Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 11

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

Disputed popularity section

(Was discussed earlier in Archive 9 and Archive 10) The point of me posting this is to invoke a vote. Which version do people like best, or do they have an alternative to suggest? I want people to vote under the option with the pound sign (numbered list generator) and signature, or add an alternative. Thanks. Kevin Baas 21:23, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor

As a wikipedia regular (just finished arguing over the Negroponte piece; have written on Shakespeare, MIT, Bill Viola), I want to suggest that the most mild version (either VV, Neutrality or DG) be used.) Extremely unpopular is just too much; let people judge for themselves, put in information about protests if you like as well. As someone on the left, I worry that too many articles if they do slant, slant left in language and tone and it turns off a good number of talented people.

FWIW, I think it's more important for information to be accurate than it is for it to be "mild". Otherwise, one is, wittingly or not, distorting the truth. If the truth is harsh, so be it. If the truth is sweet, so be it. Being truthful means telling it like it is. Everything else is POV. Kevin Baas | talk 04:20, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Zoney

  • Bush is extremely unpopular in most of the world outside the U.S., with many holding a dislike of his person and policies - even amongst a significant part of the populations of U.S. allies such as the UK. He is quite often seen as the personification of all that people dislike about the US, cf. anti-American sentiment.


Kathar: I think "extremely unpopular" is perfectly warranted. As far as I've seen, it's perfectly true.

I can confirm that both as regards Germany and the Republic of Ireland the decription "extremely unpopular" accurately describes the feelings of an apparent majority of people.
(I currently live in Germany and I have recently lived in Ireland; plus I'm keeping tabs on Irish politics/news/popular opinion.)
See http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/primetime.html — I can confirm that Ms. Coleman's interview approach probably reflects the feelings of a lot of Irish and resounded well with the Irish public.
NB: Bush actually practiced censorship in connection with this Interview — quoting from http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/kino/0,1518,306091,00.html :
"Auch bei US-Präsident Bush verfehlte der Film offenbar seine Wirkung nicht. Vor einem TV-Interview ließ er einer irischen Journalistin jede Frage zu 'Fahrenheit 9/11' untersagen."
Translation:
"The film apparently didn't fail to have an effect on US president Bush either. Prior to a TV interview, he ordered an Irish journalist to be forbidden to ask any question about Fahrenheit 9/11."
(Feel free to incorporate this into the article if you wish; I'm personally at this time weary of opening another can of worms.)
Maybe however, in the absence of actual poll numbers, its a good idea if we (a) make it clear that Bush junior is "extremely unpopular" with large groups of people, especially outside of the U.S., BUT (b) we do not state that these groups actually constituted the numerical majority. Based on my perception, they VERY likely do, but as long as I don't have proof of that on hand, it's probably better to write that he's extremely unpopular with large groups of people.. Note that the prevalence of anti Bush sentiment might be overrated due to a (hypothetically possible) huge silent crowd of non-US pro-Bush folks and a (rather likely) especially vocal crowd of Bush opponents.
Ropers 17:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily

  • Bush's popularity outside the U.S. tends to be lower, with many reporting a dislike of both his personality and policies, even in nations with close ties to America. Some even view him as the personification of what they dislike about the U.S. - the "Ugly American".
  1. chocolateboy 06:07, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 16:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Rex071404 06:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin baas

  • Bush is very unpopular in most of the world outside of the U.S., even amongst a significant part of the populations of U.S. allies such as the UK, with many holding a dislike of his person and policies. Some view him as the personification of all that people dislike about the US, cf. anti-American sentiment. Kevin Baas 21:28, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)
  1. Gzornenplatz 21:53, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ilyanep (Talk) 23:58, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  3. Kevin Baas 20:06, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
  4. --bodnotbod 02:10, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Chris 73 | Talk 05:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) (alternatively: Neutrality wording)
  6. JoeBaldwin 20:07, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard

  • I would suggest just "Bush is unpopular outside the US" - but GIVE FIGURES AND REFERENCES. Let the numbers speak for themselves. e.g. (fictional example) "Bush is unpopular outside the US. In the UK, a Spurious Poll asking the question "Bush: Doth he suckest?" got 72% agreement. Across Europe, Spurious polls in France said 110% thought he was a "clown". In Frobnia, however, he had 97% support. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (refs) - David Gerard 21:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  1. --bodnotbod 02:13, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. --Banno 00:22, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Erich 05:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) figures are best if we can get them (score me down under the 'most dangerours American president in history' category ;-)
    1. well '57% of respondents who "very unfavourable" or "fairly unfavourable" when asked what they thought of U.S. President George W. Bush' according to [1] (I'm sure it is more now!) Erich 11:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Moriori

I dislike the three alternatives. Verbosity rules! Let's have something concise, like:
  • Bush is unpopular outside the US, even among allies such as the UK. Many label him the Ugly American personified. Moriori 22:13, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

[Paragraph about domestic support here...]

Bush's popularity outside the U.S. is much lower. In many parts of the world he is very unpopular, with many holding a dislike of his personality and foreign policy (see global protests against war on Iraq). Some view him as a personification of the Ugly American stereotype. "Reckless unilateralism" is a frequent complaint. In the most recent polls of Bush’s approval in other industrialized nations, an Associated Press/Ipsos survey found that a majority of people in France, Italy, Germany, Mexico, and Spain have an unfavorable view of Bush and his policy on foreign affairs. [2]

Even in Canada and the UK, where Anglo-American cooperation traditionally reigns, anti-Bush sentiment is high. [3] [4]

  1. chocolateboy 06:07, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 16:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) - I like this one best of the ones I like
  3. Kevin Baas 20:06, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
  4. I would like this one best as it gives information about polls. However, "popularity notably lower" is extremely downplaying the issue. Which politician has ever driven so many million people on the streets all over the world - Global protests against war on Iraq? NO ONE. It must be "very unpopular". It is not just that he is unpopular, people openly hate him, many are even willing to give up their life because of his politics. [5] Get-back-world-respect 19:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Haveto agree with GBWRespect's version of this version. Additionally, the word sovereignty (in the caption "George W. Bush shakes hands with British Prime Minister Tony Blair moments after sovereignty was returned to Iraq on 28 June 2004.") should be linked to sovereignty and not Full sovereignty for Iraq which is a redirect to U.S.-led occupation of Iraq Pedant 06:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. bodnotbod 02:15, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Gdm 23:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  8. Chris 73 | Talk 05:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) (alternatively: Kevin baas wording, but this one is a bit better)
  9. MykReeve 18:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  10. --H. CHENEY 20:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  11. older≠wiser 20:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  12. BoD 16:32, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
  13. User:Robert Merkel - though I'd point out that this dislike is unprecedented (certainly since Nixon).
  14. SimonP 01:08, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Grimm - Though it is a drastic understatement, I'd suggest "quite low" rather than "lower". The comparison could end up being vauge, or misleading.
  16. Ludootje - I support Grimm's comment (above).
  17. --Cynical 20:46, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) 20:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) It may just be me, but isn't the article supposed to be about the 43rd President of the United States? If so, world opinion is pretty irrelevant to the page- and would be more suited to the page talking about the Iraq War, with the outline on his Presidency restricted to something like 'in 2003 the Bush Administration launched controversial military action that resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussein's government from Iraq' (with a link to the relevant article which would have opinion polls on the war etc. etc.)
  18. JamesTeterenko 18:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  19. StellarFury 14:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Cynical - This isn't just about the war in Iraq, it's about Bush's popularity. World opinion of the leader of the most powerful country in the world is pretty important, especially in his bio.)
  20. zoney ███ talk 22:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I think the first list of countries could lose "Canada" and "the UK" as they are covered in the second paragraph (which should relink them: Politics of Canada, &c.). Otherwise, why say "even in"? chocolateboy 23:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about specific names of countries not parts of the world. Perhaps he is unpopluar everywhrere but only list the nations that you have specific facts for. I find it funny that many of the same people who always accuse average Americans of thinking of themselves as the the "whole world" often forget about 3rd world countries and assume western europe/Canada is the the "rest of the world". So what that he is not popular in the rest of the world. He is only president of the US so does it matter that people in other countries don't like him. We will either re elect him or not. Are you going included polls in other world leaders pages about their popularity in the US.

As I said above, world opinion of the president is important because the US is so prominent in the rest of the world. I don't know if you've noticed, but not many Americans follow international politics. Ask the average person on the street who "Vladimir Putin" is, and you'll probably get an answer like "Oh yeah, yeah, I know that guy... he's the dude from... um... what was it... Aww, man, I know this!" or, in the more "typically" American mode, "Why should I care?"
So, should we include polls on US approval of international leaders? Probably. Do those polls exist? Probably not. If you want to go put the statistics in on other leaders pages, go find the statistics you need, and put them in. Though, I think you'll be hard pressed to find such polls - any google search regarding "US approval" or "US popularity (leader)" will most likely come up with Bush's approval rating, or the popularity of that leader in his country. StellarFury 19:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if I started all this... but I felt the issue needed covered. Most people around me (Ireland - University students, middle-class families) can't even stand to listen to him on TV any more - it's quite stomach-churning/scary the rhetoric he comes out with! I don't know that those in the US are entirely aware of this. How much more is the effect outside Europe, in the Middle East, South/Central America or Africa? Here's the welcome Bush got before visiting Ireland [6]. I can assure you that people I know, and the general sentiments here, were only concerned with the reporter being reprimanded three times - not with Bush being cut off several times. zoney ███ talk 22:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Has consensus been reached?

Has there been sufficient representation to demonstrate that consensus has been reached?

Yes.

  1. Kevin Baas | talk 18:19, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
  2. Eh? Do we now need to vote on the vote? 11-4 looks (to me) like a pretty overwhelming consensus (I'm excluding your auto-endoresment, as no-one else did that). chocolateboy 18:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    I was following David Gerard's lead in suggesting and voting, under the theory that more voters would be better. I don't think a vote should be discounted because of who the vote was for (auto-endorsement), but on the basis of representation per voter. Thus, if any votes are to be discounted, all of both mine and david gerard's should, or none should. In this specific case, ofcourse, it doesn't matter, but in general it's important for the sake of due and proportional process. But yeah - i don't think a vote on consensus is really neccessary. I was just trying to quicken the update of the page from protected to unprotected status. Kevin Baas | talk 19:32, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)
  3. Neutrality 22:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  4. Gzornenplatz 22:07, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Anonymous user again. Can we please remove "protected" status from this page ASAP?
    I second that request. Please unprotect, and VV, please respect consensus so that this page doesn't get protected yet again. Kevin Baas | talk
  6. I concur- we should unprotect the page and allow the community to update it as with any other page. Anyone who refuses to follow the consensus can be dealt with in the usual way (Abitration Committee and so on) --Cynical 11:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No.

Rex071404 07:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Timothy001 14:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

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)
This is ridiculous. If the poll figures that VV gives are accurate, then there's no excuse for calling him "very unpopular". This is not a math problem, it's a matter of common sense. You look like a fool trying to invoke "information theory" in this case.
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)

Method of coming to consensus

Chocolate boy just voted for three items. Everyone else voted for one, except those who suggested possibilities, who considered, i assume, a suggestion to be equavalent to a vote. Clearly, we all should have the same effect on the outcome. So how should the voting proceed, so as to balance our effect on the outcome?

I think that we all should work towards consensus, so we should try to vote for things that other people are going to agree upon, that we would find to be acceptable. Perhaps a few more votes (I know for instance, meelar and cecropia haven't voted yet), perhaps some time today (it is 1:39 am, the 17th, here) we can choose a few possibilities and each person vote accept/deny for each option? An idea; suggestion. Kevin Baas 06:41, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, your asking for votes on how badly (personal agendas set aside of course) President Bush should be bashed?
LOL, I'll pass on this one. --Buster 07:03, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
I saw three votes from Chocolateboy, so I voted for three as well :-) If we have multiple winners, or very close calls, we can synthesise two. - David Gerard 16:51, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I only made two votes, but it seems that, since the two votes for vv's alternatives are so similiar and by the same person, they are effectively one vote for "something like this". Kevin Baas 20:06, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)
We can do a vote-as-much-as-you-want and then choose the top two or three to do a vote only once poll Ilyanep (Talk) 23:23, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Listed on WP:RFC. Kevin Baas 17:28, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

(I'm new here, but...) There seems to be an either-or situation here. Why not present all the major perspectives on bush: liberal, moderate, conservative? -- xjaymanx
Because we're discussing facts, not perspectives. Kevin Baas 15:21, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
Hmmm, popularity seems to me a matter of perspective. One thing I noted: Previous presidents Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, and Reagan don't have "popularity" sections, yet G.W. Bush does. Why have it when we don't track the others' popularity? Will his popularity still matter after he leaves office? -- xjaymanx 21:12, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
I've noticed that too. What you need to understand is that the left is not interested in writing an encyclopedic bio for GWB but would rather just insert negative news story. This article is completely biased and the left just wants to add more. Trying adding an assessment section on John Kerry page and you would be met with the wrath of the liberals. The best thing to do is just let the Bush bashers have there way. It makes there motives and reasoning obvious. 67.3.229.245 23:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As I said, we're dealing with facts, not perspective. We are all trying for a NPOV. That's why we try to build informed consensus, and state things objectively, using reference to objective measurements whenever possible, without referring to them as "left-leaning" or "right-leaning" if they don't support our views. Kevin Baas | talk 18:05, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
I agree. If we do keep the "popularity" section for GW Bush (but not other presidents), then I guess the best approach is to stick with statistical figures. But not only on the global scale, but perhaps on the national scale (not just U.S., but Britain, Israel, France, etc.), as well as stats on his popularity with registered U.S. Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters. We might also want to note Bush's popularity as it compares to the popularity of the U.S. in general during other eras (Reagan, Clinton, GHW Bush, etc.). This should cover all the contexts as a backdrop to GW Bush's popularity. Then we can tackle the popularity of other figures: Kerry, Cheney, Gore, etc. --xjaymanx 22:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The heading itself -- "popularity" -- is a violation of neutrality because it implies, although subtly, that Bush is a popular guy. Obviously, we are in disagreement about this point. Since the section goes on to discuss the perceptions that the public holds of Bush, I suggest that we rename this section "Public perception" or something similar.136.142.109.122 20:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nice catch. Also, I just noticed that the "Popularity/Public Perception" section and "Assessment" section should be combined. Perhaps the "Popularity/Assessment" combo should be located towards the bottom (not at the top) since it is not only most controversial, it deals with the most recent facts and opinions. --xjaymanx 23:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that they should be combined. Kevin Baas | talk 23:30, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)

This might a small point

but why 2 pictures of Al Gore on the GWB page espically the debate one were Gore is in the front of the pix and Bush is listening to him? That really seems more of Gore pix that Bush happens to be in than a pix of him again small point but perhap a different may be used down the road.

Next time, please type four tildes to sign your comments. :) WhisperToMe 06:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bush's image abroad

Here's an column by Fareed Zakaria that can be cited perhaps in the section on Bush's standing abroad. It's a bit dated, though. [7] 172 12:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists

Neutrality I don't understand your edit to the union of concerned scientists section.

1. it seems to contradict the topic: the union of concerned scientists' grievances

2. the epa is not possesed by the administration.

3. the cited article is about the ommisions in the state of the envronment report, a very significant report and a very significant event.

Kevin Baas | talk 18:28, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)

I got that mixed up with another section. Revert as necessary. :) Neutrality 20:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: The Senate Does Not "Strike Down" Amendments

The language used in reference to the Senate's action on the Marriage Amendment is not appropriate. To "strike down" is commonly used (in legal circles and otherwise) to refer to a court's ability to nullify unconstitutional legislation. In the present case, a majority of the Senate merely voted against a proposed constitutional amendment. The term "struck down" is an out-of-place and unnecessarily charged statement in an article that purports to be an unbiased account concerning the administration of George W. Bush.

Please sign your post. I really think it an arbitrary extrapolation to say that this suggests bias. Although I do see your point that it makes a stronger statement (a true statement at that: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof" - whereas marriage is uniquely religious - in fact, technically, taxes should not recognize "married couples" at all, but rather "civil unions" at best.) than is relevant in this context, it is much more probable that the use of judicial wording rather than legislative wording was a genuine mistake. This is all simply to say that your last sentence was unnecessary and prejudicially accusatory in tone, which does not benefit discussion. Nonetheless, your notification is appreciated. I'm sure that this error will be fixed as soon as the page is unprotected. Keep up the keen eye. Kevin Baas | talk 19:14, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
agree that 'struck down' is nonfactual and charged. should be reworded.Pedant 19:19, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

I removed this page from RfC. Kevin Baas | talk 19:17, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Wrong Gubernatorial Portrait

The photo shown as his gubernatorial portrait is not correct. His gubernatorial portrait is near the bottom of this page http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/governors/modern/page3.html.

Why?

Why are you trying to summarize a global opinion of Bush? Obviously opinions will vary based on the ideologies of the individuals, the data that they've had access to, how important they believe their opinion to be, and other unknown variables (such as "I don't like his grammar"). These variances can't possibly be represented in one statement of "popular" or "unpopular". The most vocal opinions are usually the negative ones. Unless you intend on taking a global vote on the issue, I would dare to say that opinions are far too emotional to be placed alongside facts, and should not be presented as equals.

I agree with you. Opinions do not belong here, as that would violate NPOV. Thus, in keeping with NPOV, we cite statistics (polls: you're desired "global vote" - i really don't think a person-by-person global vote on every aspect of the president is essential to develop a useful and reasonably accurate assesment - such a restrictive overburden seems unneccessarily obstructive and dimunitive, thus provoking suspicioun of a rhetorical agenda not founded in reason) and express quantitative facts in a straightforward and unbiased way.
It is clear that the variances can't be represented in one statement, but that is no counterargument to expressing the mean. There are different reasons why people hold the different opinions they hold about people. In turn, people have different opinions about those reasons. Although it would be an interesting and perhaps important sociological study, I don't think it would be appropriate to go in to great detail on these tricky matters here.
"The most vocal opinions are usually the negative ones." Firstly, I disagree with this generalization. Positive opinions can be very loud, and in this case, are. Secondly, it's not a matter of negative vs. positive, it's a historical comparison.
We are not putting opinions alongside facts. That would violate NPOV. We are putting facts alongside facts. Relavent, interesting, and important facts, in due proportion, and without bias. Kevin Baas | talk 18:17, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)

Statistics and polls can be skewed to say anything you want them to. If it's your desire to remain unbiased the word "unpopular" has no place here.

Statistics and polls cannot be skewed to say anything you want them to. I suggest you read the book "How to Lie with Statistics". The point of the book is to show how to detect and protect against errors in the application of statistical methods, whether intentional or accidental. If you want to dispute these polls, check out the polls referenced, read the question, the context, and whatever. Maybe even contact the polling place. They don't have an agenda. The polls don't say what people want them to - no one wants them to say anything in particular, rather, they want to know what the facts are, and facts speak for themselves and can be heard if people are quiet and listen. The biggest weakness of a poll is getting a representative sample - a sample with sufficient size and diversity. There are many obligations in this regard that every statistician gets drilled in to them in college courses. (Thou I still think polls should discuss their sample more.)
If it is our desire to remain unbiased, then we will use whatever language most accurately reflects reality, putting aside all other considerations. Not putting aside all other considerations would result in bias, for bias is made of those things considered which do not belong to the facts alone. Kevin Baas | talk 22:30, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)

Your "Appeal from Authority" argument seems to imply that statisticians are impervious to bias because their college courses make them that way. I disagree.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that there was a strict causual relationship between being taught something and applying learned knowledge. Neither am I basing my argument on an appeal to authority. If I were, I'd be more blunt, like "they are statisticians so they are right". As an atheist and a pragmatist (via John Dewey), I find appeal to authority to be the most annoying logical fallacy there is.
I agree that there are statiscians who, for whatever reason, did not learn or do not apply what is traditionally (though perhaps not pervasively, and certainly to varying extents) taught in college. I merely meant to present the fact that the issue you brought up with polls is, for the most part, taken into account, and though it is not impossible that a given poll may be unrepresentative for whatever reason, it is more improbable than you have suggested.
And in any case, it is more reasonable to take the information gathered by a poll into account, along with it's uncertainties, than to completely disregard it on the basis of these uncertanties, and have no reliable measure whatsoever but your own imagination, which, though it may be certain unto itself, has no neccessary connection to the actual state of affairs in the world.
BTW, you can sign your posts with "~~~~". It is helpful to and appreciated by others. Kevin Baas | talk 02:01, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Now that we agree that statisticians can be biased, we can explore the source of that bias. The company that did the polling of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Mexico, is called Ipsos. Not only are 4 of these 5 countries members of the EU(which is largely controlled by France), but the company Ipsos itself is in France. Of all nations that opposed the US's actions in Iraq, France's criticisms were the harshest and most pronounced. How can we expect with any kind of certainty that the US's harshest critics would now be impartial? --66.53.136.115 07:31, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By these arguments, we should also leave out mention of Bush’s approval ratings. It is reasonable to include statistical information provided that it is properly referenced. To exclude statistics because they might be biased is absurd. Information about his popularity outside the US is as relevant and at least as important as his popularity inside the US. I also would like to draw attention to the presumptive our in .115's post. Who are We? Banno 08:47, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken: editted. I'm not saying the statistics should be excluded because they "might" be biased. I'm saying they should be excluded because there's a relatively high probability of bias after taking a closer look at the source of the data. It's just common sense that when you want an unbiased opinion of somebody, you don't ask their worst enemy for that opinion. --66.53.136.97 11:24, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Your position would be fine if the results were borderline or near-borderline; then it would be a simple matter to account for the results by referring to bias on the part of the company. But the results were overwhelming. Do you know of surveys that contradict the Ipsos results? Banno 12:05, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
Details of the survey are at http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pdf/media/mr040305-1tbB.pdf . The results were released over the address of the US branch. I can’t see any evidence to back up the claim of bias. Banno 12:19, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
No. That's not common sense. Their worst enemy could have the most accurate assesment of them. Their best friend could be as blind as a bat. In any case, it is illogical to discredit someone's position on account of it being a particular position. We are concerned here with knowing, scientifically, what that position is, without passing any judgement on that position. To prejudicially pass judgement on a position is a form of bias. Yes, they're been exposed to different information, for instance, they haven't been exposed to the american media like americans have, and yes, they stand in a different relationship to the president and his administration. That is not to their discredit, anymore than us being exposed to different information than them and standing in a different relation to the president than them is to our discredit (in fact, they don't have homeland/nationalistic bias ("cheer for the hometeam"), so they're probably more accurate.) But that is exactly the value of knowing their position - because it is a different perspective; because it is from a "foreigner". You're argument sounds like "They are not us, so they are wrong." It is common sense that if you want an unbiased opinion of someone, you don't ask the person you want an unbiased opinion of, but you ask the people that they interact with, and weight their positions evenly, without prejudice to those positions. Kevin Baas | talk 17:29, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

"They are not us, so they are wrong" is not my argument. This is my argument: 1) The data was acquired from a French company. 2) French businesses are heavily regulated by the French government. 3) The French have used every opportunity to criticize Bush for the war in Iraq. 4) If you truly wish to remain impartial and scientific, the data from them should not be used since they have an interest in the outcome. --66.42.70.149 21:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of logical fallacies, see ad hominem. Kevin Baas | talk 22:04, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

The statement that the data was acquired by a French company is misleading. The data was acquired by branch companies, who presumably would be at pains to protect their integrity. It incumbent on you to back up you claims of bias, by either explaining how the results were perverted, or by showing other results that contradict the Ipsos survey. Otherwise your ideas belong in Conspiracy theory. Why is it so hard to believe that Bush is unpopular outside the US? Banno 22:06, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Kevin, you know this isn't an "ad hominem" attack. Or at least, you should know that. I'm not saying they're wrong because they're French. I'm saying they're wrong because the French government opposes our every move, and could benefit from a poll that showed the current president is "unpopular". That makes them quite possibly biased. A poll taken by the French should be given as much credibility as a poll taken by Cuba or North Korea.

Banno, it's a French company, there's nothing misleading about it. http://www.ipsos.com/who.aspx?section=hist

OK, I’ve changed my mind, you are absolutely right. The French government might have influenced the survey, so Wiki should ignore the data. But we should apply this idea in an even-handed way. The Bush administration obviously has a vested interest in polls showing him to be popular, and some of these polls are presumably done by US companies. These companies obviously might have been influenced by the administration, so we should not include the results of any polls done by US companies that show him to be popular. Banno 07:08, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

If you want an impartial poll, use an impartial source. I fail to see how this is rocket science. --66.53.136.88 04:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is also not "rocket science" to understand that a poll of a country is not representative of the opinions of that country's government, nor the stereotypical position that said country holds. Odinsdream 22:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Have you looked at ad hominem yet? I think the section on ad hominem circumstantial is especially appropriate. Kevin Baas | talk 15:50, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Please refer to the validity section. --66.53.136.85 17:48, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just read it now. I don't think your argument meets these criteria. your argument is of the form:

1. A makes claim B;

2. there is something objectionable about A,

3. therefore claim B is false.

which is not logically valid.


it is not of the form:

1. A committed perjury when he said Q

2. We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed

3. therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected

which is logically valid. Kevin Baas | talk 18:23, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

"Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy.

Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments."

My argument fits the above criteria, which is precisely why you excluded it from your response. --66.53.136.85 19:43, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Do I sense a prejudicial accusation? The person being cricized is not the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments. In fact, it is not a person being criticized, it is an entire state and set of institutions, involving many individuals. There is no non-circumstantial evidence to put the credibility of these entities into doubt. Even if they were put in doubt somehow, that would not neccessarily lead to the information in question being false (see Validity). Therefore, the argument does not hold under propositional logic. "Based on the source for reasons of credibility" is refering to the second proposition: "We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed " which has not been demonstrated, but rather you have assumed based on fear of ulterior motive, rooted in a difference of opinion which you percieve to be hostile, enabled by circumstances which cannot be practically avoided, and do not neccessarily lead to your conclusion. Perjury has not been commited; there is no evidence that the source in question has released any false information in the past or the present, it has not been demonstrated that the source is not credible. Thus, your argument does not fit the above criteria. Kevin Baas | talk 19:08, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

I quote you: "This is my argument...the data from them should not be used since they have an interest in the outcome." This is ad hominem circumstantial - them having an interest in the outcome is the circumstance, and the conclusion does not logically follow. Them having an interest in the outcome (which you have not demonstrated) does not neccessarily lead to them distorting the outcome. Many people are smart enough to figure out that their interests are served best by knowing the facts, whether they like them or not, because it is this that they have to work with in accomplishing any goal. Their concern is not whether 2 and 2 make the number they want it to make, their concern is knowing what 2 and 2 actually do make. I have no reason to doubt that this is what they are interested in. The color of their skin, where they live, who they work for, etc., does not affect this in any way. Your argument is not rooted in logic. Your argument is rooted in emotion: fear and distrust. Kevin Baas | talk 19:29, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)


You clearly misunderstand the validity clause of the Ad_hominem fallacy. Read it again:

"Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy."

Now read my statement again:

"This is my argument...the data from them should not be used since they have an interest in the outcome."

Now read your false interpretation of my assertion:

"your argument is of the form:

1. A makes claim B;

2. there is something objectionable about A,

3. therefore claim B is false."

Let me make this very simple:

data=evidence

claim=deduction

Do you understand the difference now?

I never said that their conclusion was wrong, i've said that the way they arrived at it is.

Now, that we know the difference between "data" and "claim", let's look at statistical bias. In bias (statistics), you can read about samples. Using 5 countries (or even 7, for that matter) to represent the entire world's opinion is flawed. It's called "using too small of a sample size", and it can distort the outcome, and is not credible evidence .

Now, what about the questions? Is Ipsos asking poorly phrased questions? Have they ever done so in the past? Let's see:

http://www.campaigndesk.org/archives/000223.asp

Are their questions worded poorly? I don't know. Given the lack of diligence they showed with their sample size, and the above referenced poll that is suspected as flawed, I would say that it's highly probable. Was this possibly botched poll skewed intentionally? Maybe.

--66.53.136.85 21:41, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)

I don't think the questions were worded poorly. The question are very clear and unbiased, and the critic of them is really really stretching to find something objectionable about them. Ralph Nader is technically an independant. That's how he is going to be listed on the ballot. The green party is not endorsing him this time around. There is no other they could have worded that, without dropping party names, which may be how those polled decide their vote. That is realy really stretching it.

Number of countries - we're doing the best we can. We're listing all the data we find, from the most comprehensive and reliable sources. Using too small of a sample size cannot distort the outcome, it can affect the margin of error but it cannot cause the outcome to lean in any predictable fashion. To do this, you would have to be demographically selective with the sample. Listing all available data is not being selective. Gathering information is more credible evidence than none at all, which is what you are suggesting.

Regardless of the error margin of the polls, which is listed on the polls, this is an encyclopedia, and it's purpose is to include all data relevant to the article, and give it space in the article commensurate to it's relevantly informative potency. The data is relevant and informative. The poll is relevant. The article says that the poll says x.

Data = gathered information

Claim = statement, not neccesarily substantiated

Evidence = data that supports a claim

Deduction = statement arrived at from other statements by applying propositional logic correctly. (see validity).

We will not throw out a popularly respected poll unless there is hard evidence, not that the poll may be false, but that it is, with certainty, false. See validity. If you can demonstrate that it is indeed false, then you should be able to, by the same means, present accurate data. We would all appreciate this. If you can't, however, than you are wasting everyone's time.

The statements made about public perception which do not refer explicitly to the polls were constructed from other sources than just the polls, including media, protests, internet discussions, wikipedians from outside of the U.S., etc. The contributors to this article have consulted all of the information available to them, and combined this knowledge to reach a consensus wich best represents it. That is the best that can be done, and it should be done. And if you ask me, I think it's a pretty good job. If you can offer more comprehensive and reliables sources of information, we will all be very pleased and cooperative. However, if you simply criticize the best possible efforts and results, then you are of no benefit to our efforts. I am personally getting tired of discussing this. Kevin Baas | talk 06:28, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Union of Concerned Scientists, continued

Neutrality, what do you think of my change to this section? I reinserted the SOE report and tried to mantain your info. I also tried to improve the flow of the paragraph and make it more straightforward. I hope that none of these changes have obstructed the meaning of what you've contributed. Kevin Baas | talk 19:49, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

Alleged cocaine abuse

I went through the archives and could not find a discussion on this alleged cocaine abuse, maybe I missed it. Anyways, why is there a paragraph on alleged cocaine abuse? According to this paragraph Bush never admitted to it or ignored a question asking him to admit it. It's reads as pure innuendo and a cheap shot, probably why Bush never dignified the reporter with an answer. Paragraph should be removed unless of course there is some relevant facts to justify the inclusion of this allegation. Last paragraph in "Personal life and education" section. 67.3.208.88 06:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bush was asked about this repeatedly during his campaign for governor of Texas and a few times when he first announced he was running for the GOP nomination. His method of addressing the questions was to specify years before and after which he did not use cocaine. The fact that there is a gap between those goalposts is what keeps this issue alive (though generally buried by the press). It is theoretically possible that Bush did not use cocaine during the 'gap' either, but if that were the case it would seem likely that he would have simply said so rather than refusing to answer about that time period even when specifically pressed. CBDunkerson 06:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Come on, if he had used cocaine and was trying to cover it up, he would have just lied. No one has ever substantiated this allegation. Given the obvious degree of hatred towards him, isn't it practically impossible that hard evidence wouldn't have surfaced if it existed? It's a cheap shot and you know it. 68.85.236.180 23:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you ask me if I ate a baby this morning, and I told you "I did not eat a baby between 6AM and 8AM. I also did not eat a baby between 8:30AM and 12 Noon." Would you not, correctly, want to ask me what happened between 8AM and 8:30AM? If you did ask me, and I continued to repeat the previous statement, would you not be suspicious of my whereabouts and baby-eating habits, if only specifically for that 30 minute time-span? Your argument of "why did he not just lie outright" fails to take into regard someone who has a conflict of moral duty. In this instance, were Bush guilty of cocaine abuse, he might find this difficult to reconcile with his other touted, oft-mentioned moral guidelines. As a result, it's perfectly acceptable to expect him to provide conflicting answers to accusatory questions. It exists in many forms, such as "backpedaling" or playing with word definitions, or "neither confirm nor deny," all of which I'm sure critics of the Bush administration are heartily familiar with. Odinsdream 22:57, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's kind of like this:
"Dad, are you licking toads?"— Bart Simpson
"I'm not not licking toads" — Homer Simpson

Opps, Foreign policy

FWIW, I just copied and pasted that paragraph from an older version. I did not notice that some one had put sarcasm in there. I would have removed it had I noticed. Thanks, Ilyanep. Kevin Baas | talk 16:56, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Foreign policy, introductory paragraph

"Helps to promote democracy" is disputable as it is disputable whether his decisions have had effects that increase democratic conduct throughout the world. 67.3.218.37's edits did not improve the accuracy of the paragraph, as s/he purported they did, rather, they suppressed information and added slant. I reverted, and modified to the last sentence, adding accurate information and tying together the paragraph better: "In addition, he promotes to spread democracy in many parts of the world." -> "In accordance with their neoconservative idealogy, he promotes to spread democracy in many parts of the world." If there is a dispute with this para, it should probably be discussed here. Kevin Baas | talk 17:41, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

You done more than just revert a sentence you reverted the whole paragraph. There was no suppression of information as there is a inch and a half long link to the relevant information that states almost verbatim what you want to post here. We don't need it repeated twice "Bush's foreign policy is influenced by the goal to promote American global leadership as promoted by the right-wing think tank" it is disputable that this is the absolute source of foreign policy. I am trying to compromise and you are starting a revert war. Heres my version:

Bush's foreign policy is influenced by many sources and world events, one of which is Project for the New American Century, many of whose members have prominent positions in the Bush administration. As he helps to promote democracy in many parts of the world. I'll overwrite my last sentence with your last sentence to my version in another attempt at compromise. 67.3.222.76 18:19, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that "Bush's foreign policy is influenced by many sources and world events" to an extent beyond what one would naturally expect (thus making it significant rather rhetorical)? If not, then that part should be removed. I don't see any advantage to removing "right wing think tank" from the sentence. people shouldn't have to click on a link to find that kind of basic info that can be expressed in four short words. I have other contentions, but i have to go. I'll discuss more later. Kevin Baas | talk 18:32, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

More... It is impossible for you to have tried to compromise before there was a dispute - when you made your first change to the paragraph. "In another attempt to compromise" - the use of the word "another" is objectively false because that is the first attempt to compromise you have made. I am the one who initiated this section on the talk page - who initiated an attempt to compromise. A single revert does not constitute starting a revert war. A revert of a revert constitutes starting a revert war. Kevin Baas | talk 19:01, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Until we reach a consensus, we should return the paragraph to the status quo; the last consensus (whether de jure or de facto), in order to avoid a revert war. I shall do so. Kevin Baas | talk 19:01, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Kevin Baas asked Can you demonstrate that "Bush's foreign policy is influenced by many sources and world events" Sure. Letters to the president, U.S. Ambassadors and foreign ambassadors, the CIA reports, The US Senate, the GOP, The US Congress, his church, his father, his mentors and other significant sources hell he may even have his own opinions and goals of his own, etc. etc... World events have had a significant influence on policy. I don't see the advantage of removing this. Now prove that Project for the New American Century is a significant influence and is nothing other than rhetorical. The way user Kevin_baas want it, makes this sound like it Bush's goal for American global leadership and not the Project for the New American Century. Come on people lets try to honest and write an encyclopedic page. Wiki is not going to decide this election. If anyones hate for this man is so venomous, perhaps another outlet would be more appropriate. There are plenty of political forums to debate on.
I did not ask that. I asked "Can you demonstrate that "Bush's foreign policy is influenced by many sources and world events" to an extent beyond what one would naturally expect (thus making it significant rather rhetorical)?" You have not demonstrated this. Bush has been influenced by Project for the New American Century more than any other president. He has interacted with them more, he has worked collaboratively with them, he has appointed them, he makes frequent statements purporting their idealogy, he makes executive decisions that further their aims, he specifically asks them for reports and consultation, etc. There's substantial evidence of substantial influence, much more than would be naturally expected. Kevin Baas | talk 23:15, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Does a nomination by a single person constitute public perception?

Although the fact that Bush got nominated for a nobel peace prize is interesting, I don't think it belongs in the public perception section, as it demonstrates the perception of only one person. Nothing else in the section is about the perception of a single person. Everything else in the section is about the views of a populace. Kevin Baas | talk 21:27, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

I will take that section out. As you rightly say, one Norwegian is not enough to qualify for "public perception", plus, as was discussed earlier, if this were to stay, it would have to be noted that much more people think Bush should be tried for raging a war of aggression and breaking international law by cluster bombing civilians and denying basic human rights to prisoners of war. Get-back-world-respect 22:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The winner of the Nobel Prize is chosen by a small number of people - but it is nevertheless important. Perhaps you could say the Nobel committee is "trusted" on this decision. At any rate, nomination for this prize is significant, even if it is only by one person. VV 22:33, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The point was discussed earlier on in more detail. Dozens of people are nominated every year, and you did not address any of my points. Get-back-world-respect 22:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it uncommon for a President to meet with the National Urban League?


Protection

This page was protected because of VeryVerily's ignorance of the three revert rule and his refusal to back his actions with valuable argumentation, not even in edit summaries. Get-back-world-respect 00:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was of course reverting myself, because otherwise there would have been others involved in the revert war. Also, the extensive comments above signed by me were not actually written by me, because that would have meant I was engaged in "valuable argumentation", which GBWR has just assured everyone I was not. VV 00:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't know which comment is being referred to. VV made one comment in the section on nomination and public perception. However, this is by no means extensive, is not plural, and is not relevant to the discussion. The other option would be the comment he made a long time ago, before consensus was established, which he proceeded to violate. I don't see how they could possibly establish legitimacy in that context. So I really don't what VV is refering to. Kevin Baas | talk 01:30, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
You are correct that most of the objections and points I raised were before the (non-binding) poll was initiated. I don't see the point in, e.g., reposting all the statistics in question, although I did some on User talk:Gzornenplatz. VV 05:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Great, now we just declare polls "non-binding", just about as the UN make "non-binding" resolutions, right? As your great friend TDC writes, "Who the fuck cares about consensus?" Good that we are not in a wiki project here where such nonsensic policies would be helpful. Get-back-world-respect 10:46, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What in God's name are you even talking about? What does the UN have to do anything? What does TDC and anything he has ever said have to do with anything? TDC has never edited this article or participated in this talk page even once. (And my "great friend" I hardly know and have never met?) Your comments are degenerating into unfocused nonsense. I suppose I should be grateful you're not absurdly linking me to pedophilia anymore. (If you're interested, however, read Wikipedia:Current surveys and Wikipedia:Survey guidelines.) VV 06:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Conversation moved from snowspinner's talk page

As I already wrote at Anti-American sentiment, I did not refuse to discuss, and I asked for protection rather than go on reverting like you in both cases at that article twice and at the others as well. Because of your behaviour users have already requested comments on you twice, and unlike you I did not have to count on "boylovers" [8] [9] to start such an action. Get-back-world-respect 01:12, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the "disenfranchised" voters, as you know very well, I did not write that, I only reverted your attempt to suppress informing the readers about what happened during the last elections. The version you edited may have been partisan, yours was clearly. Get-back-world-respect 01:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Explain how "See U.S. presidential election, 2000" is "clearly" "partisan". Oh, don't even bother, your comments are beneath consideration. VV 01:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You deleted all the information about what the actual debate was about, disenfranchisement as well as the fact that brother Jeb Bush was Governor of Florida. Get-back-world-respect 01:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I provided a hyperlink to an article which gave all the information, not just a select portion which was incredibly biased (favoring - surprise! - Gore over Bush) and inaccurately covered. Also, I see you again are making a shameful and absurd attempt to link me to pedophilia. VV 01:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I do not link you to pedophilia, I just noted that you even went as low as joining with proponents of child abuse in order to bug someone who does not allow you to spread your partisan messages. The facts that George's brother Jeb Bush was governor of Florida and that lots of voters were disenfranchised before the election are both highly relevant, without them harldy any reader will check your link, and I guess that is why you chose it that way. Get-back-world-respect 02:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Went as low as...", hah! I agreed with their characterization of your editing style. That is what RfC pages are for. They could be axe-murderers for all it matters, the fact is you are still a disrespectful editor, and anyone says this is correct. And I repeat, we cannot include the entire election controversy in this article. You know damn well there's stuff on the other side: TV networks calling the election for Gore before the polls closed in the panhandle, announcing the polls closed before they did, twenty counties not using the scrub list and letting felons vote, the partisan ruling by the Florida SC, the subsequent studies that Bush won under almost every method, the attempts to invalidate military votes, and I don't even remember what else. You just want to mention two or three left-wing points and then move on, including ridiculous insinuations that Jeb somehow rigged a 537-point victory for his brother. Oh, by the way, can you justify the claim that hundreds of thousands were (wrongly) "disenfranchised"? It seems to be more on the order of one thousand. You want a POV-pushing anti-Bush article. I want a balanced one. The best way to do that is to refer to the controversy and further reading, not half-summarize it in a way which advances your personal agenda. VV 04:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Have to go with VV on this point. Saying something "the validity of the Florida vote, in which hundreds of thousands of voters where disenfranchised, was heavily disputed" is clearly POV (true though it is). --Neutrality 04:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am perfectly ok if you alter the not very neutral part in question. I am not ok if you completely remove what the whole debate was about as VV was trying to do.
By "you went as low as joining with proponents of child sexual abuse" I meant that you joined the complaint of guys who write I do not edit neutrally because I did not let them twist encyclopedia articles for their propaganda about harmlessness of child abuse. Get-back-world-respect 10:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I put that to give readers an idea about why it was disputed; what the debate was about; to give them the basic facts which make it an issue. The issue is clearly that voters were disenfranchised. Why else would the validity be disputed? Yes, hundreds of thousands were disenfranchised (over 200,000). I thought some people would doubt that number, so I linked it up. Kevin Baas | talk 17:37, 2004 Aug 3 (UTC)
I hesitate to add an opinion to what is already a contentious debate, but I would like to point out that saying "hundreds of thousands of voters where disenfranchised" is POV. You could either cite the source that makes that claim, or you could go into depth about how you are defining disenfranchisement. When I read that statement it isn't clear to me if you are referring to people who were illegally disenfranchised, or legally disenfranchised (i.e. convicted felons who were removed from the voter rolls without error). --CrucifiedChrist

from U.S._presidential_election,_2000:

  • "179,855 ballots were not counted in the official tally"
  • "57,700 voters were incorrectly listed as felons on a "scrub list" and thus their votes were not counted."

179,855 + 57,700 = 237,555 > 200,000 wrongly disenfranchised voters.

Kevin Baas | talk 17:36, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is often a poor source. The usual figure for the second number is 1,100. See this fringe pro-Gore page: [10]. As for the first, failing to cast a proper vote, even if due to voter error, is not "disenfranchisement". VV 19:50, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This credibility attack is wholly unsubstantiated. Kevin Baas | talk 14:52, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
I agree with VV, calling the 179,855 residual votes from Dr. Lichtman's study "disenfrancgised" is stretching the meaning of the word. Over 95% of those ballots either had no vote for president cast, or had more than one vote for president cast. These could fairly be called voter error, or machine error, but disenfranchised? --CrucifiedChrist
Yes. The loss of votes was a direct consequence of proper procedure not being followed - the reject mechanism was turned off. This is a form of disenfranchisement; it takes votes away from people who would otherwise have votes, even in light of voter and/or machine error. (ref. U.S._presidential_election,_2000) Kevin Baas | talk 15:29, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Florida votes

In the section which says "The electoral college outcome could have been altered by a difference of only a few hundred (537/2) popular votes in Florida", would someone please add a mention of the fact that the vote results in Florida were disputed due to confusion over the voting machines - people inadvertently voting for Bush when they had intended to vote for another candidate, and many of the votes being indecipherable due to "hanging chads" - and so therefore there may have been fewer Bush supporters in Florida than the votes themselves showed? - Brian Kendig 04:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but then the other side could mention a whole host of arguments showing how Bush unfairly lost votes for other reasons...

Some networks calling the state for Gore while the polls were still open in the conservative Florida panhandle... Political statisticians say the data in past elections points to people not voting for a supported candidate that they believe will loose in greater numbers than the opposite. This probably cost Bush thousands of votes.

Some Florida county’s allowed felons to vote in violation of Florida law. Once all the math is done this gained thousands of (illegal) votes for Gore...

Steven

This should be discussed on the U.S. presidential election, 2000 page.

People who are felons know they can't vote, and don't waste their time. People who are wrongly listed as felons know they can vote, and vote. These people who were wrongly listed as felons, and voted therefore legally, had their votes illegally discounted by an incorrect scrub list. Thus, on the contrary, state laws were not broken here, as the voters were wrongly classified, and once all the math and legalities are considered, the phenomenon that you have described cost Gore tens of thousands of (legal) votes.

As to the paragraph above that, I don't understand what you are trying to say. there is no logical connection between the sentences in that paragraph.

There are not sides in this issue. There is a comprehensive total - all things considered, including the votes for bush that were wrongly disenfrancised, the votes for gore that were wrongly disenfranchised, the votes for gore that were illegal, and the votes for bush that were illegal, the statistics add up so that if the election were fully legal, gore would have a significantly higher chance of winning than bush. This is not "partisan" or "taking a side". This is putting two and two together and seeing what they make.

but again, This should be discussed on the U.S. presidential election, 2000 page. this page should give just the basic info - how many voters were wrongly disenfranchised, what federal laws were purportedly broken, what are the demographics of the disenfranchised voters (in the mean), what is the ratio between the margin of victory and the number of disenfranchised voters. None of these questions are partisan. All of them are interesting, important, and relevant. Kevin Baas | talk 19:41, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Bush Bounce after 2004 DNC

I think the "public perception" section needs to be updated to reflect the bounce that Bush received from the DNC, since it is unusual. Suggestion:

President Bush received a "bounce" in popularity polls taken the weekend after the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Typically, the bounce in the polls goes to the DNC's candidate. The only other candidate who failed to see any improvement in his standing after the convention that nominated him was George McGovern in 1972.

I kept it short, if anyone wants to add or subtract anything, here's a good source article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-02-poll-cover_x.htm

--66.53.136.125 08:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The 'Bush Bounce' appears only in a few (generally GOP leaning) polls. Other polls (such as Zogby) show a larger bounce for Kerry. All are generally small enough that they fall within the bounds of simply being statistical variance. Many polls continue to show public perception of Bush deteriorating. CBDunkerson


Comment

Actually CNN shows a Bush bounce and they have a 65% Democratic audience.

There is no bounce. [11] Kevin Baas | talk 19:47, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

We should add a piece...

About W.'s re-election strategy of making fraudulent attacks against Kerry. This is certainly a notable and important FACT about him.

That issue would belong in the George_W._Bush_presidential_campaign,_2004 article. However, it should be discussed on the talk page first. Kevin Baas | talk 19:45, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
It probably should go on the Bush campaign site, but what American politician in recent years _hasn't_ made fraudulent attacks against his opponent? They all take quotes out of context and mudsling all over the place. Perhaps that should go on a page devoted to "American Politics". StellarFury 21:46, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Politicians often lean the ads in a certain direction, suggests things and the like, but they don't make blatent objective lies. That could result in lawsuit. I am aware of at least one pro-bush/anti-kerry ad that crossed this line. I've never seen anyone cross that line before. I'm not aware of any Kerry ad that distorted or misrepresented the truth. Kevin Baas | talk 21:55, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)

Grow Up

I'm no fan of Bush but the fact that the page has to be disabled to stop people from defacing it is a pretty sad reflection upon our community. Would it not be possible to allow only registered users to edit the page, and then take action against those (for and against Bush) that do not respect the NPOV requirement? (or alternatively, since most of this is caused by the US Presidential Election, just ban people with United States IPs from editing the page until the election is over) --Cynical 20:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No. StoptheBus18 21:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Any time you choose to "disqualify" someone's comments because of their location, race, skin color, choice of language, etc, rather than the logic of their argument, you've abandoned all hope of civil discourse. OdinsDream 20:02, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Category:Wealthy people

Any thoughts about adding Bush to Category:Wealthy people? I would have done it myself if the page wasn't currently protected. Tregoweth 19:50, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

No, I think it is a stupid, inherently subjective and POV category. The entire category should be deleted. older≠wiser 19:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Wealth does illicit subjective imagery. I consider myself wealthy for several reasons, likely few of which I share with those listed on the "Wealthy People" page. That is, whomever added names to the Wealthy People list likely wasn't considering the quality of their life, but rather their financial achievements. In this sense, I'd appreciate seeing the category renamed to something more appropriate, such as "Mill/Bil ionares." I'd find this just as respectable as any Fortune magazine piece on the nation's top contenders for financial status. OdinsDream 20:00, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Millionaires or billionaires would indeed be an improvement. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:02, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
Yes, if the name of the category implied some sort of objective criteria, that would be better. "Wealthy" just means too many different things in various contexts. older≠wiser 20:04, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree, the category should be renamed. Then I would think that it would be very appropriate to put Bush in the renamed category. There also comes into mind, then, wealthy families, w/money, property, and connections passed down through inheritence. This might be an interesting category as well, but it woiuld arguably be much more dfficult to criteria-ize. Kevin Baas | talk 22:46, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)
FYI, the category Category:Wealthy people is now on Categories for Deletion. Fuzheado | Talk 01:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Unprotection

I am unprotecting this page, as well as a few others that this or a similar group of users are edit warring over. Please do not make me or any other admin reprotect these pages. I suggest one last time that, if you are having repeated conflicts, you should go to the mediation committee. Barring this, if there are further problems with this page, or other pages, I will carefully review the history of the pages, I will identify where these problems are stemming from, and I will bring users to the arbitration committee. This is unlikely to be found satisfying by anyone, so I strongly reccomend that someone take the first step and request mediation.

Disputed election results paragraph - building consensus

Please vote on a version or post your own suggestion. Feel free to comment, as well. Kevin Baas | talk 18:30, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)

I think that Baas' version contains the most detail, however, the sentence regarding disenfranchised voters very clearly implies that some illegality occurred to make Bush win, which is a very disputed claim. Note - I am extraordinarily anti-Bush, and do believe that Gore won. But nonetheless, that should be left for the reader to decide. I would suggest adding an "alleged" or "supposedly" before the "wrongly disenfranchised voters" or somehow incorporating that feel into the article, unless someone finds the numbers from a credible, unbiased source - in which case we should put the numbers in and cite the source very clearly.
Sorry if that was a little too rambling. Oh, and feel free to move this comment if it is in an inappropriate location. StellarFury 18:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I will repeat that this is a straightforward matter. This is a long article as is and repeating the entire 2000 election controversy would be far out of scope. Kevin Baas wants to list only a few key pro-Gore points from that controversy (including fringe charges of "interference" by Jeb), which is not neutral. I have already argued against his statistics ("less than one percent" - hah!), which in any case are just his POV and should not be stated as fact. The best way to write this is to briefly mention that there is a controversy and use a hyperlink for further, complete reading. VV 23:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Facts that do not, by nature, favor one side or the other, and are relevant and important, are not POV. If you want to dispute the electoral facts, do it on Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2000. And in any case, this is not the place for invective. Kevin Baas | talk 19:09, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)

V's version is short but gives the facts and a reference to information about the election. The other two turned me off because they clearly leaned away from NPOV. Any other versions? From the ones above, V's is the only neutral version of events. "wrongly disenfranchised voters" and "Due to problems ... and other questions about the involvement of Bush's brother.." are clearly showing bias. If the other two were cleared of these selective summaries they would be pretty good. If you're going to create a single paragraph summary it needs to be neutral.- Tεxτurε 02:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would say that it is important to mention that George Bush's brother is the governor of Florida - because it certainly had an effect upon public opinion - but we should not make any claims beyond that. Excluding any mention of Jeb is showing bias too, like we're glossing over part of the controversy. StellarFury 14:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's why we don't even try to cover the 2000 election. A hundred different people will say that omitting fact X is "bias", so we either put in a hundred facts or rely on hyperlinking. VV 22:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's interesting, because I thought the idea behind an encyclopedia was to put in "a hundred facts," not dodge events because they're too controversial. The problem that most people have is the way that the facts are presented. It seems silly to exclude facts just because we haven't yet found a way (or an author) to write them with NPOV. StellarFury 16:05, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Most encyclopedias don't include "a hundred facts" in an article if those hundred facts are more detailed and neutral in another article that is referenced. No dodge. Just proper context. - Tεxτurε 16:40, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Some people think that neutrality means that every statement in one direction needs to be counterbalanced by a statement in the other direction. Something like this would read "Some say the cat is black. Some say the cat is white. Some say wolves are natural predators of sheep. Some say that sheep eat wolves. .... etc." We are none-the-wiser after reading this. Clearly, I think this view to be misguided. To me, balance means completely disregarding partisian considerations and sentiments, and writting in strict proportion to relevant, significant, and accurate information, regardless of how these facts ultimately color things, for we are concerned not with giving things color, but with finding out what color things actually are. (In the words of Albert Camus in his book "The Plague": "If two and two really do make four.") This means looking through a lens that is undistorted by aggresion or passivity. This also means giving, not each pov the same weight, but each fact the same weight, so that when the cat is black, we say that the cat is black, regardless of what color anyone wants the cat to be. Kevin Baas | talk 19:21, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)

Original

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. Some allege that supporters of Bush, including his brother Florida Governor Jeb Bush, illegally interfered with the election. Some allege that the judiciary (U.S. Supreme Court) made partisan rulings on behalf of Bush. Bush's supporters counter-allege that an earlier ruling in Gore's favor by the Florida Supreme Court was made for partisan reasons. (see U.S. presidential election, 2000).

VeryVerily

The Florida vote was heavily disputed. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still debated, though no longer contested in any legal venue. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.

  • 1) I support this version Rex071404 06:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Baas

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed. The margin of victory was less than one percent of the number of wrongly disenfranchised voters. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. Some allege that supporters of Bush, including his brother Florida Governor Jeb Bush, illegally interfered with the election. (For example, a suit by NAACP (NAACP v. Harris) argued that Florida was in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the US Constitution's Equal Protection Amendment. Settlement agreements were reached in this suit. Also, some election officials argue that Florida was in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.) Some allege that the judiciary (U.S. Supreme Court) made partisan rulings on behalf of Bush. Bush's supporters counter-allege that an earlier ruling in Gore's favor by the Florida Supreme Court was made for partisan reasons. (see U.S. presidential election, 2000).

Neutrality

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this decision, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

  1. Neutrality 02:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. This one is good. Kevin's is too long, VeryVerily's too short. Without going into details, the reader should get a rough picture of the nature of the dispute. Gzornenplatz 00:20, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • This one is really bad, and furthermore was just thrown in at the last minute (like in the previous poll). Ungrounded accusations about Jeb are completely out of place, and it's poorly written to boot: "disputed, with the winner disputed". And it's due to voting equipment and Jeb? Give me a break. More detail would be acceptable if it could be done neutrally, but I don't see the need, and this isn't it. VV 00:32, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • What last minute? This just started. I don't see any accusations, only a mention of the fact that the controversy surrounded the equipment and Jeb. Poor writing can always be improved, there won't be a dispute about that. Gzornenplatz 01:35, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, there will be. Remember? And by last minute I mean in this case that it wasn't part of the original proposed poll, which muddles the issues. It says the recount was due to just two issues, equipment and Jeb, which is nuts. Should we say it's "due to" the leftist Florida SC? This is the basic problem with trying to summarize a complex issue, which always comes up when people try, which is that it's very hard to NPOV. VV 01:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
          • No, the other case was not simply about improving poor writing. And the Florida SC did not start the dispute. It had to do with the equipment and Jeb. Neutrality's version says that the Florida SC allowed the recount to continue, just as the U.S. one stopped them. That's just the facts. I don't see a particular POV there. Gzornenplatz 02:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm not saying the Florida SC started the dispute, I said it would be equally absurd as saying it's due to Jeb. VV 03:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
              • Who says it's due to Jeb? It's due to questions about Jeb. What the answers are may be a subjective question, but it can't be denied that questions about Jeb's involvement were raised which, along with the problems with the equipment, started the whole dispute. Gzornenplatz 03:51, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Iainscott 12:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) (well, at least now this version has had POV removed)
    • Do you take seriously the notion that it was because of "voting equipment"? VV 22:12, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • To a certain extent: the recounts were, IIRC (and I quite possibly dont), generally started due to the extreame closeness of the results, which may, in turn, have been due to problems with the voteing machines (and other effects certainly best discussed [here]. This version, though it probably could be improved to make this clear, is still more NPOV than the others suggested. Iainscott 13:14, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. StellarFury 12:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Lyellin 14:04, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC) For clarity of information's sake, better than the rest, as well as NPOV. Needs some improvement in the writing, perhaps.
"Validity" is such a loaded word - there are too many variables - for example:
* Military votes (which tend to lean Republican) not counted by Democrat registrars
* Al Gore's blatent attempt to get FL election law re-written by the courts (itself an illegal task)
* Incompetant Palm Beach FL Democrat voter registrar with silly "butterfly" ballot
By saying "validity of the vote" one can only be trying to say that the underpinnings were thoroughly flawed. However, there is nothing in the historical record which suggests, even adding up all the problems, that the "vote" was more than 1-3% flawed. Therefore, it is patently false and misleading th say that the "validity" of the vote - a term which encompasses every aspect of the entire voting process - was "heavily disputed". Such a statement is simply false on its face. Rex071404 04:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Baas v.2

The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this decision, Gore conceded the election. The margin of victory (572 votes) was less than 1% of the number of disenfranchised voters. (Although the exact number of disenfranchised voters is still disputed, we now know that at least 57,700 legal voters were incorrectly listed on a "scrub list" and thus wrongly disenfranchised.) Election officials and the NAACP alleged that the state of Florida was in violation of election laws. The NAACP filed suit accordingly, and a settlement was reached in NAACP's favor. The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).

  • PedantI support the above version... the controversial election needs to be characterised as controversial, supported with basic facts, reserve the rest of this 'controversial election material' for U.S. presidential election, 2000 I would support any version of this paragraph that mentions the controversy, doesn't contain nonfactual 'data' and references U.S. presidential election, 2000, where all the rest of the election controversy belongsPedant 19:52, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
  • Support. The shocking "you people can't vote" issue needs highlighted - and on this page - it's entirely relevant as to how Bush got "elected" last time. zoney ███ talk 11:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Felon's list is important to mention, particularly given the felon's list controversy in 2004. Other than that, Neutrality's version is also fine.Wolfman 18:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Baas v.2.1

Because the Florida vote was marred by voter disenfranchisement, its validity was heavily disputed. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this decision, Gore conceded the election. The margin of victory (537 votes) was less than 1% of the number of disenfranchised voters. (Although the exact number of disenfranchised voters is still disputed, we now know, statistically, that there is a more than 99% chance that more than 90.2% of 57,746 voters listed on a "corrected list" as felons were not actually felons, and were thus wrongly disenfranchised.) Election officials, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and the NAACP alleged that the state of Florida was in violation of election laws. [12] [13] [14] The NAACP filed suit, and a settlement was reached in NAACP's favor. [15] [16] On May 21st, 2002, the U.S. Justice Department disclosed that it will sue three Florida counties for alleged voting rights violations, expecting immediate settlement. [17] [18] The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000, (portal), (official report)).

My 2c

I haven't read the article in months, but my gut feeling is that in a long article about 2 average sized paragraphs about the election dispute would seem about right. If there was any more than this I could go and look at the detailed article, if there was any less I'd feel it was being glossed over and deliberately downplayed. Ben Arnold 04:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FYI, in every discussion I have read, I support V vs. Neutrality

Including everything I have read on this page, I support V's edits and positions, over N's. Also, please take note that Neutrality was warned this evening for making 9 reverts in 24 hours on John Kerry. As they were all pro-Kerry edits which he made, I suggest that this indicates there bias on his part on this page for Bush. Rex071404 02:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)\

I don't see how Neutrality's edits can be construed as pro-Kerry. Kevin Baas | talk 17:40, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Of course you do, Rex. Neutrality 02:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well Rex, it's reassuring to know that, since you're unbiased, you will not likewise use repeated reverts to make anti-Kerry edits. Gzornenplatz 02:18, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Neutrality made 10 reverts to John Kerry today and was the principal cause of that page getting protected just now. He also twice used vulgar language towards me on the Kerry talk page Rex071404 02:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Twice? Vulgar language? Explain. Neutrality 02:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To answer Neutrality, I count "twice" this way: #1) He characterized my objection to his edit as "BS" (except that he spelled this out). #2) After I replaced the "i" in "BS" with an "*" and explained my action, he reversed that edit with a bold type warning, re-inserting the term "BS" as a comment about my objection. That's twice. And I notice that he does not deny pro-Kerry bias, not does he deny being the principal cause of the page protection there tonight. Rex071404 02:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Assessment" section"

Is it really the job of an encyclopedia to "assess"? Even if the section stays, it has a POV problem. The section proclaims Bush as the "love him or hate him" president, then goes on to explain why people hate him, but not why they love him. I personally can't write the necessary addition for NPOV because I'm way too heavily biased. StellarFury 14:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

POV Paragraph

Regarding the newly added paragraph:

According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts from the year 2000 to 2003 have gone to people with the top one percent of income (who earn an average of US$1.2 million annually), and two-thirds went to the top twenty percent (who earn an average of US$203.7 thousand annually). The tax cuts have redistributed the tax burden such that higher income brackets have less burden while lower income brackets have more burden.
[19]

I say "so what?" Read this: How Tax Cuts Work and then tell me if it seems so outlandish that the rich get big tax breaks. They get bigger tax breaks because they have more money! The information in the paragraph, while technically true, is slanted POV. I vote to remove it. Just MHO... — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:38, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think you misread the paragraph. There are two issues at stake here, and neither of them involve absolute quantities of money. Tax is based on percentage of income, not raw quantity. Thus, your point is entirely moot.
The first issue is percentage of wealth, not raw quantity. regardless of how much money they make, a certain group of people give a larger percentage of their income to the government, while another group gives a smaller percentage of their income. The first issue is percentage, burden. Actually, this issue is the second issue listed in the paragraph. The second issue, listed first in the paragraph, is distribution. It's pretty clear cut. you don't have one third going to one third and two thirds to two thirds, in otherwords, this is not a flat tax. It is slanted in a clear direction. It is important to note, regardless of which direction it is slanted, that it is such.
Also, notice that the source is nonpartisian. Kevin Baas | talk 18:51, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Is there a graph somewhere of income vs proportion of income paid as direct income tax. I would personally be interested in comparing US and UK. If we could get data for lots of countries, we could even make an article out of it. Pcb21| Pete 15:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Forgot to mention we already have the data for the UK at income tax. Pcb21| Pete 20:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bush's purchase of Texas Rangers (current version)

(Group vote sought by Rex071404 08.16.2004)

Owing to what I consider a POV tone, no reference to actual facts, and no source links for these so-called "critics", I wish to delete this from the article:

"Critics of Bush allege improprieties in the venture, which earned US$170 million, including tactics in acquiring both the team and the stadium and land on which it played, as well as its later sale to a family friend who would donate money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush had earned US$15 million."

Agree - text should be deleted

  • Rex071404 07:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Cecropia | Talk 07:35, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Delete, or supply credible reference identifying who "critics" are and their allegations.
  • Timothy001 14:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Disagree - (please cite requested facts)

  • Gzornenplatz 08:14, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) [20]
  • Style 08:48, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) - [21] [22] [23]. Please bother to google in future.
  • →Raul654 09:38, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) [24] - I've heard this claim on a couple of occasions. That makes me think that this is notable enough to be covered by the article.
  • older ≠ wiser 12:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) [25] [26] [27]
  • Kevin Baas | talk 16:45, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) Keep status quo unless otherwise can be convincingly demonstrated, in order to maximize accuracy of article (litmus test).
  • David Gerard 21:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Those refs look mainly usable. CNN and WPost would be most credible, but the others could be usable as further supporting material. The mention is in need of rewording, but there's a there there.
Reply to: Kevin Baas: what are you referring to: "unless otherwise can be convincingly demonstrated"? How can my contention that it's POV and is missing citations be "convincingly demonstrated"?. What standard of proof would you accept?Also, my suggestion that it is POV does not bear on the accuracy ot lack thereof of the current version, wouldn't you agree? Rex071404 17:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A paragraph should only be removed if it is inaccurate/false. If it is pov, whether subtly or overtly, and/or lacks sources, it should be altered to be npov and to include sources. I agree that your statement that it is subtly pov and/or lacks sources does not bear on the accuracy or lack thereof of the current version, but your suggestion that it should be deleted does. This is what I was responding to, though, admittedly, I confused your verbal criticism with what I construed as your tacit criticism, based on the protocol I've just described. (The comment "please cite requested facts" encouraged this confusion.) I apologize for this confusion. I believe that the proper course of action, in respect to your verbal criticism, would be to modify the para, not to remove it. In any case, the vote was for delete or keep, regardless of stated reasons, and my comment was with regard to this choice. I apologize for any misappropriated criticism. Kevin Baas | talk 18:37, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Pedant:Paragraph should be kept with the minor nitpicks fixed:

I would prefer "Improprieties have been alleged in..." to "Critics of Bush allege improprieties" because

1), people other than 'critics of bush' have made those allegations, attributing it to only critics of bush is slanted...

and maybe more importantly:

2), "Critics of Bush allege improprieties" doesn't follow the policy Avoid statements that will date quickly as it is stated in the present tense, and in that tense is unlikely to stand the test of time.Pedant 20:11, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)


Undecided

  • Floorsheim 08:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) While I think the text reads suitably NPOV, apparently there is an issue as to whether this is a notable criticism or not. If it is, will someone please provide evidence to that effect? Also, can we get confirmation on the dollar figures? Details concerning the exact allegations would be beneficial as well.
  • VV 10:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) I was skeptical, but this seems to be a "real" criticism and not tabloid crap. Tweaking the wording to make the "subtle" charges ("... family friend who would donate money to the Bush campaign...", not hinting anything here) more direct would help. VV 10:57, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It's written in journalist-speak, not encyclopedia-speak, and should be rewritten to state facts, not 'allegations'. If those changes are not implemented, then I would vote delete. However, I have little interest in political squabbles taking place in Wikipedia: take it elsewhere and let people get on with doing edits that will stand the test of time, folks. Noisy 11:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. The fact represented is that the allegations have been made. The only question is whether it is a notable fact concerning George W. Bush. –Floorsheim 12:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Noisy's rewrite. Facts are presented in encyclopedias. - Tεxτurε 16:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
With links to mainstream news sources, it should stay. Otherwise, delete. Neutrality 14:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Texas Rangers - Consensus building attempt: Please vote V.2 - 08.16.2004

Message from: Rex071404 15:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have read the "Disagree" citations and am not persuaded that "allege improprieties" infers the correct tone. Also, virtually every time a pro-sports stadium is built, there are those who complain. And, not all of Bushes critics have ever said anything about the ball team - very few in fact have. If we were to keep this section, I prefer we re-write it as follows:

"Some critics of Bush castigate him for this venture. Concerns cited include the acquisition of the team and stadium as well as the land for the new ballpark. [28] There was also criticism regarding the eventual sale to a family friend, who some time later donated money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush personally earned US$14.9 million (in total, the sale earned US$170 million)." [29]

Support changing to v.2
  • Rex071404 15:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Floorsheim 16:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Altogether a good fix, I'd say. Although I'd switch the references. I think [21] is more pertinent to the first sentence. Also, there's a tense shift in sentence two.
  1. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Okay by me -- in fact way better than the one listed above (espcially cuz I'm tired of all this controversy) and why is it a problem that Bush sold the stadium? So what? It's a free market.
Oppose changing to v.2
Message to: Gzornenplatz; What is your opposition to v.2? Rex071404 20:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ilyanep's question actually proves what's wrong with your version: it makes it seem as if the critics somehow opposed the stadium deal as such (as if "acquisition of the team and stadium" is a "concern" in itself), when it's in fact the improprieties about it (the details of which are in the references). The original version is just fine. Gzornenplatz 20:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Tεxτurε 20:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) - "Castigate" as an introductory sentence takes this to the same place as the last one. I'd say strike the first sentence and start with "Critics cited concerns about the acquisition of the team and stadium as well as the land for the new ballpark." That gives the facts and no leaning either way.
  • Pedant KEEP V. 1 above but change the first sentence to make it not present-tense/quickly-dated, we can't really claim in an article that's been days in the editing, what is happening in the present, unless it's something like "Earth is slowly spiraling closer to the sun"Pedant 21:04, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
  • Kevin Baas | talk 21:09, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) I am not opposed to changing the paragraph in principle, I am opposed to changing it to the suggested version for the reason expressed by Gzornenplatz.
Support other version (supply text below)
  • Oppose both revisions. Nothing POV in original phrasing. Plus, people have provided plenty of references. So, leave it alone besides adding a link or two.Wolfman 18:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Texas Rangers - Consensus building attempt: v.3's - 08.16.2004

To: Group From Rex071404 21:20, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) Re: New version, please

Since it does appear that a majority of us are in agreement that the current version has room for improvement, I am asking one or more of you to re-write and place below, your suggested v.3 version. Those is favor of "no change" and who have already registered your comments to that effect, please allow this space for sample verions. Thank you.


Enter your suggestions for a v.3 version here:

v3.0

Critics expressed concern about the propriety of the purchase. Stated concerns include the acquisition of the team and stadium as well as the land for the new ballpark. [30] There was also criticism regarding the eventual sale to a family friend, who some time later donated money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush personally earned US$14.9 million (in total, the sale earned US$170 million)." [31]

v3.1

v3.2

I posted v. 3.0 but I'm holding my vote until I see the rest of the proposals.Pedant

I tried to merge all the different ideas people suggested, and also the original, then fiddled with it to make it not sound awkward. I haven't really thoroughly explored the content at those links, just a quick read of the page the link points to... someone may want to look over the whole site over there, or not. I'm not sure I expressed the pooint of what people thought was wrong with the purchase... if someone feels like it, I wouldn't mind hearing the full-on biased version of what this paragraph is getting at (on my talk page), I'm a little thick when it comes to politics, I'm not sure if the improprieties referred to are "get bush elected" type improprieties or "make bush some more millions" type.... I'd also like to see more proposals, even if they are just better versions of the one I posted. Pedant 10:29, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
v. 3.0 looks good! Rex071404 07:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protected against destructive effects of a stupid revert war. It would appear as if all parties have violated the 3 revert rule...

Nuff said -SV 17:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not true. For example, Blankfaze, a "party", only reverted once. Likewise, Style only reverted once. Gzornenplatz only reverted twice. Neutrality only reverted twice. (this is all since the last page protection). The statement "all parties have violated the three revert rule." is objectively false. Kevin Baas | talk 18:51, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
The only one who is violating the three-revert rule is VeryVerily, and this is at least the third protection he has now caused. Gzornenplatz 19:56, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily is outnumbered here, so that form of measurement is not completely fair. Rex071404 20:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"That form of measurement"? Regardless of the measure used, each user is allowed only three reverts per day. If many others believe a single individual is wrong then they "vote" (in one form) by returning the text to the way it was. They did this properly. If he is outnumbered he needs to obtain concensus before proceeding. (Happily that is being attempted above.) - Tεxτurε 20:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Everyone here is outnumbered. That form of measurement is completely fair because it applies equally to all people in equal circumstances. The form of measurement is wikipedia policy. If you want to dispute the three-revert rule, dispute it on the three revert page, and dispute it with respect to all similiar circumstances as this one, where I repeat, everyone is equally outnumbered. This, BTW, is why we build and respect consensus. One person, one vote. Period. Kevin Baas | talk 21:00, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
I actually believe we are capable of reaching actual consensus, which really would mean we don't need to vote or "win", we . This is a very noticeable discussion, let's use this as an opprtunity to show how consensus can be reached, even in the presence of our personal biases.Pedant 21:12, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

NPOV

Rex071404 23:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) says - We need to update the Texas Rangers (current version) because: The Neutral Point of View document says

  A lot of articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting
  both points of view; this is wrong. Even when a topic is presented in 
  terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an 
  implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or 
  more subtly their organization ...
What precisely do you regard as POV in the original phrasing? To me, it reports (but does not judge) a controversy.Wolfman 18:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's like asking me, what "precisely" is beauty? I think the newer versions I have endorsed on this page are less POV, don't you? Did you read all the above dialog on the subject? Rex071404 04:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes I read it. And no, I honestly don't think your suggestion is less POV. Partly, that's because I truly don't see anything POV about the original paragraph. If I understood more precisely what you see, it would be a bit easier. To illustrate, I'll give a couple examples of the POV I see in your suggested revision. First, you use the word 'castigate' which has a very negative connotation; that's a matter of tone. Second, your version leaves the impression that critics are just upset that Bush made some money; which makes them seem silly. (I have no idea what the precise criticisms are, or whether they are valid). The version by Pedant also suffers from this latter problem. The paragraph should at least mention what the actual criticism about team and land acquisition was. The original version at least offers the weak explanation of 'tactics'.Wolfman 06:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Baas | talk 23:48, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC) says: Also, from the same document:

  Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic, 
  is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so.
  If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or
  imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are
  just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact,
  and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of
  view. -- User:Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder

I think that the two statements don't contradict each other, because they differ in scope. The second statement (actually listed first on the NPOV page) is talking about specific statements within an article. The first statement is talking about the general impression of the entire article. I agree with both statements. Kevin Baas | talk 23:47, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Request for feedback: Wiki branches/voting proposal (an alternative to page protection)

This is off-topic for this page, but on-topic for controversial/disputed pages in general, so I hope you don't mind this brief interjection. I'm looking for a few good veterans of edit wars on frequently controversial pages like this one, who would be willing to look over a design proposal for Wiki branches that I've written up and will probably attempt to prototype in the near future (not likely on wikipedia itself at first, but perhaps on another experimental wiki). The whole thing is long, but I'd be quite happy if you only looked at the much shorter section on "Branches", which is the most important part. I'm particularly interested in hearing whether you think such a branch mechanism (a) would improve Wiki workflow and consensus-building, by allowing alternative approaches to be developed and evaluated side-by-side more easily, or (b) would hinder consensus-building by making it less necessary for the majority to take minority viewpoints into account. But in general, I'm interested in any and all comments, preferably on my talk page. Thanks! - Brynosaurus 09:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Catgories

Can someone add him to the Aviators catgory when it becomes unprotected?

I am trying to add all the rated pilots on wikipedia to that catgory.

PPGMD

Bush's height/weight

At his August 2001 physical, Bush was 6 feet 0 inches tall, and weighed 189.75 lbs

Thats just some info I'm going ad when the page isn't protected. Sam [Spade] 03:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Education and Science?

Would it make more sense to have an 'Education' heading and a separate 'Science and Environment' heading? It seems to me that the Science content is more closely related to the Environment content (especially with the mention of the Union of Concerned Scientists). --neatnate 04:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Barney the dog

I intend to add a link to this

Rex071404 05:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why? Just mention the dog, it doesn't deserve a separate link. RickK 06:05, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)