for being an alcoholic--does that necessarily mean that "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic"? I know that there is some thought that it is a lifelong condition, but I do not think that opinion is universally accepted by the medical establishment. If we really, absolutely feel some compulsion to categorize this aspect of GWB's life, a more appropriate category might be something like "recovering alcohol abusers". older≠wiser 18:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Kevin Bass quoting the Guardian: "much-documented earlier addiction to alcohol" may be a clear statement, and it may or may not be an objective statement, based on the bias or not, knowledge or not, of the Guardian writer, but it is not a primary source, and unless we are provided with some of that "much-documentation" from a source qualified to make such an assertion, it is worthless as a quotation. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:57, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Regardless of one's opinion on the reliability fo the sources, a statement like "much-documentedearlier addiction to alcohol" is a clear and objective statement, which the source would be called on if it was inaccurate. Likewise, is "He himself underwent a "faith-based" cure for his alcohol problem under the supervision of Billy Graham.". Billy Graham can easily be contacted, interrogated, and asked to provide evidence. These statements involve no bias or POV. They are neutral descriptions of verifiable phenomena. One, in any case, cannot deny the accuracy of these statements, regardless of what one thinks of their source, and must therefore take them at face value as objective facts. (see also ad hominem) Kevin Baas 20:00, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
Newspaper reports of alcohol abuse (regardless of veracity) do not equal a clinical diagnosis of alcoholism. Before categorizing anyone as an alcoholic, I'd want to see either a self-admission or a clinical diagnosis by a qualified professional (preferably more than one, if there is no self-admission). older≠wiser 20:36, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
True, however, these are not newspaper reports of alcohol abuse. The first one is a statement, empirical and verifiable, that George Bush's earlier addiction to alcohol is much-documented". Ofcourse, the statement in itself is no evidence. That which is empirical and verifiable, that the statement refers to, is evidence. The second statement, likewise empirical and verifiable, states that George Bush underwent specific, specialized, and supervised treatment for alcoholic-related activity of his own that he felt needed to be corrected. These statements are to be taken at face value.
None of these statements can be taken at face value if the original sources are not specified. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
You missed the entire point. The point is that, if readers have access to the source, and the publication is widely distributed, than the people will call on the source if they find a clear and incontrevertible inaccuracy. If the source has been around for a while, then they are well aware of this, and would be carefull not to publish any objective statements that were inaccurate. If one did happen to slip past them, the next issue would have a correction in the section for corrections, because someone would have called them on the inaccuracy. Even if this were not the case, another publication would publish a correction and a diatribe about how that publication is full of sh*t. That is why the statement must be taken at face value - because it is non-rhetorical - it is a purely objective statement, (like "Stan went in the house." Did Stan or did Stan not go in the house? There is no bias in that statement. It is simply a statement that is either true or false.) and because if it was false, the magazine would be in a whole lot of trouble, we must assume that the magazine editors are not stupid enough to publish a blatent lie, whatever their political leanings. Kevin Baas 17:21, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
I don't think there are "qualified professionals" on alcoholism, and even if there were, I don't see any reason to consider them the sole abdicators of this classification. You are defering the issue for defence of your opinion, and I do not consider it valid argument. Kevin Baas 22:03, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
"You don't think" is hardly a basis for using your own criteria to brand someone an alcoholic which, in the US at least, is a medical diagnosis as listed in every edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). -- Cecropia | Talk 22:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Which is why i put the "even if there were" part. It's not a matter of "using your own criteria" as if it was some completely arbitrary criteria. It's a matter of people having enough competence to make a decent judgement biased on the facts, which has about as high probability of matching a 'professional' opinion as one professional's opinion has of matching another's. This is not rocket-science here. Kevin Baas 17:21, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
Now we're going to cite Billy Graham? Wow! Is Mr. Graham a medical doctor? And is he a medical doctor experienced in alcoholism? Dr. Graham holds a Doctor of Divinity degree. If he "testified" that George Bush was annointed by God to save the world, could I list GWB under "Category:Saviours"? as a fact. Sometimes Wikipedians are funny perhaps without intending to be so. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Billy Graham is not a medical doctor. Billy Graham is a person with eyes and ears. I doubt that he would make such testimony as you mockingly hypothesize, and I'm sure that if he did, few people would believe him. And no, it would not justify your puting him in that category. However, if Bush told him that he was depressed, and he helped to console him, he would be a credible witness to Bush's melancholy. I do not appreciate your empty mockery. It is coercive logical fallacy. As I recall, we've already discussed the vices and virtues of this "method of argumentation". Kevin Baas 22:03, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
"if Bush told him that he was depressed, and he helped to console him, he would be a credible witness to Bush's melancholy." And that's proof of what? Putting Bush in a category "Clinical Depression"? That's also a medical diagnosis. One of my daughters happens to be autistic. She presented with the symptoms at a time when the disorder was much more poorly understood than now. From my readings and observation I came to the realization that she was suffering from the disorder, but I'm her parent, not a doctor. Neither the school district, nor non-specialist doctors, nor other caregivers would mention the word "autism" in any paperwork or planning until an experienced MD (psychiatrist) with expertise in the field diagnosed her as "Autistic Disorder." Wikipedia may not be Britannica, but neither should it be a playground of speculation, and you don't make diagnoses by consensus. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(In effect, diagnosis is only considered authoritave because it's socially accepted as authoritave - so you do in a way make diagnosis by consensus, if somewhat indirectly.) You may have noticed that I stated my opinion on this talk page (below here) that I don't think there is substantive evidence to put bush in the alcoholic category. IF you want to talk psychology, though, whith the exception of simple disorders such as autism, let's leave open the question as to the effectiveness and credibility of your average psychologist. I've heard many stories that have made me somewhat skeptical of the profession. For example, they seem to have great difficulty distinguishing "Clinical Depression" from things like "insane mother" and "drug abuse" and "A.D.D.". Kevin Baas 17:21, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
I agree that "recovering alcohol abuser" would semantically be a less disputable categorization of Bush than "Alchoholic". Perhaps the best way to judge, impartially, if Bush should be in the category "Alcoholic", is by comparing him with the normative criteria of inclusion in that category, i.e. against the others in that category, who are not disputed. Kevin Baas 19:50, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)
GW never attended A.A. Also, he has never said he was an alcoholic. He said that he quick drinking at the age of 40. Although there are allegations that he was an alcoholic and allegations that he's imbibed since the age of 40, there is no substantial proof. Just because someone quits drinking does not mean they are an alcholic. Therefore, GW should not be listed as a recovering or recovered alcoholic. Kingturtle 20:19, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is a tricky one. Most alcoholics are considered (and consider themselves to be) alcoholics even once they give up. But, I confess, we have no doctor's input (in the references) so, on balance, with no self-confession I think it has to slide. --bodnotbod 20:42, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The case is not substantial enough. Kevin Baas 22:07, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

I see some people are still arguing this out. For those interested in the truth of the matter (which, of course, is all of us) can I suggest you go and see what the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post say on the matter if you have registrations with them? --bodnotbod 00:05, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Bush had a drinking problem. That is clear. What is disputed is whether that automatically qualifies as alcoholism. None of the references you have provided demonstrates anything more than the fact that he drank a lot. older≠wiser 00:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The term "drinking problem" has a great deal of latitude. What exactly is a drinking problem? One DUI? 4 DUIs? Killing Mary Jo Kopechne? The category in question is more specific...Alcoholics. What defines an alcoholic? Bush has never said he was an alcoholic. Bush says he never went to any AA meetings. Bush says he stopped drinking at age 40. Maybe he had a drinking problem, but was/is he an alcoholic? If he quit easily, then how severe was his problem? We can speculate (maybe the "pretzel" incident was created to hide that he had a weekend bender), but there is not proof that he is/was an alcoholic. He won't admit to it. And there is no solid evidence. Kingturtle 01:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[...] Killing Mary Jo Kopechne [...] - "A touch, a touch, I do confess." -- Cecropia | Talk 01:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
All y'all: We are all well aware that the issue is disputed. Hence the discussion on the talk page, eh? There's no need to be redundant, and point out the obscurity of the issue, obscuring it more and more. This is not usefull. What is usefull is a clarification of the issue. But that doesn't matter. The issue is already dead. There's no point in continuing discussion. Bodnotbod just said, "hey, if anyone's interested, as they appear to be, they could check out these sources." then you started stating things that we all know and have already been said a number of times and have nothing to do with bodnotbod's remark. There's no point in this. Kevin Baas 16:20, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
Since Bkonrad for unknown reasons seems to have misinterpreted what I think about this question I give you my take on this. I think that listing people with diseases that are not accepted as such by many but are rather seen as a bad trait of character is questionable. And Cecropia is completely right in that a diagnosis is not easy and that the concerned person should label itself as suffering from the disease to qualify for a listing. Also, even if alcoholics have more frequent recidivism than people who had a broken leg I think we should act similarly here as in the case if there was a category for people with a broken leg we would not include every person who once had a broken leg in the past. It would be different for historical persons who are well known to have been alcoholics for the better part of their life like Edgar Allen Poe or Henry Lawson. But also think about another point: Alcoholism is such a frequent problem that a comprehensive list would include a significant portion of all the people with an own article. Is it really helpful to have this? Is it helpful to have a category for "sailors" where even people like John Kerry are listed who is only known for having sailed with the other JFK once and not for being what would be usually called a sailor.

There is another category for British people. Should we start categories for caucasian people as well, indians, asians, blacks? Should Tiger Woods be listed in all of them because he labels himself caublinasian? Get-back-world-respect 23:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hehe. I like that one. Personally, I'm fairly indifferent as to what categories are made. I'm sure there's going to be pop culture and sports trivia categories that I feel are vastly unimportant, anyways. But in any case, these topics should probably be discussed on the categories talk page. Kevin Baas 00:57, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
I think you miss the point with categories you consider too broad. ie category:British people should, eventually, be more filled with sub categories than with people themselves. By the same reasoning I think category:alcoholics might eventually get broken down into recovering alcoholics and, I dunno, functioning alcoholics, chronic alcoholics - but I think that would be falling into the overly finely grained trap this early on.
As for whether listing people with diseases (if disease it is) that are perceived as signalling bad character is wrong, well, so can many things be. For example, some people will hate any category:politicians, regardless of their place on the spectrum. Someone else will hate category:gay people. Someone else will hate category:French people. So, I don't think pandering to prejudice in that way as good enough. It is not category:alcoholics fault that some people dislike alcoholics, any more than it is category:golfers fault that some people hate golf.
I think your broken leg example isn't helpful. Something more parallel would be a category for depressives or manic depressives who tend to go through phases of illness throughout their lives, a pattern often found in alcoholics.
At any rate, I don't think any discussion is particularly useful at this point (interesting though it is). What's needed are more citations - particularly from biographies (official and unofficial) and from US media. --bodnotbod 01:10, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
No, this issue should die. User:Ed Poor and I were discussing the fact that certain issues should have combined talk pages (like for Kerry & Bush) because certain issues can't be discussed in isolation. If GWB is branded an alcoholic, so should Teddy Kennedy. If that were done, a lot of people would go ape over at the EMK article. Also such categories as "Alcoholic" tend to be biased by omission. Are we really going to exhaustively look for every prominent person who was arguably an alcoholic? If not, why not? For me, this casts doubt on the entire concept of Categories, because they classify people in an official-looking way without context. BTW, since you have revived this, I'm relisting on RfC. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't see listing Ted Kennedy as an alcholic as a counterpoint. I've read many biographies on the Kennedies and I would be perfectly happy with this demarcation. So hypothetically, they are both listed as alcoholics - so what? There's nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about this. i'm sure if someone is ommited, it would just be an oversight, not an intentional bias, and it would be easily corrected. If there were cases of intentional bias, they could be remedied by demonstrating the inconsistency. Perhaps such categories would never be completely inclusionary. So what? It would still be an interesting representative random (and therefore unbiased) sample. This doesn't require an exhaustive search - and you are forgetting the medium. It is not that one or a few people must do an exhaustive search. The medium is emergent, not systematic. People stumble across things and contribute in parrallel. Yet, I agree that your point "casts doubt on" - or rather, in words that i think are more precise, "invokes the question of" - not the entire concept of categories (here i disagree w/you) - but what should and what should not be categorized. It's definitely something worthy of discussion. Such a discussion, however, I repeat, belongs on the talk page for categories. The topic here is whether bush belongs in the currently existing category "alcoholic", assuming that category is valid and appropriate. I agree with bodnotbot that we really need to find more sources of information before we can have an objective and therefore useful discusion. Otherwise, it's simply a battle of imagination. Kevin Baas 04:34, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
I agree with you that "invokes the question of" is better wording. On the instant issue, though, my comparison of Bush and Kennedy is not to invoke issues of hypocrisy (though that's always in the background of many political argument, though we use the mild term "double standard") but the fact that interested parties will want to do battle to say "your guy is something bad, but ours isn't." This may be a sincerely held belief, but it is a constant problem. What I'm really saying is: if we open this door (specifically in regard to alcoholism, the current issue) we need to have consistency across Wikipedia. If Kennedy is in, Bush is in (if they're both provable). If Kennedy is out, Bush is out. This can't be argued peacemeal, but I don't see that this categorization is useful enough to do battle at all. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I do not see how breaking the category British people down would help to deal with the overflow problem. And alcoholism is a disease as much as depression and nothing to be ashamed of. And the prevalence is so high that the category could have several thousand entries. Get-back-world-respect 08:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that Category:Alcoholics is going to be more trouble than it's worth in regards to verifiability. I'm listing it on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. -Sean Curtin 23:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we should declare this issue dead and forget the category alltogether (BTW...time to archivE) Ilyanep (Talk) 23:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another category: US-Iraqi relations

I do not think it is a good idea to make Bush part of that category. He would currently fall into any category of countryX-US-relations, which we certainly do not want. Get-back-world-respect 09:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dubya (redirect)

Out of curiosity, I followed a link from Wikipedia:Redirect that explains that Dubya redirects to George W. Bush. As I have probably never heard what Dubya should mean, I wanted to learn that in the main article. Alas, I have not found the word on the page. I think it should be mentioned there if the redirect is proper (as explained in Wikipedia:Redirects#What_needs_to_be_done_on_pages_that_are_targets_of_redirects.3F). --Mormegil 12:47, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure anyone using Dubya in search already knows what it means and is not needed in the bio. An explanation may be needed on the Wikipedia:Redirect page. BTW, dubya is a slang for the letter W. Used to differentiate GWB from GHWB his father. Buster 01:25, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Popularity

Savantpol and VeryVerily have removed the paragraph about Bush's international unpopularity. I think this information is relevant. Gzornenplatz 14:46, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this has already been discussed and a consensus was reached that it should remain in the article. I have repaired it to the original form. Kevin Baas 17:41, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

Unpopular is too vague and possibly deceptive. Very unpopular is very problematic. VV 13:39, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with plain "unpopular" if it's substantiated with numbers in the next sentence and references following. We do have references to hand, don't we ... - David Gerard 14:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Okay, let me answer that. At what point does someone become "unpopular"? For instance, the cited poll says that 57% report an unfavorable impression of Bush. Is that unpopular? I'm not convinced it is; I would at worst say divisive at a figure like that. The figures for the UK are 41% favorable and 53% unfavorable. Does that qualify as unpopular "even" among close allies? Israel, another ally, is 62% favorable and 33% unfavorable! Canada, 48% and 48%. I'm sorry, that does not add up to unpopular, and it is crazy to say "extremely unpopular" or even "very" unpopular, "even among allies". Do you not agree with this? And yet Kevin baas calls my language which eliminates this a "POV edit". This is why it's so hard to get anything done here. VV 14:32, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I didn't actually know the numbers, so thank you :-) I think your current version of the para is fine, btw - David Gerard 14:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Approval, favorability, tends to concentrate around 50% and is more likely to be above than below. I would say anything below the mean (which is actually above 50%) is unpopular and anything above is popular, so that there is a 50% chance of being popular, maximizing the information carried by the message "popular/unpopular" (information theory). Furthermore, given the central limit theory, the relatively low amount of political awareness in the world, and the largely partisan, issue-independant and rhetoric dependant nature of opinion, the variance of the distribution is quite low. Thus, the numbers in many countries are more than one standard deviation below the mean, which is improbable - thus the usage of the word "very". There is other evidence of his unpopularity outside the U.S., such as intense criticism and large and frequent protests (including the largest protest in history!) No American president has ever gotten this much negative attention from the world population. Kevin Baas 16:20, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC) Respecting these phenomena, I stand by my statement that Bush is very unpopular outside of the U.S. Kevin Baas 19:30, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
Uh, are you serious? The meaning of English words is not determined by information theory. By that reasoning, we'd have to adjust the standard for bald so that half of people would qualify - to maximize the word's usefulness! And next we'd declare half the world homosexual. No, unpopular has to mean more than just "within a few points of evenly divided", because it is the norm for populations to be divided along the familiar axes (e.g., liberal-conservative). Someone at 49.9% is not "unpopular", but rather we'd say the population is "divided". And can you show me an English dictionary which defines very in terms of standard deviation? As for the "variance of the distribution", if you really know math, use the Binomial distribution to note the fat error bar on asking 1000 Britons (or whoever) a yes-no question. This study is inadequate on other points as well; for instance, only ten countries are considered: what about Poland, Ireland, Taiwan, Japan, even New Zealand? (Australia is 45%/49% by the way.) Protests (and criticism) are meaningless in deriving trends; they merely represent an active minority who took to the streets, which tend to be dumb idealistic kids who think Marx is just swell and thus aren't likely to love W. VV 21:01, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Let each person judge for themselves the temper of your language and the sanctity of your opinion. Kevin Baas 23:13, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
Many of those "dumb idealistic kids" are doctors, lawyers, and college professors. The cold war is over, VV. Kevin Baas 23:30, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
You have not responded to any of my many points other than the (mildly facetious) comment about protesters being unrepresentative. VV 23:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
And I won't - your comments, esp. about politically active citizens, have demonstrated that it would be a waste of my time. Kevin Baas 23:45, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

It doesn't really help if the page gets protected, so let's not fight over which stopgap to use until we have settled this here. Gzornenplatz 00:17, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

KB refuses to discuss this. I gave an elaborate description of my position, including citing large numbers of statistics and giving detailed responses to the issues under consideration. You can see KB's dismissive reply. VV 00:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes. Everyone can see it. Do you see the poll above that? Kevin Baas 00:24, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
Yes, and the huge attention it is receiving. It's irrelevant, your text is so clearly prejudicial as to make such steps redundant. VV 00:25, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Your opinion is one among many. Until you realize this, VV, you will have trouble getting along with others. Kevin Baas 00:29, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
Spare me the posturing. The bottom line is you have not even tried to defend your position, and it may well be indefensible. VV 00:33, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't expect it to ever be defensible in your mind, which is why I choose not to discuss it. I am not obliged to respond. Generally, it is considered to my disadvantage to not respond, so you should be happy. Now, regardless of whether or not i respond, and regardless of what personal conclusion you come to, there is a poll going on, and the result of that poll will determine the consensus, and the consensus will determine what goes in the article, until further consensus on change is reached. In the meantime, no one should consider themselves above the consensus. Which is why I set the page to a state that once had de facto consensus. Kevin Baas 00:44, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
That version never had consensus. The paragraph was imposed and re-imposed and re-imposed again. The last "consensus" would be it not being there at all. My edits were straightforward improvement, and this article, full of problems as it is, will never get anywhere if you revert everything waiting for a "consensus" to develop on the smallest changes (which you refuse to even discuss). VV 00:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well there is a version with a clear majority of votes, and I guess we could post that one up, if you really think there's a rush. I think we should wait for at least one more vote, though. Kevin Baas 00:52, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

NAACP and Bush

We should add something about Bush and his no show as a speaker at the annual NAACP conventions. The reason this is important is that Bush is the first president in history since Harding to be a no show at the conventions, that's pretty significant. StoptheBus18 16:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but in a NPOV way, of course. Ilyanep (Talk) 18:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Kevin Baas 03:59, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

So where should it go? StoptheBus18 15:44, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this should go on the campaign article, rather than here? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It was said that the meetings were annual - if he has been invited and did not show at earlier meetings, that would make it not a campaign issue. Kevin Baas 16:22, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)
He did attend in 2000, but has skipped since then (the first president not to meet with them during his term in office since Hoover). It only became an issue this year, because of the campaign going on, so I'd mention it there. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Mention it in both places? Ilyanep (Talk) 17:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
FWIW, I thought Bush might as well have met with the NAACP, being that they are an old and respected group, but I remember those truly vile ads that were run against him but I forgot they had NAACP sponsorship. Racism is a huge charge in the U.S. and it shouldn't be used so freely against people you perceive as your political enemies. Also, this is quite a one-way street. Trent Lott (Republican) was forced out of a leadership position because of ill-considered but probably "good-'ol'boy, praise him because he's 100" remarks at Strom Thurmond's last hurrah. Meantime, Robert Byrd (who I once respected but has become something of a blowhard in his dotage) is haield as the "dean" and "the conscience" of the Senate, while he was an actual member of the KKK and as recently as 2001 used the term "white niggers." And he's a Democrat. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)