Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 27

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.

Here's the next one:

Contents

who's the person who's trying to edit in

..the stuff aboutority since bla bla bla"' Every US president wins by the largest majority since whoever else, the population of the US grows exponentially ..by the same token you should point out that despite gore having lost the 2000 election, he too had more votes than any US president in history - Myself 172.131.142.45 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

thats not techincally true, see, since the electoral colledge controls the actual voting and the poopulace has no real say, no [president can actually win by majority in the first place. Gabrielsimon 13:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

btw, is somene gonnna ding him for 3rr? Gabrielsimon 13:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What 3rr? did I revert anything 3 times? btw. since I have a dynamic ip address don't you think it would be kind of silly to sign it by ip? not to mention I didn't even link to a user_talk page so how as I impersonating anyone? unless you think I'm impersonating an actual tree frog? I don't think they can type. I made a minor comment, didn't seem like it was worth registering, there are plenty of unregistered editors, besides which, this is a discussion page, not an article - Myself/172.131.142.45/172.154.34.181

Nonetheless, using a false signature (whether it is obvious or not) is a violation of policy. It is policy to always sign contributions to talk pages; it doesn't matter if you have a dynamic IP or not, it's still our policy. As for the 3RR, I'll leave that to Gabrielsimon -- Essjay · Talk 14:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The question of the "largest number of votes ever" has come up before. As population increases, the total vote increases. Therefore, it's not worth noting that Bush received more popular votes than any previous candidate. See the extensive prior discussion of the point here. No one thinks that Bush is more popular than George Washington was. JamesMLane 23:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Fine, then take it out but balance, balance, balance. Was it really necessary to point out how Clinton did and disclaim why he never received a majority: this makes him look better, yet has nothing to do with the article. Is it really fair to say that he only won by "3%" as if it is bad? Why talk about all former presidents who failed to get a majority? They say that Bush had the highest approval rating ever, yet look at the unique crisis in American history. Therefore, it's not worth noting? Look at the times of terrorism and gas out of control. Therefore, it's not worth noting? My point: even the inauguration dealt with Bush's failures compared to presidential history. Therefore, it's not worth noting? It seems, just as the science debate went, if it is negative or anti-Bush, it is worth reporting. Fine, your criticism is valid, but everything can't be about criticism, abouth U.S. science and engineering contributions to important national needs. The statement cautions "recent efforts by our government to constrain the flow of international visitors in the name of national security are having serious unintended consequences for American science, engineering and medicine" and urges the U.S. government to take prompt action."[1] This adds a new dimension to the statement in this section: "hampering cooperation with foreign scientists by enforcing deterring immigration and visa restrictions." Indeed, reading the policy means this statement is SPIN! Obvious POV -- why so many on this site. Balanced would be in place of the preceding quote: "many scientists are upset over increased immigrant restrictions brought on for national security reasons has had the unintended consequence of decreasing immigration by foreign scientists." Whoever put in "hampering" just plain skewed the facts or had them so wrong it is amazing. Whatever the case might be, lets get it right.

4. God forbid something positive fall in here, but hey, contrary to what Gabriel says, including only facts can be negative if they are misplaced, overboard, or do not spek of both sides. That is all I'm looking at: Bush might be great, he might be Satan, but the facts must represent him in a manner that is fair, non-biased, and takes into consideration how other presidents and dignitaries are represented on Wikipedia. Since it is wholly unacceptable to slam Bill Clinton for the sake of the salacious and the juicy (though perfectly acceptable to talk about the bad and the ugly when relevant, such as when talking about Impeachment), the same standard must apply here. Fairness cries for it. This sentence needs to be added to the end of paragraph one under the Science section: "On December 19, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law H. R. 4664 far-reaching legislation to put the National Science Foundation (NSF) on a track to double its budget over five years and to create new mathematics and science education initiatives at both the pre-college and undergraduate level.[2] Factual and balanced!

I was asked to comment on the global warming (GW) type stuff in the science section. I don't understand what the anon is talking about above I agree with the conclusions of the 1995 IPCC is presented as a quote, but its not in the article, so who is being quoted? And anyway we're on the 2001 report now, and the benchmark there is probably There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Bush has repeatedly avoided accepting this, and (IMHO) could reasonably be described as not accepting the scientific consensus on GW. If you want the science of GW, then look at the GW page and scientific opinion on climate change. But this page isn't a place to re-fight the GW wars.
What should probably be in that section is some comments that Science magazine has made: [3] and look for The Bush Administration's Approach to Climate Change and Science and the Bush Administration. Both of these (from memory; they require subscription) were fairly critical of the Bush approach to science. Also [4]. William M. Connolley 22:26:57, 2005-07-10 (UTC).
Then say "there is almost universal consensus" or "most scientists suggest," but don't make a blanketed, unsupported statement. I don't want to fight a war, but if a claim is made that is still questionable and, or not exactly understood, then express that contention if only to be honest. Let the GW site fight it out on whether it is correct or not. Give a reference, not an article critical of Bush. Note: author of quote is listed in article.
Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement, so "there is almost universal consensus" is pointless. William M. Connolley 23:35:32, 2005-07-10 (UTC).
Here is the definition for consensus: Main Entry: con·sen·sus

Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Latin, from consentire 1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports... from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead> 2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.


Main Entry: unan·i·mous Pronunciation: yu-'na-n&-m&s Function: adjective Etymology: Latin unanimus, from unus one + animus mind -- more at ONE, ANIMATE 1 : being of one mind : AGREEING 2 : formed with or indicating unanimity : having the agreement and consent of all - unan·i·mous·ly adverb

So, no William, Merriam-Webster disagrees with your contention that consensus doesn't mean 100%, though it can mean group solidarity (or read as most). The common idea is most; without a citation or a factual claim, this article abous scientific criticism is just someone's point of view. Furthermore, "universal consensus" with or without a modifier is commonly used in everyday English, though I do wince at a hint of redundancy (though others do not). Thanks for the academic discussion. Hopefully we have reached a consensus. Anon poster, David

Just don't pass off consensus that doesn't exist as fact. Here are some examples that need to change consensus to either "many scientists" or "the IPCC": Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offered an explanation of the phenomenon during a recent National Press Club briefing "Climate Alarm — Where does it come from?": "With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics."[5] IPCC concludes, "Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely [my words: likely does not mean unquestionable consensu] to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."[6] "To highlight the difficulty of reaching true scientific consensus, one need only consider the infamous 1,000-year temperature history prominently featured in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). It re-appeared in the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Overview Report and is a perfect example of the complex challenge of achieving quantitative understanding of the earth’s climate system. The ‘hockey stick curve’ was almost unanimously hailed as a scientific consensus that strongly suggests the exceptional nature of temperature change in the last fifty years. But it wasn’t long before independent-minded scientists and researchers discovered holes in the theory. That fact alone invalidates the claim of consensus." [7] More recently, Theodore Anderson and colleagues (2003) issued several strong cautions in Science: "Unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropogenic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change (diagnosis, attribution, and projection studies; denoted “applications” in the figure) have used only aerosol forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach. If such studies were conducted with the larger range of aerosol forcings determined from the forward calculations, the results would differ greatly."[8] And on, and on, and on. The real reason: Bush might have ignored what many (heck, possibly most) scientists believe. That is a discussion for the GW page. It is valid here to state that scientific consenus is a misnomer at best, at worst an attempt to impugn the article. Either way, we need balanced facts, not speculation. REMOVE IT!
You can't disprove a consensus by quoting a few counter-examples: its simply a logical fallacy. http://www.co2andclimate.org/ is industry funded disinformation, not science. Go look at the scientific opinion on climate change article. c 23:35:32, 2005-07-10 (UTC).
Although I agree with William M. Connolley about the scientific consensus, these comments ignore a more fundamental point: The article doesn't make any assertions about the scientific consensus. In context, what the article says is: "Scientists have repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for . . . ignoring scientific consensus on global warming . . . ." As with any other instance of criticism of a controversial figure, our goal is that our report of the criticism be accurate, regardless of whether the criticism itself is accurate. In this case, there are certainly many, many scientists who consider that there is a consensus. Whether the counterexamples adduced by the anon disprove that point or are simply the industry's efforts to spin the issue is not an issue that needs to be addressed in this article. (If we were to address it, I would favor the conclusions stated by William M. Connolley. I, too, have a great deal of trouble understanding what the anon is talking about.) This page isn't a place to re-fight the GW wars; we're busy enough with the GWB wars. JamesMLane 23:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
First, including the IPCC quote that can be had from the IPCC website, the issue is that there isn't scientific consensus (even if you don't like where some of the information comes from, but you could say the Oregon Petition with 17,000 scientists (now this has to hardly be a logical fallacy?), once again in the mainstream and others, such as Dr. Fred Singer do not lead to a scientific consensus; I only add this to state my main point: there are always two sides of an issue).[9] I don't know why anyone has trouble understanding that. Then you indeed do not counter my example but rather bolster it by stating, "As with any other instance of criticism of a controversial figure, our goal is that our report of the criticism be accurate, regardless of whether the criticism itself is accurate." Maybe I have missed something, but state who the scientists are that believe in all three and have issued the statements (saying "Scientists criticize" connotes unfairly that Bush is in la la land by examining the facts -- let the reader know know who the scientists are; to do otherwise is conjecture) . Then to be balanced, give the supporters of Bush (which is why I ask that discrediting statements about these statements be given if the article is to respond to both sides. I too believe in global warming, I just don't know what scientists said all three statements and why such a one sided portrayal would be offered. That is a POV: let's just offer the info that bashed Bush; I respectfully disagree, and as read, it sounds like the consensus is a foregone conclusion. Be balanced: tell exactly who offered the criticism and when, and then give the other side (which I have attempted to do). Source the data and expropriate the material so that two things happen:
A. Corrected from generalization (obvious fallacy) to something like, "Thirty leading scientists in Science magazine reported . . . ." (web citation) This is purely an example. It could be 17,000 signing the Oregon Petition to 100,000 doing whatever. I don't care, but "Just the facts, sir, just the facts." Without a source, who criticized? Evidence, evidence, evidence (completely lacking right now)
B. Give the other side to be balanced and fair (hey, what does anyone have to be a afraid of). NOTE: I don't give a rat's behind about the merits of global warming, but I do care if it is listed as factual, without corrobation of it as criticism, and without giving both sides of the story. Evidence, evidence, evidence (which is offered on this discussion page).
To do otherwise is to offer one unsubstantiated point of view that does not talk about both sides even remotely in a fair manner.
I am going to balance the "criticism" offered by scientists in the interest of offering both sides (this is only fair). PLEASE, someone, tell me who made all three claims or if three different groups, then please cite appropriately. Otherwise, this whole discussion is moot.

Harken Energy and SEC

The SEC memo quoted is a downright distortion of the truth! It is ridiculous to pass it off as fact, "The federal Securities and Exchange Commission concluded: "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," but noted that its memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result." (Why anyone would state that this is under the title "Bush and early political career" is beyond me.) To be balanced and truthful, it should say, "The SEC, in a final memo dated March 27, 1992, fully exonerated Bush, stating Bush had a "preexisting plan" to sell the Harken stock for his Texas Rangers and that Bush had a "relatively limited role in Harken management."[10][11]

How the original blog got in there and went unchecked is unbelievable. Give the truth and at least be balanced!

Sorry, i missed where the SEC "fully exonerated" Bush. The report you link does note that Bush's attorneys claim the stock sale was pre-arranged. It also notes that Bush was likely unaware of the full extent of projected Harken losses. Exonerate, I do not see. Am I missing something? Derex 02:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
A man after my own heart! Someone that reads the evidence . . . they do peruse this site! Exonerate, according to Merriam-Webster means "to clear from accusation or blame," as you are well aware of. It is my word, and I think it is fully backed up by the SEC memos; nevertheless, it is quite strong and might be better suited with "cleared of any wrong doing" instead of "exonerate" (which he clearly was). Just my own two cents (not supported by facts): Bush's dad was president at the time, so in my opinion, I think there is a good chance of insider trading. Yet, no facts. Anon, David
Instead of deciding how to interpret the SEC's words, I think we do better to quote the words (to the extent feasible), and leave the speculation to the reader. I see no indication that the file memo about Bush's "preexisting plan" was an official SEC conclusion; what the SEC communicated to Bush's lawyer is more authoritative. JamesMLane 06:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't read ALL the memos and relied on CNN. A shame. The memo is clearly the conclusion for the file in response to a congressional inquiry by Lloyd Benstsen and a representative (by law, they did not send the memo to the legislators, but fulfilled the requests to conduct an investigation because of a New York Times article). Alas, then it is not speculation but a conclusion (PLEASE read the SEC documents before criticizing; even sadder is that the Center for Public Integrity acknowledges on their website something that makes them a trustworthy site: George Soros is their primary backer and they released all these memos to coincide with the 2000 election); this is not what they considered (quote for my little mind where the action memo and the summary for file says they are in the midsts of "considering"; just plain not the truth or a lack or critical understanding or both). Even their action memo dated a week early SUMMARIZES their conclusions. Why is this less authoritative than the SEC communication you quote through a secondary source? Your site is less authoritative because it is a secondary source quoting a primary source (kudos for those of you who realize this is common sense). These are all primary sources, and should be presented as such. Now as for CNN, which you quote, the Free Rupblic and other anti-Bush documents quote what you want included, which might have come from Bruce Hiler. As quoted by the Washington Post, "In October 1993 the SEC cleared Bush of any wrongdoing."["http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/articles/primer.html]
A half-truth is a lie. Hiler concluded, "I absolutely feel we did a good job looking at this," Hiler added. "There was no case that I would have felt comfortable bringing. There was no indication of wrongdoing." He went on to say: "Bush has asserted for years that he did not know the extent of Harken's losses when he sold the stock.In a March 1992 memorandum prepared by Hiler and other investigators, the SEC backed up this assertion, saying the "evidence establishes that Bush was not aware of the majority of the items that comprised the loss Harken announced. Based upon our investigation, it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading because it does not appear that he possessed material nonpublic information."[12] (or check the real thing at the Center for Public Integrity) Is this more authoritative since it is a direct quote by Hiler as well? To be balanced, it is difficult to accept James's assertion when all other evidence besides CNN, Democratic Underground, and the Free Republic source one document. Let's be fair: the entire case, regardless of our feelings, say that Bush was exonerated (which just means cleared of wrong doing). To ignore the plethora of information, which I again laboriously present, is to offer a POV to appear Bush might have done something wrong with ancedotal evidence. Even UPI, which has an obvious anti-Bush slant (which they at least acknowledge) stated about the Hiler document, "The SEC routinely notes that these letters 'must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation of that particular matter.'"[13] In October 1994 the head of the SEC's enforcement division, William McLucas, went beyond the letter and stated publicly that "there was no case there," even if the author of the article Hiler had been viewed as more cautious.[14] Now that is RIDICULOUS to not post! Please research thoroughly before changing back out of hand. (Still have not located the actual letter given to Bush dated Oct. 18, 1993. This is what is needed.) Also, type in the quote "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation of that particular matter" into a Yahoo search engine and you will find that it very much is stock language.

There you have it: the verdict is in. The overwhelming evidence objectively states that Bush was cleared of wrong doing. If editors think it is better to quote CNN than the actual SEC documents connected with the investigation, then the UPI, Washington Post, and actual memos will have to be posted so that the readers will have a full picture. Just the facts, sir, just the facts. Anon, David


Hey David, just thought I'd point out that you need to check your tone, buddy. It sounds like you have some good ideas to help balance the article, but the forcefulness of which you shove your opinion down our throats is a bit unnerving... I think most of us here are fully willing to discuss these changes with you in a calm manner, remember, assume good faith! --kizzle 17:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, point well taken. I know from dealing with the Clinton side that very little was changed without lengthy citings and politicking. For that, I apologize. I am very diligent at editing and sourcing (indeed, that is also a mainstay of my profession). While I am an obvious Bush supporter, I do not and never have supported the war in Iraq (at least not how it has come about). I also do not believe that NCLB, as currently written, is in the best interest of children. It just is that someone dismisses my Harken comments out of hand as ridiculous without offering any new information. I don't mind being wrong (I know on the Clinton page I do not believe a statistic, but I can't corroborate what I believe to be true, so my edit is out). So, I do apologize if I have come off as a bully. I just want balance, the truth, and corroboration. Hey, there are lots of juicy stories out there, but I want the facts to be right and I believe that it is never acceptable to make blanketed statements (believe me, the Clinton article had some much more horrendous than would ever appear on here, such as one statement several editors wanted to keep in: "Clinton is a man of the people"). So, keep me in line, but I hope at least people will respond with you: valid criticism based off of a fair assessmnt of all the facts and open to examining primary sources as well as common ones. Anon, David
Good start. I was the original author of much of the insider trading allegations section (but not the subsequent memos clearing Bush of charges)... do you have any interesting sources to post that would broaden my knowledge of what is already there, or maybe supply any missing context? I don't doubt that the SEC fully exhonerated Bush, however it is a bit fishy both that his own lawyer advised him not to sell and that the makeup of the SEC at the time consisted of friends of the Bush family. --kizzle 22:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle: start with [15]. This is the best site to sort through all the primary source documents of the SEC and Harken (all are in pdfs). Then read what the Washington Post, UPI, and the Democratic Underground have to say (the good point about these last two sites and the Center for Public Integrity is that they have an obvious political slant, so they have digged really deep to find the goods). Good luck, and let me know after that if you want more info. Anon, David

Please stop protecting this page!

Now we have yet another protection. The results are: (1) an anonymous editor's heavily POV changes, some of which controvert extensive discussions on this page, are now protected (I know about admins always protecting the wrong version, but this one is more egregious than most); (2) one of our most prominent and most-visited pages is highlighting an implication that our whole approach of open editing is misguided; and (3) all these results have been achieved because of (I gather) one particular vandal, thus demonstrating to him/her that this adolescent conduct can have an effect on this website, a demonstration that will only encourage more vandalism.

Admins are going to have to resign themselves to a simple fact: This article will never be free of vandalism as long as Bush is President. We can flee in panic and be protecting the thing twice a week for the next three and a half years, or we can deal with the vandalism the way we have been up until now, by which we fix the article, block the vandals to the extent possible, and show them that they're wasting their time. Experience has been that they go away after a while. As Wired magazine put it in an article about Wikipedia, "given enough eyeballs, all thugs are callow." [16] JamesMLane 00:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have unprotected the article (again) now. Shanes 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

National Guard and 2004 Election

I can hear it already: this anon blogger wants to remove National Guard issue. NO! Absolutely not, though I believe it is very lacking on fact and balance (as one poster said to me earlier, you cannot use shady sources to be logical); someone (possibly me) needs to balance out the issue -- there is no doubt that there is something rotten in Denmark, but criticism goes both ways. As for relevance of Kerry posting, I intentionally prefaced it the same way as the National Guard comments to make the point that the negative (and nonetheless wholly justified if one-sided) is "relevant," but obvious factual information about Bush at Yale (not wholly positive, but by no means negative) is irrelevant. By what standard? To be fair, either remove the National Guard paragraph (which would be egregious, though does not absolve it of the need to be balanced) or let facts as significant as the one about the Kerry/intellectual versus Bush/mildly mentally retarded (ok, ok, I'm overdoing it, and no, I don't mean by the mildly). What is the difference beside the spin? Remember, just the facts, just the facts. Anon David

i'd like to see a comparison between SAT scores or aptitude tests rather than simply a comparison of grades, as I think an argument that Bush is smarter than Kerry is a hard one to win. Grades characterize one's ability to do hard work on time, not one's mental capacity for logical thought. --kizzle 22:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think Bush is smarter, by any means. It would be nice to have more info. I am just making an point of how one thing is judged relevant/partisan and another thing is judged irrelevant/factual; this all leads to an earlier criticism, namely my bit about Kerry and the National Guard stuff being in Bush's early life and not in the election or scandal stuff. It would be nice if a good editor would say they were a source of contention or something and then move them to the appropriate section (but leave the DUI and drug allegations). Anon David
David, this comparison is misguided. You're ignoring a fundamental point. This article isn't "Information to help you decide whether Bush or Kerry would've made a better President". This article is about Bush. Information about his military service or lack thereof is part of his biography. Information about someone else's college transcript 40 years ago is not part of Bush's biography. If we were to compare their grades, per your insert, then, to treat the subjects equally, we'd have to supplement the Texans for Truth paragraph with a mention that, while Bush was somehow mysteriously getting into the National Guard, and not performing even the minimal obligations of that position, Kerry was fighting in Vietnam and receiving several medals. If Kerry's grades are relevant here, so is his service record. In fact, however, neither of those subjects is relevant here. Also, I don't understand your last comment about the military service issues being a source of contention so they should be moved. The history is that the Bush article mentioned the TANG issues, then more information was added about the subject, then still more, until it got to the point that it was so detailed that it was overwhelming the article. Accordingly, it was spun off into a daughter article, leaving only a summary here. What's wrong with that approach? JamesMLane 23:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: I see you've now restored this minor point about Kerry's life (his college grades) while still not putting in anything about Kerry's decorated military service in Vietnam -- which was much more important in his life and was much more important in the 2004 election. Also more important in the 2004 election was that, although Bush and Kerry both came from the upper class, Bush defended his policy of ladling out huge tax breaks to his rich cronies, while Kerry called for rescinding the tax breaks given to the most wealthy. Should we include all these things in this article? No, we should not. This article is about George W. Bush. This article is not about John Kerry. The people who think that Kerry's Yale transcript was the most significant news event of the last several months have already inserted it in John Kerry. It doesn't belong here. JamesMLane 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Then add in my paragraph a small sentence about Kerry's military service (though I'll have to add a small link to the veterans of the swift boats. Your approach is perfectly balanced (though, as you stated, it is about Bush, so keep it brief).
I respectfully disagree. The National Guard issue is fine, except it offers the negatives and mentions Texans for Truth without so much as being balanced. Much more balanced for the approach would be to mention the contention and leave it on the daughter article. Simply unfair to mention part of the criticism (especially the drug testing), and then say see another article. If this is the only page the reader peruses, then he or she leaves with a slanted view. The summary is not a summary but charges leveled. I think it needs to be balanced to the extent that it says there are debates over it and eliminate the Texans for Truth section OR include something from the other side. Secondly, by mentioning the 2004 election in one place makes it relevant to mention it in the same place even if it is positive. The fact is not about Kerry but about Bush. To relegate it to irrelevancy when it was a major political issue is disingenous; if biographical is not acceptable here, then how can we justify giving an entire paragraph to the ambassador to Romania or about the man in Science outed for bias by the New York Times (which comes up, is negative, and is instantly relevant, yet the Kerry-Bush feud about intelligence was and is a much broader issue). The only thing I can see is that both are negative and go overboard. But, if they can receive that much coverage, then maybe everything should (especially when concerning the Science section and the policy chief, the final word is not in yet). My correction has been offered: I moved this commentary to the 2004 presidential campaign. I believe now that the ambassador to Romania and Bush's policy chief shouldn't take up a third of each of the respective sections. Anon David
Mischaracterization says Fuz. Well, that is you opinion. The Washington Post says, "Sen. John F. Kerry's grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign." [17]][18] NPR Radio says, "NPR Audio: Bush Beats Kerry by a Point, at Yale Much was made during the past two presidential elections about President George W. Bush's mediocre grades at Yale. It now turns out that his 2004 opponent Sen. John Kerry had similar grades."[19] CBS in New York said, "Kerry's Yale Grades Similar To Bush's. Jun 7, 2005."[20] From the Telegraph in England, "But Mr Bush's 'grade point average', a numeric total of the A-D grades awarded during his four-year course, just pipped Mr Kerry's. The president achieved an average of 77, while Mr Kerry's was 76. Both results equate to a C grade. Mr Kerry appears to have performed indifferently in his first year, with four D grades out of 10, although he did far better in his next three years. He told the paper: 'I always told my Dad that 'D' stood for distinction.' The news of Mr Bush's superior performance appears to confound a widely-held belief among America's Democrat-dominated metropolitan classes that the president is dim."[21]

And on and on and on. The mainstream media disagrees with you Fuz (not that that makes them right). But, let's stick with the facts. It would be a mischaracterization NOT to include this fact about the 2004 presidential campaign and election. The facts are in: this is not about Kerry, this is about Bush and how critics have handled him (note: all the above sources talk about Bush because he was the ultimate winner, but it would be moot to discuss this criticism of Bush if Kerry was left out. As stated earlier by James, it isn't so much that the criticism is right (or that we even agree), but that we portray the criticism correctly. You've already portrayed the military service (even if not talking about it in the article being a major source of contention because of Kerry, but we all know that that is why) as a major 2004 election issue. Apparently everyone else thinks this is too. Let's give the facts. Why ignore what is accepted by fact in polls and the media and yet pass off that Wiki is neutral yet we won't cover issues we don't like. Anon David (section is below: show the lack of fact if you are able)


The 2004 presidential election was hard fought between John Kerry and George Bush. The economy, the war in Iraq, and terrorism were hot issues. In the election Kerry portrayed himself as the intellectual in contrast to Bush.[22]][23] This issue of Bush's academic and intellectual levels were publicized during the 2004 campaign.[24] Bush's critics often state that Bush is not intellectually up to the job of being president; even his wife satired his intelligence.."[25] Yet, Bush received almost identical grades as John Kerry at Yale, while it was widely known that Kerry portrayed himself in contrast to Bush as the intellectual choice. This fact of the Bush-Kerry election remained sealed until after the 2004 campaign was over.[26][27] Another further issue was that Kerry questioned Bush's war record while citing his own record of service in Vietnam.

You're really really missing the point. You ask, "if biographical is not acceptable here, then how can we justify giving an entire paragraph to the ambassador to Romania or about the man in Science outed for bias by the New York Times...." No one said that "biographical" is not acceptable here. The article is a biographical article about Bush. Biographical material about Bush (his appointment of a gay ambassador, a dispute about how his administration dealt with scientific advice, etc.) is acceptable. It's biographical material about Kerry that's not acceptable. If we were to follow your principle, we'd have to give much more space to Kerry's service record than to his grades. I agree with Fuzheado's point about a mischaracterization. Look at Kerry's speeches, website, campaign material, etc., and you'll see that Kerry devoted much, much more energy to contrasting their service records than to contrasting their intelligence. To be proportional, the recounting of Kerry's record in Vietnam would have to be about ten times as long as the recounting of his Yale years. If you believe that a biographical article about Bush must include all the pros and cons of the 2004 election, then we'd also have to include Kerry's position on major issues like tax cuts. And, if we go that route, on what basis could we limit this election rehashing to 2004? Wouldn't we have to give Al Gore's military service record, too? Gore was in Vietnam, but, for balance, we'd have to explain that he was in the military as a journalist, and there are conflicting allegations about whether his work ever put him in any danger. Also, speaking of Bush's comparative intelligence, we'd have to note that many people saw Gore as being more intelligent than Bush because Gore had written a book. And then, of course, to refute that, anything negative we can find about Gore's academic career would go in. Oops, wait a minute, I've been thinking only about the major-party candidates. We need some space for how Ralph Nader criticized both of them, right?
Pity the poor reader who just wants to know something about the President of the United States and finds the information buried amidst all this election rehashing. It's an absolutely absurd path to start down. There's no reason for putting Kerry's college grades in this article except that people who dislike Kerry made such a big deal about the transcript. The information is in the Kerry article. Trying to stick it in here is pure POV. JamesMLane 01:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Pity the reader that wants to read facts and not editorials. As previously stated Mr. Lane, you will not and cannot offer facts to back up your opinion, something you have been criticized repeatedly for in the past. You back me up by stating, "Biographical material about Bush (his appointment of a gay ambassador, a dispute about how his administration dealt with scientific advice, etc.) is acceptable." How about biographical material that states Bush's academic position in relationship to his 2004 campaign as ALL of my sources state, was and is a major issue (where are your sources besides your opinion)? Disputes and appointments are acceptable, but the news is not? Where is that logic. You can talk about the slippery slope, but that is absurd UNLESS you offer valid criticism. I'm not talking about Ralph Nader or minor politics: I discussed how all major media outlets, including those with pro-Kerry slants, thought this was a significant issue. This is biographical material just as the Texans for Truth is. Yet, that is here and this isn't. You think balance is elusive and offer ridiculous arguments to state why there is no way we can't be balanced. Balance can be had. Look at the Kerry article you cite: it has criticisms and scandal (though it woefully downplays the 2004 election), but they are done discreetly and as an aside. Why don't you want a MAJOR issue brought forth? Certainly you don't claim to have a monopoly on deciding major and minor issues and all the news organizations are wrong? Once again, you offer no facts, but instead go on a long tirade why you feel this is about people that dislike Kerry. That is your spin -- I am offering concrete facts offered by ALL major media outlets, includint outside of the US. GIVE EVIDENCE MR. Lane to refute this. One piece.
As far as including everything, that is not the point. The point is that if you offer criticism and, or an issue, at least have the moral decency to recognize that the other side must be presented UNLESS you are writing an editorial. Just the facts, and you have none except as listed (you own political agenda to subordinate this to "dislike of Kerry). That is your spin. Not mine. Back in until you can give a FACT that makes this a minor issue. Anon David
Just because something is factual doesn't mean its appropriate, David. I personally am abstaining from whether or not the information should be included here, but just because something is true, does not mean it fits the scope of the article. James does have a point in saying that this is a biographical article about George W. Bush, not a page comparing John Kerry to George W. Bush. If you must have this information comparing John Kerry to George W. Bush in grades, this opens the floodgates for any comparison at all to John Kerry. I believe that a much greater issue during the campaign was each candidate's military record. Should we preface every mention on this article about Bush's military service with "Unlike Kerry who actually served in combat, Bush pussed out of the war because of his daddy's connections"? That is a much greater issue than the grades each of them got. The issue over gay marriage was also greater than their grades (arguably greater than their military service)... should we preface Bush's stance on gay marriage, if not all issues, with "Unlike Kerry, Bush believes..."? In fact, we can preface each sentence in this article with "Unlike John Kerry, Bush did..." but I don't think that's the road we want to go down.
And secondly, I don't think anyone who edits on Wikipedia frequently and knows James has ever criticized him for not offering facts to back up his opinion. He is probably one of the most highly regarded editors on most pages he contributes to. Your style of discussion here despite apologizing earlier is still a highly combative tone towards these editors. While James may disagree with you, I don't find any cause in his response to warrant these aggressive responses from you. Chill out, bro. --kizzle 02:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, kizzle. I hope I don't undermine your praise by saying that I'm going to make one more try, and then I'll probably have to stop spending time trying to reason with the anon. I've explained the point. You've explained it. Others have joined in. The anon is just not paying attention.
David, I don't understand what kind of "EVIDENCE" you think is missing. My point is that this is not an article about the 2004 election. It's an article about George W. Bush. If you want the evidence, scroll all the way up to the top of this page and look at the title of the talk page. Perhaps you mean you want evidence of my contention that, in the 2004 campaign, comparisons of the two major candidates' records in the Vietnam War played a role. If that's your request, I simply can't take it seriously. "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty" -- does that ring a bell? Kerry's campaign website had a whole page titled "John Kerry in Vietnam". On the other side, anti-Kerry veterans attacked him on his service record by publishing a book that became a best-seller, and with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign (four TV ads). See Swift Vets and POWs for Truth. How much space do you propose to devote to John Kerry's Vietnam record in the Bush article? I suppose we'd have to at least mention each of Kerry's five medals. The Swift Vets were particularly riled at his Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony, which also received much more attention in the campaign than did anyone's grades at Yale, so do you favor a sentence or two about that? This isn't a slippery slope; it's walking right over the edge of a cliff. JamesMLane 03:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
James, I wish I would have seen this earlier. You've explained your view, others have joined you -- it isn't that I'm not paying attention, but I am not going to be swayed by what some one else says unless they can back it up. First, they say Bush's intelligence in light of the disclosure of Kerry's record isn't even about Bush. Yet, no media agrees, and the pollsters and people in the know (read the articles, don't believe me) disagree with your contention. Secondly, I ask for evidence why it is irrelevant yet other 2004 Election issues are relevant (even the claim that this isn't about the 2004 election is ridiculous: there is a section titled 2004 election that offers more historical facts than even I care to read). I think it is preposterous to pick and choose, and I think this is so obvious is not debatable. Thirdly, and as my sources point out, the Vietnam record does not seem to be an issue right now (though there are apparently daughter sites that are taking care of them), but this was, is, and appears will be because it talks about a well known issue much larger than John Kerry. Finally, I am not contending that there isn't criticism on other pages, but I do believe that it can be balanced. I desperately wanted someone to use logic to say, "Hey, wait a minute. This isn't fair -- in one place it is great to talk about Bush and the 2004 election but in another place we just say look at the title, this isn't John Kerry's site (last I checked, it wasn's Texans for Truth's either), and irrelevant. That certainly isn't balanced, fair, or even neutral to talk about some things and leave key facts out." Alas, I didn't get this, and that is the point. If you bring up the bad, then be willing to hear the good and vice versa. If you do a little of one thing, don't judge what is and isn't acceptable. That's right: walking over the edge is missing things like the SEC, Cooney, the governorship, and many other slants (such as one 2004 election is acceptable but another belongs on another page; NO logic there no matter how long you argue). Either get truthful and offer both sides equitably, or expect this kind of a problem. I will even conclude with what you said about, "Hi, I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for service." If you added one statement like that or anything skewed, then yes, I would quickly add that he didn't even get a scratch from a purple heart. Why? Only the whole truth is the truth; leaving things out that are relevant is unacceptable. I still like such spirited debates, though I am paying attention, my arguments were never answered beyond opinions and quibblings. Anon David
I know I said I wasn’t going to try to explain this again but, frankly, I just cannot understand why you miss this point, and especially why you keep raising the same argument and not responding to what everyone else has told you.
  • “First, they say Bush's intelligence in light of the disclosure of Kerry's record isn't even about Bush. Yet, no media agrees, and the pollsters and people in the know (read the articles, don't believe me) disagree with your contention.” False. The media reported this as a fact likely to interest many people. They also reported it when, earlier this year, Kerry authorized release of his military records. I never denied that some people were very interested in these facts, and that’s all your citations prove.
  • “Secondly, I ask for evidence why it is irrelevant yet other 2004 Election issues are relevant....” You have been told that over and over and over. This is not an article about the election. It’s an article about Bush. Things that relate to Bush, like his military record, belong in it. Things that don’t relate to Bush, like Kerry’s heroism in Vietnam or Nader’s exclusion from the debates, may be quite relevant to the election and yet not relevant to Bush.
    • Incidentally, that fundamental point also explains why your deletion of the jobs information is wrong. Bush supporters wanted to point out that there was not a net loss of jobs during his first term. That's a fact about his presidency -- Bush's presidency. It's relevant to this article. Whether it's presented with the side comment that it's a point Kerry was attacking on (before the post-election jobs data) isn't all that important, but I think it's helpful to give the context of the fact. Even if Kerry had never mentioned it, though, it would be an appropriate fact for the Bush bio.
  • “Thirdly ....” I’m not quoting your third point because I have no idea what you’re trying to say and hence no response.
  • “Finally, I am not contending that there isn't criticism on other pages, but I do believe that it can be balanced.” Yes, it’s balanced. The Bush article mentions the charge that Bush ducked service in Vietnam, and links to a daughter article about it. The Kerry article mentions the charge that Kerry didn’t deserve his Vietnam medals, and links to a daughter article about it. The Bush article doesn’t mention Kerry’s medals. The Kerry article doesn’t mention Bush’s National Guard record. Equal treatment!
Although it’s totally irrelevant to this article, I yield to the temptation to note that your charge that Kerry “didn't even get a scratch from a purple heart” is false.
I'm willing to see significant information about Bush, including information about his intelligence, in the article. Comparing his grades to one among millions of other college students is not significant, however. Your argument seems to be that comparing him to Kerry is significant because Kerry raised the issue. Even if Kerry had done so, that wouldn't make this specific comparison particularly illuminating as to Bush. In addition, though, the premise that Kerry emphasized the point is wrong. Here's the passage in the article (which I think is from you or somebody modifying your work, I can't keep track when you edit anonymously and we have so much anonymous vandalism): "This became a source of contention during the 2004 election with his opponents stating that Bush was less intelligent than his Democratic challenger." I've tried to follow all the citations. My results:
I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry made some offhand comment along these lines, but it wasn't a major theme of his campaign. Hence, your statement on this talk page - “Kerry portrays himself as the intellectual choice compared to Bush...” - is not supported by your citations. Nor would it be relevant even if it were supported. JamesMLane 08:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll get more sources if needed, though widely known. Once again, balance. It is fine to mention Kerry's supporters when talking about the economy, but not fine when talking about Kerry's supporters with Bush's intelligence. What's the difference? When dealing with me, you say this isn't about Kerry and delete. When talking about the economy, you say this is about Kerry and put it back in. Where is the balance there unless you were writing for the Democratic National Convention? Both talk about Kerry's supporters, yet you think one should be included and the other shouldn't? One 2004 election issue can be included about the National Guard, but the other can't 2004 election issue about intellect cannot. The intellect can't because this article isn't about the 2004 election or about Bush (then who are they talking about?), but the other 2004 election material can even though you say it should be on another page. That is not fair: I don't want opinions, I want to know why someone believes they can offer a neutral point of view by claiming that they can talk about some 2004 issues and not others; they can talk about a person at sometimes and not others; and then claim this is fair. PLEASE just be balanced, factual, and parallel.
Just ask: If nothing is to be said about Kerry, does including the unreferenced Kerry piece about the economy violate your own claim? A resounding yes, though I'm sure someone will get on here and tell me the talk about Kerry's supporters isn't about Kerry's supporters, and I'll call them doublespeak.
Just ask: if nothing is to be said about the 2004 election, does including the National Guard without just raising the allegation violate your own claim? A resounding yes, for it is pure fiction to state that this Kerry is not the subject of the article but Texans for Truth is (both are leveling criticism of Bush before, during, and after the election about Bush's early years). Once again, doublespeak: someone believes they and they alone decide the relevance of what to include and what not. I believe my contribution can be taken out, but then take out the other 2004 issue and Kerry issue OR give a brief synopsis of both and leave it at that. Otherwise, tell me and anyone that reads this that no 2004 material or Kerry material is supposed to be on this site EXCEPT the 2004 material and the Kerry economic material you want. That has to be indefensible, and lastly, a POV because it helterskelter presents arguments.
Anon David
What perhaps irks me the most is that I can't resist the temptation to keep trying to explain to you what I think is a very simple point, although, by now, it's admittedly illogical for me to think that I'll get through to you.
  • You say you can get "more sources", but so far you have provided no sources for the assertions/implications (1) that a significant component of Kerry's campaign was the portrayal of Bush as a dimwit and (2) that Kerry's Yale grades played any significant role in the election. Of course, even those aren't really relevant. The key is that you've provided no reason to believe that, of all the many things that could be said about Bush's intelligence, a report of someone else's college grades is an important one. You've shown only that the mass media, which gravitate toward the superficial, thought the post-election information about Kerry's grades would interest the public. Well, they were probably judging their market correctly, but that doesn't resolve our question. It doesn't mean that Kerry's transcript, which tells a serious reader virtually nothing about Bush's intelligence, somehow becomes encyclopedic for this article.
  • You say, "It is fine to mention Kerry's supporters when talking about the economy, but not fine when talking about Kerry's supporters with Bush's intelligence. What's the difference?" There is no blanket prohibition on mentioning Kerry. The test of any point isn't whether Kerry is in it; the test is whether it's an appropriate addition to a biography of George W. Bush. The bio of Bush can reasonably include notable facts and opinions about his performance on economic issues over the last four years, as well as notable facts and opinions about his intelligence. In the area of economics, the overall jobs figure qualifies. That Joe Schmo of South Succotash lost his job during Bush's term, and is still unemployed, might be true, and relevant to the question of economic performance, but it's so marginal and uninformative about Bush's record that it doesn't qualify. In the area of Bush's intelligence, I can go along with including his college grades here, although I personally think that grades are of limited importance and that even Bush's own transcript is only marginally informative. Including someone else's college grades is so peripheral that it's like reporting that Joe lost his job.
  • Several related comments of yours:
    • "One 2004 election issue can be included about the National Guard, but the other can't 2004 election issue about intellect cannot. The intellect can't because this article isn't about the 2004 election or about Bush (then who are they talking about?), but the other 2004 election material can even though you say it should be on another page."
    • "Just ask: if nothing is to be said about the 2004 election, does including the National Guard without just raising the allegation violate your own claim?"
    • "Don't talk about the 2004 election, I'm told." (further below)
You're completely wrong when you impute to me or anyone else the view that "this article isn't about ... Bush". The whole point is that it is about Bush. Similarly, no one has ever contended that "nothing is to be said about the 2004 election". Please note what I actually said: "Things that relate to Bush, like his military record, belong in it. Things that don’t relate to Bush, like Kerry’s heroism in Vietnam or Nader’s exclusion from the debates, may be quite relevant to the election and yet not relevant to Bush." Whether a particular topic relates to the 2004 election is, like the question whether it relates to Kerry, irrelevant to determining whether it belongs in this article. The test is whether it relates to Bush. The TANG issue relates to Bush. Kerry's grades and Vietnam medals don't (unless, in the latter case, we were getting into a greater level of detail about, for example, Bush's comments on Kerry's war record, which is about Bush but which is too minor for inclusion).
Incidentally, for all your commentary on this subject, you still haven't answered points about specifics. If this article should mention Kerry's Yale transcript, should it also mention that he was awarded five medals in Vietnam? Should it also mention that Al Gore served in Vietnam? I say "of course not" to including such points. JamesMLane 15:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I like disagreements and different view points. I do not mind taking this out except there should be more than Mr. Lane's claim of this as a dislike for Kerry. You even mention prefacing Bush's war record, which is hotly debated. Mr. Lane will say that this belongs on the daughter page and hence has been taken care of; me personally, I think there are several issues there, just like difficulty with Kerry's actual combat experience (my POV: Bush had political favoritism and Kerry's medals are suspect) and would love to include them. I believe this is less about Kerry and more about the issue that is all over: Bushisms, Bush's intelligence, Bush's lack of understanding, and his poor grades. This is not prefacing a minor issue, but one his critics often raise, including Kerry. We can take Kerry's name out and say, "During the 2004 election his major opponent contended," but it would be ridiculous. As for opening flood gates, that is valid only if a major issue -- the difference is this issue about intelligence is about Bush even viewed independently from the election, while others might not. (Note: the gay marriage issue has been stated in the article.)
Still, please attack me and my editing: I actually like such spirited debates when accompanied by factual claims and the end result is balance. I feel that it has to be combative because it is difficult to counter someone's opinion and easy to hide behind facts and the truth. Sure, I don't believe Bush is smarter. I at least can admit that I can't prove it. It is okay to discredit his military service because hopefully the reader will examine the daughter page (would never pass in a professional setting because it is an assumption that people will take the time to critically view the slant on the page). It is okay to talk about Bush's grades, even make it a centerpiece on the Laura Bush site when discussing her satirical speech, but it is not okay here. I don't get it. There are not floodgates to be opened: they are open and over-running us already. Why would we want to cite the 1876 and 1888 election but not a major issue still spoken of in all major media outlets (God, how I love the Saturday Night Live parody of Bush being asked to give a word that describes him and he states, "strategery"). Don't make this about Kerry (who unwittingly is the foil because he played off of this issue), but about something the media and people question: Bush's intelligence. Until then, let's not say "ridiculous" and "pity" and "absurd" (the mud slinged first from Mr. Lane) and decide: are Bushisms and his intelligence really a major issue? If not, refute. If so, I guess it stays. Either way, the article wins. Anon David
I assert a point of personal privilege to cut in ahead of kizzle's response. David, you charge me with mudslinging.
  • "ridiculous": The word appears in one post of mine on this page, where I said that the article should quote verbatim Bush's use of it. It appears in five posts of yours (at least I think they're yours), including "It is ridiculous to pass it off as fact"; "Now that is RIDICULOUS to not post!"; and "You think balance is elusive and offer ridiculous arguments".
  • "pity": I expressed pity for a reader who has difficulty finding desired information; no mudslinging there.
  • "absurd": I said that a particular way of writing the article (going off on Kerry and Gore tangents) would be absurd. By my lights that's about the article, not about you, so it's not a personal attack or mudslinging.
OK, now back to the discussion about what should be in the article. JamesMLane 06:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
You even mention prefacing Bush's war record, which is hotly debated. Mr. Lane will say that this belongs on the daughter page and hence has been taken care of
No, I think both of us would say that Bush's daughter article should be a study on what we know about Bush, not how Bush's record differs from Kerry's.
We can take Kerry's name out and say, "During the 2004 election his major opponent contended," but it would be ridiculous.
This is irrelevant, the point is that this article is not a comparison piece but a biographical piece.
(Note: the gay marriage issue has been stated in the article.)
Yes, but note that it doesn't compare it to Kerry's stance on civil unions, and that was an extremely major issue between the two. --kizzle 03:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Still, please attack me and my editing: I actually like such spirited debates when accompanied by factual claims and the end result is balance.
I am not attacking you, I am saying be a little less aggressive in disagreeing with people. Stick your advice, state the facts and keep the rest of the fluff out.--kizzle 03:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not making a comparison piece; I'm talking about the 2004 election and a major issue. To my knowledge, both candidates war records' have daughter sites and, or major sections. To my knowledge, civil unions are fully portrayed on each persons' site and, or on a separate article. That takes care of the prefacing. I don't want a comparison, I want to point out that Bush's intelligence (well, really lack of) is the major point that needs to be addressed. Only Kerry has to be brought up here. I still think it is appropriate because to not do so ignores much of the entire claim. What I do believe would be healthier and more balanced (though currently I'm working on another Bush section) would be to reduce the amount of info about the issue (e.g., one to two sentences maximum on the issue). I think, as you state that this is a biographical piece, that it would not be neutral and as thorough as possible if not included. Besides asking for refutation, it comes down to: would a biography print this? The answer most assuredly has to be a resounding yes. Also, this article is not a comparison piece, but it does talk about hundreds of peoples and events. No one is saying give in-depth concern to Michael Guest or Bill Graham BECAUSE it just so happens that neither are at the center of a major controversy surrounding President Bush. If they were, it would be highly opinionated to gloss over the issue (e.g., just state Bush's academic record without criticism, something not down with gay marriages or his war record), ignore it and hope it goes away, or give a brief discussion. Let's take Monica Lewinsky out of the Clinton article, after all, it isn't a comparison piece . . . I'm being facetious in pointing out that when someone or something is at the center of a major debate that is difficult if impossible to discuss without the someone or something, then they must be drawn in (hence, Bush's military record and position on gay marriages most certainly can be discussed without Clinton's, Reagan's, Gore's, or Kerry's viewpoint). Why should this be any different? Remember, just the facts, just the facts. This is an important issue, let's treat it as such UNLESS it can be done differently (though why not give one paragraph about the campaign; if people disagree, follow the links or do an Internet search, but at least leave with the impression that the article is balanced and factural). Anon David

This is just silly. If you want to make an article about the 2004 campaign, by all means do it. We really could use an article like that. Here's a model: George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000. Stick in GPA's, service records, penile measurements, and maybe even something about positions on the issues. But, it's absurd to write about John Kerry's GPA in the main article about Bush. Derex 04:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

hmm, apparently one already exists [[[George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004]], though i didn't notice a link in the main article. anyway, put campaign trivia somewhere like that. i hear kerry is better at checkers. Derex 04:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Fine, this is silly. But the Texans for Truth is not silly to be mentioned. Why one thing explicitly about the 2004 election acceptable but another isn't? By what standard. Then follow your own model: remove both or leave both in. That is the floodgate that has been opened: selective use of 2004 election material (where ever it might be placed). Can you please explain why one thing is aburd but another isn't (e.g., Texans for Truth is acceptable but Kerry isn't; examine the facts: more people are familiar with this widespread issue than the Texans for Truth). Just be balanced. Anon David
because Texans for Truth is about BUSH. Kerry's GPA is not. how's that? Derex 04:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Texans for Truth is "about Bush," Kerry portrays himself as the intellectual choice compared to Bush as does much of the media. NOTE: Bush was compared by KERRY and made a target of the campaign. That means it is also about Bush. How's that? Please see citations in main article also stating this is about Bush (hence every major media outlet thinks this is about Bush). (Still, I think the Texans for Truth are about politics, and Bush just happened to be the presidential candidate.) Anon David
true, most people do think bush is intellectually mediocre. however, that's probably based more on his actions rather than his gpa, which is merely symbolic. moreover, this view was widespread long before the 2004 campaign. kerry's grades are entirely tangential to this widespread & longstanding belief that the president is a tad dim. (which, btw i don't actually agree with. he's actually just closed-minded, insular, & arrogant.) Derex 04:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
You say tangential because the anon just hasn't joined in. I do want to agree, and proposed an edit that is fair and balanced. I just can't join in absent fact, I can't make the media go away that believes much of this issue centers around Kerry and reports it as such even if you don't, and it can't be balanced to talk about criticism on page of National Guard but no Academics (for one you use Texans for Truth to support criticism, while the other criticism you clain can't be brought up). I can't join in that. It just wouldn't be fair. If you had said that the Texans for Truth wouldn't be brought up either because it is on a different site, that would be one thing. But, alas, you didn't, which sends the direct message that point A on the 2004 election is relevant and point B on the 2004 election is irrelevant, though both are factual and both were originally offered in the same section (though that is obvious terrible editing to include the 2004 election in Bush's early years). That is why my edit tried to bring about parallelism on how the subject is treated. It is a shame that there isn't a separate heading for criticism, as in the Kerry article. Indeed, there are criticisms on everything, but a right time and place. I just don't know how anyone can claim it is fair to provide criticism with links on the 2004 election in one instance but not another. Whether we like it or not, just as Arthur Blessit, Laura Bush, and Billy Graham are not the focus of the article, they have to be presented if you want balance (though I am assuming Blessit is legitimate). Please stop making a dismissal out of hand about this is about Bush and not Kerry . . . that argument fails because that would mean everyone else could be dropped too (believe it or not, all have dealings with Bush and are treated as such). Anon David
I can't make the media go away that believes much of this issue centers around Kerry and reports it as such even if you don't
Why does this issue merit comparison with Kerry but gay marriage does not? What other issues on this page need comparison with Kerry, specifically, in your mind? Does Kerry's grades on his page need to be compared to Bush's record? Do we need to go previous to Bill Clinton, H.W. Bush, and Reagan to compare them to their opponents on major issues and include these comparison phrases not only in these president's pages, but their opponent's pages as well? Since a candidate's stances on issues is all important to differing themselves to the rest of the field, do we need to compare all of Bush's, Clinton's, Reagan's issues with the stances of their opponents, and conversely include them in their opponents pages as well? --kizzle 05:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't hear much about gay marriages now that the election is over (not that it has by any means gone away), though I wouldn't have any problem ith well written, balanced facts to give the reader more on the current president. Still, you say this is a comparison with Kerry, when it is like responding to the criticism of the Texans for Truth. Still, that issue does not plague Bush like his intelligence and still constant barage about his use of the English languae. So yes, Bush's grades are put down on this site and then you move on. Bush's National Guard record is put down on this site and then you move on . . . no, you don't you offer 2004 election information. That is why issues like this should be brought up (though I have edited the article to make this moot to me because both are now treated the same way, which is my contention all along and what should be discussed now).
Concerning everyone else's viewpoint, if the issue is raised or some issues are raised but not others (especially one that is currently reported frequently like Bush's lack of intellect), then yes, that would be only fair (or else you could remove the other criticism and relegate it to another page). As stated laboriously on this page, if criticisms are offered in part, then it would only be fair to give responses to other sections . . . otherwise it is totally slanted. I didn't bring this issue up as a comparison to Kerry; please read the citations that make the case for the intellect of the president compared to his detractors (of course, that is what an editor wanted down with the Texans for Truth point). So, it is really that simple for me: be fair, factual, and corroborate. If point A (Texans) can be mentioned in connection with the 2004 election, then it is slant to exclude point B (Bush's intellect, which of course can stand independently of the election) in connection with the 2004 election. Why one and not the other? Maybe one is negative. Maybe one doesn't want to hear it. Maybe one is concerned about "opening the floodgates." Well, let's be concerned about getting it right.
If point A (Texans) can be mentioned in connection with the 2004 election, then it is slant to exclude point B (Bush's intellect, which of course can stand independently of the election) in connection with the 2004 election. Why one and not the other?
Point A must be understand directly to Bush, as Texans entire purpose of existence is because of Bush. Point B must be mentioned, of course, but it does not necessarily need to be mentioned in the context of what John Kerry's intellect. --kizzle 05:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle, let me redirect exactly the contention of the artcile. Here are a few more facts to spruce it up: Point A must be understood directly to Bust, as Texans in the 2004 election entire purpose of existence is because of Bush. Point B must be mentioned, of course, but it does not necessarily need to be mentioned in the contex of John Kerry's intellect in the 2004 election. Yet, both exist in the media and the polls for the same reason, and I think that is obvious. If Kerry & supporters hadn't made it an issue or Kerry wasn't the nominee, it would never have been an issue now. So, it has everything to do with Kerry because he made it about him. Still, I have changed them to be parallel. Since you do not want this to be about Kerry, I removed the following paragraph as well, "After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry supporters continued to criticize Bush as the first American president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs during his term. With the subsequent November and December numbers, however, Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs during his first term," under the Economic Section. Believe it or not, this is much easier: remove all this spin instead of countering it -- which is what I fully intended to do to balance this article. If you want, add this paragraph in the 2004 Election page, not section. Anon David
PLease sign your posts after you get a user page...it is very difficult for others to see your work...thanks.--MONGO 07:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
this is simply incorrect. everyone already thought bush was a retard the first time around (2000). do you really need that documented, or were you not paying attention? it was hardly a new criticism in the 2004 campaign. that's why kerry is tangential. if anything, gore's grades are more relevant (and they're not either). Derex 06:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Science: Phillip A. Cooney and the Art of the Spin

Come on guys, let's try to be balanced. I wish others that are worried about biographies would have pointed this out, but hey, I'd love to: ". . . and is due to start work for ExxonMobil in the fall of 2005. Prior to working for the Bush Administration, Cooney was a lawyer and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobbying organization which has, since 1997, opposed emissions limits by claiming that there was too much uncertainty in climate science" is currently in the article and has nothing to do with Bush except to discredit Cooney. Hardly necessary in this paper.

Yet, the author used a source no one vetted. Guess where this quote came from: "Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy." You guessed it, source 43 in the article.[29] Why then left out? I promised Kizzle not to speculate, though to be fair it also said, "But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions." (Note: GREAT! This does exactly what I've been crying for all along -- it prefaces its remarks with the word CRITICS instead of facts.) Even the other source says, "Last week, the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that helps whistle blowers(my insert: Rick Pilt), made available documents showing that Cooney was closely involved in final editing of two administration climate reports. He made changes that critics said consistently played down the certainty of the science surrounding climate change."[30] The same site quotes Mr. Piltz, the whistle blower, as saying, ""Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

We need to stop sounding like editorials and more like disinterested editors trying to portray the truth (and everyone loves the salacious and the sexual). There is no "proved" to "undermine consensus" (see the Oregon Petition and Fred Singer to dispel the ludicrous notion of scientific consensus on the greenhouse theory). But we can't just insert facts where ever we want. It is also disturbing that I repeatedly have to justify myself (based on the truth) while many just wave their wand, throw salt over their shoulders, or make a brief opinion why they are justified and I am not. Just the facts, please, just the facts. Bye bye Cooney UNTIL some sad soul can resurrect the story with actual facts. Anon David

Someone mentioned later on that I removed the Cooney paragraph because it does not have a NPOV, and to accomplish this, you have to add to it. That is what I wanted done concerning Bush's academic history, just as was done with his military record, but it wasn't acceptable to provide info on that POV -- please see lengthy discussions elsewhere. No where up above do I mention I had a problem with the POV or that it needed balanced. I simply did not wish to research the issue after checking the sources offered. Indeed, the original paragraph said "proved." If that was the issue, then case closed. The only problem is, which others would have picked up on if they had read and comprehended what I wrote, is that there is no "proved" or "consensus" from reading the citations. Both articles give much leeway to Mr. Cooney and point out the possible bias with his detractor, working with a liberal think tank. It would have been ethically and morally dishonest to leave in the paragraph that is not supported by the sources it quotes, and then present the other side by the same articles that do challenge different arguments (the articles do have pros and cons, something we see time and time again every where else because they have to be balanced if they expect to be believed). So, I don't have proof for the POV originally presented (which means either sloppy editing or ??), and certainly don't want to present how great Mr. Cooney is for that isn't very much newsworthy for a biography. Also, even if someone goes out and finds a decent testimonial or source about this and presents something factual, then yes, I will use the same sources that the person originally used because they bolster Cooney's argument, not the side that he lied. Still, the information about Cooney's job searches and history belongs elsewhere UNLESS it relates to Bush (which, you never know, it could, but just source it first). Just the facts, please, just the facts. Anon David
Spin, spin, spin. This passage is in the Bush article:
"While Bush was governor of Texas, he undertook significant legislative changes in the areas of criminal justice, tort law, and school financing. Bush took a hard line on capital punishment, and received much criticism for it. More convicts were executed under his terms than any other Texas governor, although the rate of executions was not unusual for Texas. Although there is much consensus that Bush effected significant changes, there is little consensus as to whether these changes were detrimental or positive in nature. If nothing else, Bush's transformative agenda, in combination with his political and family pedigree, catapulted him onto the national political radar. As the campaigns to succeed Bill Clinton as president began in earnest, Bush emerged as a key figure."
It also appears in Answers.com[31], Greensky[32], All Science Fairs [33], XClimbing [34], and many, many more. Why do I point this out? It is another case of material repeated over and over without being properly referenced or even examined.
The problem? Unsubstantiated statements (that's right, if unsubstantiated, then it must go, though I also believe that minor issues don't have a place either). It is unfortunate that I have to question this when there are several other notable editors that could critically examine everything on here. Here are the problems:
1. Says "received much criticism from it." Presumably this should read "received much criticism from death penalty opponents." NOTE: This is neutral and states who is doing the criticism (again, unknown criticism is an opinion). Probably does not have to be referenced, but if not, then cite so we know who.
2. The "More convicts . . . although" sentence needs to be viewed in light of him serving two terms (unusual in Texas) and followed by the disclaimer prefaced with although. If true, then state neutrally: if caused by Texas and less by Bush, then probably antecdotal to the Bush article; if caused by Bush, then very much necessry. Point: more/although statements are self-contradictory without hard evidence and taking into consideration the facts. Find a source! (Can't really find the mainstream media offering up such a statement, unless you read some opinion pieces.)
3. "Although . . . much consensus . . . little consensus" is a blog UNLESS someone can offer the polls and thoughts of the people out there. Now, I'm not saying that there always need to be polls, but who said this? An empty shell of a statement that offers an unsupported opinion. Personally, being an Illinoisan, I can't rate Bush beyond I know he won with a solid majority in 1994 in Texas and a landslide in 1998 (which still doesn't shed light on his performance as governor). Find a source! (Once again, I can't really find mainstream media sources or polls that would make such an ambiguous statement; indeed, this statement could just about be said about anyone.)
4. "If nothing else" begs to make a conclusion of suppositions before it that are not credible. Please by all means undo my edits if and when you can find the facts. Anon David

Some quick numbers on Bush's executions

This is just to give some context and meaning to the assertion that "Bush had more executions than any other Texas governor." Bush was governor from January 17, 1995 to December 21, 2000. During that time, there were 154 executions in Texas. Texas has had 344 executions since 1976 (The first one occurring in 1982), so 44.7% of them occurred while Bush was governor.

Texas has had 6 governors since 1982 (William Clement's ending in '83), so one might expect the average number of executions to be around (344/6=57.33). Bush's term being about 1.5 times as long as most (re-elected in '98 but left office in 2000) means we should increase our expectations for him to 114.66, and the 154 executions while Bush was governor is about 34.3% higher than average.

I don't know where to find total figures for all executions in the state of Texas, but there's at least a few quick numbers. If my math is off anywhere, tell me. Mr. Billion 07:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I fell off of my chair, Mr. Billion. EVERYONE: please take note: Mr. Billion is coming back at me with facts, not conjecture, not judgments, but the hard, cold facts. GREAT! This is what everyone needs to do. By all means, lets put this back into the article, though it would be nice if you did have a citation. I don't believe we need all the numbers beyond Bush had a record setting number of execuations as Texas governor (NOTE: I never contested this statement, I just contested how it could be proven. Anon David
I am not opposed to giving facts, David, I think its unfair that you classify the disagreements on this page as a reluctance on our part to source our opinions. There are more things to consider on Wikipedia than purely whether or not something is factual, like relevancy within scope, significance, and redundancy. This is primarily where at least I differ with your contentions, not whether certain information is true or not. --kizzle 14:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle: I agree with scope and sequence, but in my job I am paid to observe people and report on what they do. Very difficult at first, because it is easy to give your opinion without even realizing it. I am interested in facts, but Kizzle, I want balance, and I think if an issue is treated by presenting the criticism, great, but present the other side (it would be just as wrong to present the supporting conclusions). I think the point that Kerry's supporters' view on the economy is relevant smacks of hypocrisy: worse yet, as I am about to present, a source was never presented. Still, either make the article parallel (if some 2004 material, don't tell me someone else can judge what bbut I can't; if some Kerry, don't take out the part you don't like). IF you notice, that is why I believe my editing meets this criteria because it presents each issue the same way: neutral, just presents the problem, gives a source, and moves on. Someone, please present a compromise (I did: others, like James, are still in either/or more; I'll compromise) Anon David
No offense, and not saying you aren't neutral, but you're about the fifty billionth person to believe that their edits are neutral while everyone else's edits are biased. --kizzle 15:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Anon David", I am not "coming back" at you. I am providing needed context. Your confrontational approach is unnecessary and counterproductive. Mr. Billion 18:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What's relevant and what isn't

I've made these edits:

  • remove Kerry grades, not relevant to this article, see prior discussion.
  • restore long-standing summary of TANG daughter article, as per Wikipedia policy for spinning off a particular controversy into a daughter article: "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a ‘controversial’ section without leaving an adequate summary." (Wikipedia:Article size#Restructuring and splitting articles).
  • restore report of pro-Bush POV re jobs report, as discussed above.

There's more yet to be done. For example, the anon denounced the paragraph about Philip A. Cooney on the ground that it presented only one side of the story. On that basis, the anon removed it entirely. This isn't the correct way to achieve NPOV: "Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." (from Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance) I'm just too tired now to deal with this and several other ways in which this article has become much worse than it was a few weeks ago. JamesMLane 08:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't denounce the Cooney article. First, you think because even if it presented one side, it is ok. No way: that is a POV (why doesn't people realize that you have to be balanced and factual). Secondly, I didn't add to the Cooney article (though by some standards this is Bush's bio, and nothing tangential should be put in). I'm just using the author's own sources to prove that either he or she didn't read them or didn't understand them. This is editorializing (or lying). So, yes, in the face of their own citations, it it indefensible. Instead of talking about how to achieve NPOV or spiralling out of control, someone needs to first source the Cooney viewpoint presented (since there is no credible evidence to back it up) and then present the opposite side. Stop quibbling and complaining and start fact checking and referencing. Anon David
I'm not mentioning Kerry's grades; I'm just pointing out a 2004 election issue, like is pointed out in the National Guard summary. One 2004 issue is relevant (and out of the news) and one isn't? That is my argument, and it is not logical or fair. You go on to state that longstanding Wiki policy to leave an "adequate summary." I don't see that (to me, adequate would be to either mention a problem and redirect OR casually mention both sides and redirect. I could have committed the same error by listing the positives of the "lies" of Bush's detractors (being facetious) and redirected. Obvious fairness issue.
This is where the icing is on the cake . . . this also smacks of not being parallel or balanced. Don't talk about the 2004 election, I'm told. Don't talk about Kerry, this isn't his site. YET do mention what Kerry thought about Bush's economics during the 2004 campaign that even proved to be wrong YET compares to Herbert Hoover. This violates both arguments which you have presented (you seem to be speaking out both sides of your mouth: don't talk about Kerry with grades in the 2004 election but do talk about Kerry in the econony in the 2004 election). Use the following questions for parallelism, balance, and fact:
1. Either we mention Kerry in all major areas or at least achieve balance, both positive and negative, or we don't. If the grades go to a foot note because this is Bush's biography, then the Kerry economic claims go too (which incidentally does not pass my litmus test because not balanced; and I don't know if I would say this is pro-Bush, but even if it is, then present the job reports without the editorializing and present Kerry's supporters' claims on a Democratic Party website). To say otherwise is that some Kerry stuff when negative is appropriate but when positive/neutral it is "not Kerry's biography." If that's the case, what Kerry thought about the economy belongs on his site. Question: Are we removing all direct writing about Kerry? Are we relegating all Kerry materials to footnotes?
2. Either we mention all major 2004 issues or achieve balance, both positive and negative, or we don't. If the Texans for Truth is necessary to discuss a 2004 election issue, then Kerry is necessary to discuss another 2004 election issue. Come one: that isn't balanced, but explicitly states that one controversy from the 2004 election is acceptable but another isn't relevant because I say it isn't. This article isn't about Kerry. This article isn't about Texans for Truth. Yet, it would not be honest to discuss certain subjects without discussing the other. Question: Are we removing all direct writings about the 2004 election? Are we relegating all 2004 materials to footnotes and other Wiki pages?
3. You say leave an adequate summary. Adequate would be to balance out the minutae of the issue to either just the issue or briefly mention both sies. Are you saying it is adequate to summarize by just presenting one side and not the other? Hardly defensible.
Anon David
"* restore report of pro-Bush POV re jobs report, as discussed above," says Mr. Lance in reference to the following paragraph:
After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry supporters continued to criticize Bush as the first American president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs during his term. With the subsequent November and December numbers, however, Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs during his first term.
Problem: This is NOT Kerry's biography, but Bush's, so remove the Kerry comment (or let's add a ton of Kerry comments; note: I've compromised to produce parallelism, so why don't others follow). Secondly, it would be nice to know the specifics, but hey, even that belongs on a 2004 election page, not here. Then the point is not about job growths overall, but about Kerry, the 2004 election, and the election year, even with a comparison willy-nilly with Herbert Hoover. The only neutral point is that, "Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs during his first term (the other points are relevant, but everyone on this discussion page wants you to realize that this is NOT (I repeat NOT) Kerry's autobiography and that there is a 2004 election page for this). We can't have it both ways if we want to claim to be fair.
You leave that one sentence in, and it appears pro-Bush. Not balanced, but if someone wants to leave it in, then at least source it and start looking for two points of view (though that one statement could be added and let some other editor work on it). Someone could add from Fox News, "Leave aside the fact that jobs are only one of the measures of economic performance. The rapid growth rate in GDP, stable inflation, a housing boom, and world-beating productivity growth are all just as important and are clearly successes for Bush. But even if jobs are the sole measure, Bush’s first term is still one of the best ever. First off, the Bush years ended with more Americans working than ever before. The answer is clouded, however, by a lingering controversy over which of the two Labor Department surveys mentioned above is the best measure of job creation. The payroll survey, which polls employers, indicates a razor-thin gain of 120,000 jobs between January 2001 and January 2005. The household survey, which contacts workers directly, indicates a net increase of roughly 2.5 million employed. Which is correct?"[35] Wow, this sounds like a sound bit from the Republican National Committee at the beginning, though the last part brings up issues not seen by examining the Democrats.[36] There are a lot of other sources out there. This also speaks the larger issue: instead of relying wholly on Fox News or the Senate Democrats, it would be inherently better to fist cite the actual Department of Labor statistics for the facts, then add the commentary from supporters and detractors alike. It is very important that this be done to achieve a NPOV becaues there is a tight job market right now; all of this would be interesting to dig into. Anon David
It's called population growth, man. Just as one would argue there was the highest number of winning votes ever in the most recent election...this is due to population growth and a higher turnout due to the mysterious 2000 election. Just because there was a net gain in jobs in the first term, doesn't mean solely that there are still enough jobs to go around...there aren't. In a lot of cases, peoples unemployment benefits simply ran out so they no longer show up on the unemployment roles. Please try to limit your responses to a paragraph or two, be concise please...I recognize you are a new contributor, and have valid points to make, but it is becoming extremely hard to follow these points.--MONGO 18:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, I'm not going to speculate on how or why there were a net gain in jobs during the first Bush term, if indeed there was a net gain. The net gain or or loss is generally not viewed as a population growth issue; the media and government sources seem to use two statistical methods about how jobs are reported. Still, I think if this is to be balanced, your criticism needs to be cited: there is a general feeling of a loss of jobs and high unemployment. I agree exactly, and hopefully a rewrite will focus on: the pros/cons of job gains (the issue of the impact and other events that effected it) and the Dept. of Labor statistics (there are two major statistics that are somewhat at odds with one another and must be read with caution, though apparently they were not during other presidencies, which must also be listed to give the reader pause when examining trending data). PLEASE give facts to the brave soul who attempts the rewrite.
Also, higher population is not the only cause of the most votes. Someone, I can't remember who, said early that by this same token Gore would have had the most votes of any presidential candidate in history and that it changes with every election. This just isn't factual and can be checked by reading any history book. Rondald Reagan's 1984 tally was the most votes of any candidate until the 2004 election. The anomaly is Reagan's landslide and the unheralded 1992/1996/2000 elections that never resulted in a majority vote. On average, the highest vote total ever survives up to two elections before being broken. Just wanted to set the record straight on this. (Dcokeman 00:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
Higher population, more registered voters, more voters (overall) one elction to the next...so even if you have a smaller percentage of voters based on the size of the population there is still going to be an overall increase in the number of votes cast for the winner...it does say that in history books..and in encyclopedias. I thought I said that...oh well, this novel we're writing should be publishable in about a week...almost time to archive this mess.--MONGO 02:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


I agree...it is spiralling out of control...when you get the chance (tomorrow), draw up the lead in sentence(s) to the drugs and alcohol daughter article and lets put that mess to bed...--MONGO 08:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Shall I trisect a few angles while I'm at it? I still don't know how we're going to put that mess to bed. No one else has agreed with my suggestion that we try to craft a new version. We may have to request mediation. JamesMLane 09:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I have faith in you...it's gotten really old...what will mediation bring us? I'm out of ideas and locked in place so think it over and decide in a day what you think it should say...if there is a way to keep it short and sweet and make it so others (since I'm resolved to simple vandalism reversion) don't come along and try to qualify everything with a counterpoint then go for it. I'll look at it tomorrow...go the mediation route if you think that is a way to resolve what ultimately is becoming a rather trivial thing for both of us to bicker over so much.--MONGO 09:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we try a not so novel idea: present everything through facts and sourcing; be parallel in presentaion (if some of an event is mentioned, then all major points are relevant); be balanced (present both sides. Anon David
Can you get an account already? --kizzle 15:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Ok then David, let's be consistent and push your position to its logical conclusion. Virtually everything about Bush mentioned in this article has probably come up in one campaign or another: House, Governor, President (2). To be truly consistent & balanced, we would have to discuss how each & every facet of Bush's life & policies compares to each of his 4 competitors and what role that played in his campaigns. Sure that would be balanced, it would also be plainly absurd. This is an encyclopedia article about Bush, not a comparison of whose dick is biggest. Does that mean that no issues that were mentioned in campaigns can be mentioned here? Of course not. The point is that we have to use judgement. Bush's service record, his policies, the economy, his personal background & qualifications are all major news stories & campaign themes that stand alone. They are about Bush. We do not need to compare and contrast Kerry or Gore or Richards positions on economic development, social security, education, employment -- or their comparative personal histories, wealth, education, atheleticism, or gpa's -- to have a 'fair and balanced' article about Bush. We are not trying to help the reader decide who was the better man, or who had the better policies, or whether campaign charges were fair. We are reporting on facts and issues pertaining to Bush himself. Many/most of these issues (such as his gpa), stand quite alone without any reference to politics or campaigns at all. However, in the case of a highly visible & centralized attack on Bush such as TFT, that can't help but be mentioned in a campaign context. Likewise, the economy was perhaps the major campaign issue, so that deserves a mention in context. Judgement and common sense do have a role in writing this; you can't just say "here's the rule, let's apply it consistently" because if you really do that you end up with an absurd article. Your judgement on what is appropriate conflicts with others, so you pretend that no judgement is involved -- you are merely being consistent and balanced. Baloney. There is surely a place on Wikipedia for a detailed analysis of campaign trivia. This article is not that place. Derex 15:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not interested in pushing to what might happen if. You mention better than anyone why this needs to be included: you state that his "background and qualifications" are significant issues; this is how the media has framed his background and qualifications, just as the Texans for Truth framed his service record (and so did Dan Rather temporarily). I'm not indiscriminately comparing and it is not true that any where have I asked for a value judgment to be made about who the better candidate or person is -- that is your language and your take. Let's use judgment: if we are going to bring up the bad, then also bring up the good. If we bring up criticism, then bring up the other side. I can go back and rephrase the sentence I added, leaving in the citations, as, "Many detractors have used Bush's grades to fuel the debate that he is not qualified and academically up to being president." Of course, the result is the same. There is not some harbinger argument, but a significant one (heck, you say so yourself.) This stands alone when cited, just like the questions of service stand alone when cited. At least this would be parallel to adding other 2004 info, such as about the National Guard. I do believe that a rule can be applied consistently, and unlike you, to have no standard is what leads to absurdity. Of course, this merely parrots all major media outlets' goal: the truth. Anon David

You can't simply not be "interested in pushing to what might happen if..." you need to understand the necessary logical ramifications of your argument. Of course we bring up the good, as well as the bad. For the 50th time, this isn't the issue. What we are debating about is whether or not his grades, or any other aspect of his biography, needs to be compared to Kerry's. --kizzle 16:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Whoa, the necessary ramifications are that no one disputes that Bush's qualifications were a major issue in the 2004 campaign brough up by Kerry (hence, the debate about academics and National Guard Record). Let's bring up the issue and not half of it. Even Kerry himself questioned Bush's qualifications. But, alas, that is not the point. For the 100th time, I compromised and moved-on: I changed it to about Bush's qualifications, which of course was mentioned and I give outside sources; I also believe that if you are to be fair, then the National Guard "summary" must be presented the same way. It would be nice if the media gave IQ scores and adjustment scales; we do have some SAT scores out there that are presented on other sites as relevant. So, either this is about the 2004 election major issues (and it is entirely factual that Kerry mentioned his war record and intellect to set him apart from Bush): either presented or not. PLEASE notice: I edited this piece we are still "debating" to be parallel with the NG piece and removed any mention of the election (just as the Kerry supporter's view of the economy does not have more weight than the serious allegation that Bush was unfit for command in what was commonly known to be a ploy to get a change in presidency during a time of war). Tell me how my sentence, which adds relevance to qualifications, just like the NG piece, has to go?

What exact sentence? --kizzle 18:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Bush’s intellect is a legitimate subject for the article, but I don’t think we should overemphasize grades. The correlation between college grades and the demands of the Presidency isn’t high. Even the basic information about Bush’s transcript strikes me as borderline in terms of including it. Still, if we assume it’s to be analyzed, let’s look at (what I assume is) your language:
Bush's academic record, like his National Guard record, has been highly disputed. [[37]][38]][39] [40][41]
First, I don’t understand "highly disputed". Whether he showed up for Guard duty in Alabama is disputed. Whether he showed up at Yale and got his C’s is not disputed. More important is that these citations (at least the two that I could access) aren’t primarily about Bush’s grades. They’re about Kerry’s grades, mentioning Bush’s only by way of comparison. I ran a Yahoo! search for Bush grades Yale -Kerry -Wikipedia, and just on the first page I found several superior citations: [42] recounts Bush’s self-deprecating humor about his college years; [43] discusses Bush’s grades in the context of how the Ivies work, with “legacy” admissions along with the brightest applicants; [44] is the most detailed of this trio, discussing his college years along with many other points to set forth that Bush as often governed "the way any airhead might" but also describing his "non-verbal acumen". Any of these links would be more informative about Bush, and therefore better for the Bush article, than the ones emphasizing Kerry. JamesMLane 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
James, you are right in that "highly disputed" is not exact. Thanks for doing some fact checking and offering this side to an issue that was and is highly contentious. By all means edit with a NPOV to change to these links. Please keep it parallel with the NG assertions or expand both (so as to keep the balance). I will probably try to find a link to the 2004 election contention just so a reader can go and investigate it if he or she wants to or you could leave the best of the bunch. (Dcokeman 23:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC))

Science/GW

I've edited the science section to be a bit closer to reality on global warming, and some other bits. In particular pointing to the Oregon Petition where 19,600 scientists disagreed on whether global warming even exists[45], has to come out, since Bush himself accepts the warming - see inline ref to speech. The OP, of course, wasn't signed by 19k scientists, as a read of the OP page will tell you. William M. Connolley 22:35:54, 2005-07-12 (UTC).

William, Thanks for the clarification of the issue. I changed negative to indifferent to be neutral. Let me know if this is a mischaracterization. I do like that your edit stands on its merits, as I see some others are now doing. I never claimed to have a monopoly on the truth. (Dcokeman 23:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC))
Looks OK to me now, at least in terms of overall balance. Could do with some more stuff (Science mag's crit) sometime. William M. Connolley 08:46:06, 2005-07-13 (UTC).


Farhenheit 911 or Farenhype 911

Let me make it clear, as many have contended: I think confrontation and conflict are healthy and good for this site when done when facts and arguments (whether we like them or not). I'm not some one that wants anyone to just go along with me or be nicey-nice. Please by all means express your opinions and attack my facts or contentions with your own facts and contention. That is what makes this fun, but it also points out that if there were no conflicts or contentions on here, then there would be no editing and we all would have to be mindless, lifeless entities. I believe many of the debates have been worthwhile, especially many that do come to compromise or bring new facts (or check old ones) to analyze events. Hey, that is how we learn -- take off the kid gloves and strike to get at the truth. That doesn't mean a plethora of attacks, but hey, by now anyone can see that I too have a certain issue with this article. Keep up the great work!

Now, the real issue. One editor wants Farenhype 911 included in to balance Farenheit 911. One is highly critical, while the other is highly supportitve and critical of the other. I for one consider both to be nothing more than out and out politicking and would never waste my time, money, or effort to watch either one. But, that is besides the point. Balance would dictate that either both are removed or both are included. For example, to leave one in leaves out a serious side. Which one would you leave in? Might depend on your viewpoints, might be that Farhenheit 911 is bigger, but bigger doesn't necessarily mean more important. From my standpoint, this is said to be the "real issue," but it is very minor. Just add both, might be preferable to have on same line with such talk as: Farhenheit 911. For criticism of this film, see Farhenhype 911. No harm done, doesn't unduly lengthen the article, and adds the original poster's one-sided view. Debate over.

Debate not over. That's ridiculous to assert. 'Heit' is a film lambasting Bush (and others) for incompetence regarding the events of 9/11. Winner of the Cannes 'Best Documentary' award, it is noteworthy. 'Hype' is an attempted refutation of 'heit', and is not about Bush nor equally noteworthy - in neither it's exposure nor social impact. Inclusion of both is itself unbalancing, in an effort to 'balance' POV. A link, by itself, of a source with the relevance of 'heit', does not constitute POV. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
And keep in mind, Farenhype is linked from Farenheit 9/11. And yeah, David, a little premature to simply cry "debate over." --kizzle 00:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Inclusion of both is unbalancing and POV? Yet one side is not. "Don't let the truth frighten you." Great, Heit won the Cannes Film Festival -- they mention it on that site. Also, Fahrnehype also links Fahrenheit. So, as I see it, you say it is acceptable to point out film lambasting Bush and that this is balanced, but it is unbalanced to bring up a film that, while not receiving the Cannes Film Festival award for Best Picture (no surprise there), connects with this and was watched by countless numbers. You then you say Hype refutes Heit but is not about Bush, yet Heit is about Bush. Then what is it refuting? (Hint, hint: not which donut Bush likes or if he can pronounce strategy, but that Heit got it wrong and discounts that BUSH is incompetent). Since you say that a link by itself does not mean POV, then why not hype? Come on, what are we afraid of?
Why don't we add Ann Coulter [46] as a See Also site. She is noteworthy and relevant. She talks about Bush all the time and is all over the media. Why not? Remember, a link by itself is not and does not constitute a POV.
This would be ridiculous! But, by the same standard Heit gets inserted, it would pass the standard. Personally, I don't see a film with a political agenda (as Hype and Heit/look at Michael Moore's quotes, he is truthful about it even if he believes he is true). Let's have the same standard. (Dcokeman 00:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
Asserting the two films had equal relevance and impact on Bush, his presidency, his campaign, and America is simply wrong. There is a massive disparity between the two, for that reason - not POV! It is that disparity that justifies the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

'was watched by countless numbers' - the operative word there is 'countless'. F9/11 and it's impact was the subject of major news stories throughout the campaign (relating to it's eligibility for the award, the assertions of Moore vis-a-vis 'Bin Laden Airways', the threat that it would be broadcast free, investigating Moore's political views, etc.). It was and is relevant to a biographical article of President Bush. Hype attempts to refute Heit - it is about Heit, not about Bush. It's refutations do not center around the President, they center around Moore and the assertions within 9/11. It is nowhere near as relevant to President Bush as 'heit' was/is, was seen by nowhere near as many people, had nowhere near the impact on Bush's campaign, and had nowhere near the impact on the American popular culture as 'Heit'. It's not about fear, or about misreading POV policy to satisfy a need for politically-based 'neutralizing' of fact. It's about informing the reader. Do you understand? -- RyanFreisling @ 00:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ann Coulter? Why does she deserve a mention in this article, unlike any other commentator? Because you wanted to return 'hype' to the article. Please observe the 3RR, please stop regurgitating this back into the article, and please stop parroting other authors without making a clear point yourself. It's disrespectful to those who are interested in informing the reader above political squabbling. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Fahrenheit had huge impact on campaign, you say (without a source). Then put in on the 2004 election wiki page (most editors on this site prefer that). Relevant according to you, but not relevant is the documentary that says this has 59 lies (don't know if it is right, don't care, but hey, that is relevant). You even say Hype is about the assertions of 9/11 and not Bush, yet the documentary is about the 9/11 assertions of Bush's incompetence and trickery (ultimately, this is about Bush). You then say since it was not seen by as many people, then irrelevant . . . total popularity is not the only judge (but if you want it to be, then replace it with Bush's 2nd Inauguration Speech which had a much larger audience and press coverage). Then you talk about the impact on the American people . . . it did, but that is for Heit's site since that is about Heit's image, not Bush's and belongs on Heit's site. You then conclude that you want to inform the reader, but yet you want this taken out? I think I understand that you want to inform the reader about what you believe to be relevant, even though several politicians and political groups think Hype is relevant and Heit is fiction. I don't even want to enter into that debate. Ok, Heit is relevant. Hype is too, even if on a smaller scale. What is so wrong about including Hype? Please see my comments about Coulter as well. (Dcokeman 01:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
It's Miss Freisling (I'm female). Please refrain from your snarkiness and stick to the point. To be honest, your comments above are nearly illegible, but they do not refute my points in any way. Bush's inauguration is not at issue, F9/11 and the Hype film are. The factual accuracy of F9/11 is also not at issue - it's role in his life/Presidency are. Despite your spin, you agree to my premise re: import, but then claim that including both is more informative. It's not. It's artificially placing a source in to neutralize another, without regard to their relative import. That's bad editing, it's against the Wikipedia way, and it's not informative. I'm not in opposition to you politically, I'm in opposition to your apparent misunderstanding of this basic rule of editing. Balance does not trump fact. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Illegible? Then your screen must be out of whack. You mean unintelligible. You say spin, yet you are the one MAKING the claim that it has an important role in the life of the presidency? FACT CHECK: you can give no polls, statistics, or political commentary by Bush to support your opinion to support your allegations. Please source and then I'll go away. You conclude that balance does not trump fact: the fact that something garnered a wider audience? The fact is that Hype and Heit both attempted to make a mark on the 9/11 attacks; how this is artificial is beyond me. And as for snarkiness, you are the one that started with a flurry of talk and ended with an abrupt comment. I do not believe this neutralizes Heit, because I think they are so opposed that it would be nearly impossible to believe both. Still, that does not belong here. Why is one more important than the other? Popularity? Then why don't we find the number of articles and sales records for each and then rank See Also accordingly. This makes no sense. "It's about informing the reader." Well, then inform the reader (which shouldn't be done through censoring). Please move to 2004 election coverage page and, or the 9/11 page or the Cannes Film Festival. Or get over it and realize that both can be put on here or neither. Just the facts, please, just the facts.(Dcokeman 01:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
Yes, illegible. Your grammar is broken, your sentences malformed, your points obscured and difficult to track. I'm sorry, that's just a fact. Another fact - F9/11 had an impact on the campaign and Bush that is a matter of public record. Statistics are not required from me to justify this point. The film was contested and argued, just as now, by the parties and players throughout the election. 'Hype', quite simply, was not. That's all. It's not a matter of popularity, it's notoreity and noteworthiness. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
illegible - Illegible means difficult to decipher due to poor handwriting, printing, or damage. The illegible note had been retrieved from a puddle..[47] or Merriam-Wesbter Dictionary Main Entry: il·leg·i·ble Pronunciation: (")i(l)-'le-j&-b&l Function: adjective: not legible : INDECIPHERABLE (illegible writing)[48] When you insult me, please get it right (I really don't mind ad hominen attacks, for they can be quite amusing, but avoid word confusion so that you are easily understood by the reader).
Merriam-Wesbter Dictionary of Law Main Entry: public record Function: noun: a record required by law to be made and kept: a : a record made by a public officer or a government agency in the course of the performance of a duty b : a record filed in a public office. NOTE: Public records are subject to inspection, examination, and copying by any member of the public.[49]
Ok, ok. Just a fact you say, and then go on to cite another fact as a "matter of public record." Well, it isn't and never has been a public record (though this is probably an obvious word confusion, darling). Just being in the movies does not make something public record. This is a nice way for you to say that you are right without having to give facts or the TRUTH to back up your claim. Not an intelligible argument. Then you go on to say that Hype wasn't contested . . . not factual (examine source work for sales, dialogue, and websites spurned from it). You even claim that Fahrenheit is even discussed now, yet no media searches support this contention. So, once again, you cannot offer statistical or media proof of the value of the film on the 2004 election (which, incidentally, belongs on the 2004 web page if you can). Just the facts, please, just the facts. (Dcokeman 02:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
I can't see any compelling reason at all to include 'hype here. It seems to be a criticism of a criticism; that is, it's not about Bush per se. That said, 'heit seems to me more appropriately placed down in the 'Further reading' section, though maybe it should be 'futher reading & media' or some such. We don't link to book reviews of items in 'further reading', so why would we link to 'hype? Derex 01:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Not exactly a fair comparison. Hype was and is about Bush by proxy of Heit. Also, I don't know about further reading since it isn't a book. As for it being a criticism of a criticism, fair enough. To say book review is also incorrect. Hype is not a book review or just a critique, it is a separate documentary (like when an author writes a book in response to another book). Generally, by this route, both are acceptable if done on the national stage even if one is not as highly regarded. The Wiki way is to try to present a fair and honest rendition of the facts. Fair means that important criticism, whether good or bad, should be included. (Dcokeman 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
well, I've never heard of 'hype before, so I don't personally know what's in it. but the cover posted in the 'hype article has a picture of moore & it says "uncovering the truth about fahrenheit 9/11 & michael moore". if you believe the cover art, it sounds like 'hype is about moore and his movie, not about bush per se. have you seen the 'hype? what evidence can you provide as to it's contents being a documentary about bush & not a critique of moore & his movie? And no, it's not a book, but it has the same standing -- so we can just adjust the section name. Derex 01:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
also, you can quit preaching about the wiki way & what fair means. i don't think anyone in this debate is a newbie. i do see where you're coming from. however, we have honest disagreements, and not because we're not trying to be neutral or fair. Derex 02:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I say neither should be linked from this article. One is a big bash on Bush and the other is a big bash on Moore...but if we have to pick either, then heit stays due to it's popularity. The "hype" movie anon david keeps bringing up can be rented at Hollywood or Blockbuster but I don't think it ever made it to the theaters so it's hardly noteworthy and adding a pro for every con and vice versa is what got us into the mess in the drug and alcohol section. Also, lets get anaon david to stick to one point at a time, sign his posts and chill out...the volume of the message makes it hard to wade through to find the point!--MONGO 02:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Both sides, please

Heit is anti-Bush. Hype is pro-Bush. Including links to both is balance. Not including one is obvious bias.

Attempting to silence points of view that you do not agree with is dirty and wrong (not to mention borderline illegal in America). What are you afraid of? Include links to both and let the readers make up their own minds.

© 2005, Pioneer-12

I thought for a second I was being contacted by a spacecraft...whats with the Pioneer-12 stuff...wasn't it the pioneer spacecrafts that flew out of the solar system...wait, I'll look it up.--MONGO 02:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's no pioneer 12 but heres pioneer 11...pretty neat stuff [[50]]...but I agree to an extent that if one gets mentioned so should the other...the problem is, aside from a select few that venture into Hollwood video et al with absolutely nothing else to pick from they probably wouldn't rent Farenhype 911 because it they've never heard of it...--MONGO 02:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
look, quit impugning people's motives. no one here is trying to silence anyone, although i did think that had become the true patriotic way the last few years. 'hype is not even about bush. it's about moore & his movie, which is why it gets linked there. i'm personally no friend of bush, but i (and everyone else here that i know) am trying to write a neutral article regardless of personal opinion. dissenting opinions, such as yours, can be helpful in pointing out hidden biases. but just because people disagree with you does not make them "dirty and wrong". calling people names does, however, make people (at least me) tend to pay attention to the messenger rather than the message. it works against you. Derex 02:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


Look, I've seen both movies. Hype is as relevant as Heit. But frankly, it doesn't matter what your opinions of the movies are. The point is they are two sides of the same coin. If you try to silence one or the other, then that is blatant bais, wheather you realize it or not. (Just step back for a minute and look at the names of the two movies... and hopefully you'll see what I mean.) And though you may be honestly confused about the nature and relevance of the movies, I can assure you that at least some of the people trying to remove the link are doing so for less then honorable motives.

© 2005, Pioneer-12

I will ignore your pointless and unsubstantiated ascriptions of motive and reiterate that they are not equal in their importance or relevance to the article. It is not a political motive, nor fear of an idea... it's a desire to educate. The value of 'Heit' to a reader of the GWB article is far greater than 'hype', unless you see the goal of the article as providing as much 'pro' as 'con' - rather than to educate as to facts of this President's life and 2 terms. 'Hype' was a blip. 'Heit' was huge. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hype is a thorough, well-researched, and fact-based refutation of Heit (which makes it relevant and highly significant), as well as an informative documentary in it's own right. It also contains a number of facts which Heit ignores.
If you desire to educate then you will include both links. Not doing so is a desire to block information and is anti-education. You do not educate by suppressing facts and blocking debate. That is not education. That is censorship.
That is censorship in the name of promoting a biased POV. Do you really want to do that? That's not what Wikipedia is about, and is EXPLICITLY against the Wikipedia guidelines.
© 2005, Pioneer-12
point of order. hype criticizes moore's movie. hype is by dick morris with interviews of coulter & zell. would it not also be helpful to educate people about the critics of bush's critics by including links to critics of those critic-critics as well? Derex 03:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Your diatribe has just become circular. The points have been made already multiple times by both sides, and your attempt to label the other side with personal attacks is transparently obvious. Please refrain from accusing others of censorship, as that is a personal attack, and is completely unwarranted. If you cannot contain your comments to the issue, please keep them to yourself. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Speaking the truth is not a personal attack. Pushing a one sided POV is censorship and blatant BIAS. As much as you hate to admit it, this is a very clear Logical, Fairness and NPOV debate. Ticket sales and popularity have nothing to do with a NPOV. They are your attempt to find a reason to keep Heit while excluding Hype and INGONORING a NPOV. You can't have it both ways. ©2005 DebateMaster
Nowhere is a blatant POV being pushed. Ticket sales and popularity is not the point, when a previous editor asked for 'sources' they were used to illustrate the REAL point (the impact of 'heit' on Bush and popular culture during the Presidential campaign). I am ignoring nothing, and want nothing both ways. And again, 'DebateMaster', I ask you not to attempt to justify personal attacks as 'speaking the truth'. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Come on try harder, even if the link was relevant to the campaign, it is linked with no intent to make it clear. Once you do, linking to Hype is required for a NPOV. NPOV requires both sides to be represented fairly. Heit requires Hype or neither. What I said was clear, trying to manipulate it does not make it any less clearer. - DebateMaster
"NPOV requires both sides to be represented fairly." As in, flat earth vs. not flat earth.......Gzuckier 15:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ryan, you just completely misused the concept of circular reasoning... if you don't even understand THAT, then I really DON'T think you are gonna win a debate against DebateMaster. :-)
I was a debate champion, and even I don't have the moxie to name myself the "debate master". Really, what chance do YOU have against such a skilled opponent? It's like a five foot woman trying to play Michael Jordan one on one. Just not a good idea.
Or you could keep trying to argue with DebateMaster and just embarrass yourself more. :-)
© 2005, Pioneer-12
All Hail the mighty DebateMaster. And All Hail you, Pioneer, oh masterful debate champion. I don't know what us little folks can do against both of your ever-so-powerful debate skills. --kizzle 16:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
you sure know how to make friends, don't you now? i reckon all us stupid folk ought to just shut up. 'cause it's obvious that the fellow who's doing the name-calling has got the best of the argument on its merits. :-) Derex 14:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting across the universe... on the Starship Enterprise, under Captain Kirk

We have three new folks here commenting that all seemed to show up at the same time...that's new. Debatemaster's edit history is really short...I say it's a sockpuppet account. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet What do you think about that possibility Pioneer-12?--MONGO 10:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Do you really think a pro-fairness, pro-NPOV position needs sockpuppet supporters? Then you are truly confused. Oh, I can assure you there are PLENTY of people who agree with me and DebateMaster and Dcokeman. The entire clear-thinking population of America, in fact.
OK, I'm gonna assume that you were were looking in good faith for sockpuppets simply because you hate sockpuppets, and not for any political reasons. Thank your for performing background checks on all the commentators. Does this mean I can have a gun now? Ok, I want a phased plasma pulse-laser in the forty watt range...
And now, back to our regularly scheduled topic... (I hope)
© 2005, Pioneer-12
I wasn't accusing you of anything at all..you seem so defensive. I know you are new here as anyone that knows my edits here would label them pro bush and conservative...even though I am pretty much in the middle politically. I just can't understand why three newbies come crawling out of the woodwork all at the same time...bizarre. What is your regularly scheduled topic...I can't tell when the three of yous take 800 words to explain why you can't understand that Farenheit 911 is relevent as a link and the completely obscure Farenhype 911 is irrelevent...--MONGO 11:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I seem defensive? So what. And you seem clueless: especially since you insist on referring to me as a "newbie". Do your damn homework. Is it so hard to click on my name? It's linked with every post.
© 2005, Pioneer-12
That whole copywrite idiocy on your user talk page is unnerving....what a wack job you are! Oh please don't sue me...I am so worried!--MONGO 19:33, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Nice violation of Civility there, Mongo. Lets see what the admins have to say about that.
© 2005, Pioneer-12

Solutions

It is just completely unacceptable to place a link to a propaganda film like Fahrenheit 911 without opposition and pretend that you are being balanced. So, what to do instead?

  1. Include both links. Yes, Hype is propaganda, too.... but combined the two balance each other out.
  2. Simply not include either link.... propaganda just isn't that informative, anyway. Having two propaganda films balances it, but really all you have then is people trying to twist reality in two different directions, with much of the truth being ignored (and untold) by both sides.
    • Honestly, if you want to REALLY learn about Bush, you're better off just ignoring both films and looking for better sources.... in particular, sources concerned with honesty and the truth. (Honest sources: what a concept.)
    • However, it CAN be useful to look at biased sources sometimes.... IF you are aware that they are biased and take the "information" and viewpoints they offer with that caveat. Therefore, another solution is...
  3. Divide the links about Bush up by type. Label one section Anti-Bush links. (Fahrenheit goes there.) Label another Pro-Bush links. (Fahrenhype goes there.) This way, the bias is clearly stated and Wikipedia is absolved of any responsibility or political favoritism.

QED.

© 2005, Pioneer-12

I like you Pioneer-12. You present a novel idea: why go on about accuracy when it really means "include my link as relevant" and "leave yours out as irrelevant. You mention a far out idea: just maybe it is not balanced to present one piece of propaganda and leave another key one out. I'm awed. Let me get this right: you are saying be fair by either presenting both links or neither? Who do you think you are, for some people think we don't need fairness (not me, unless you want to write a highly opioniated editorial), but ruthless adherence to fact, except the fact must be prominent. I keep parroting the same language because it forcefully supports your contention and mine. Now, I better get back on my Risperdol because I'm having a conversation with myself by using sock puppets . . . just the facts, please, just the facts. (Dcokeman 14:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
I think the main argument for Heit's inclusion and Hype's exclusion is that Farenheit 9/11 is about Bush, whereas Farenhype is about Farenheit 9/11. This has absolutely nothing to do with what either of you are talking about. Read James's post at the bottom about the consequences of raising the threshold of inclusion to simply by proxy. --kizzle 21:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Include Fahrenheit 9/11 in the article?

Independently of the existence of the contested 'Fahrenhype 9/11' link, the GWB article suffers without the inclusion of 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. The latter film, the highest-grossing documentary in American history, was released during the presidential campaign and quickly became a topic of national debate. Also, in light of the role of 9/11 in the Bush presidency, a reference to this film criticizing Bush in the context of 9/11 is informative. As a rough indication, the majority of the paragraphs in Fahrenheit 9/11 contain the name 'Bush'.

An excerpt from that article: The film has since been released in 42 more countries and holds the record for highest box office receipts by a general release documentary. As of January, 2005, the film has grossed nearly US$120 million in U.S. box office, and over US$220 million worldwide; an unprecedented amount for a political documentary; Sony reported first-day DVD sales of two million copies, again a new record for the film genre. The film has grossed a further $99 million overseas.

The only Cannes-award-winning and People's Choice Award-winning documentary about a sitting U.S. president in time of war, it deserves a link, or more descriptive reference here. Including it is not political, it is informative. In my view, excluding it is not informative, it is political. I invite everyone to comment (and you don't need my invitation to do so!) -- RyanFreisling @ 02:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree, just as "Unfit for Command" is (& should be) included as a reference for Kerry. But even more so, given the prominence of the movie. As to 'hype, I don't really care that much. But, I don't agree it belongs unless I hear that it's about Bush instead of Moore. Derex 03:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Wow, the only Cannes winning argument. It made a lot of money. That in no way diminishes Fahrenhype 9/11 as valid, either. Wow, it did well overseas, so well, that Al Jazeera invited Michael Moore to receive an award (maybe it should be listed under Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, too. The point is that you think it is valid: great. Let's get Bob Woodard's book too, since the vast majority is about Bush even if it is not political commentary. Let's get at Hype, since it tells 59 lies about Bush told by Moore (or it claims). I still can't believe you when you legitimately say that Hype might or might not be about Bush when Hype talks exclusively about Heit, which you claim is exclusively about Bush (though a lot is said about the Bush administration). Hype is about Bush. So, since you don't care, then let's put both in here. Seriously, though, I don't think readers will leave the GWB article outraged that this isn't in here. As another poster said after watching both movies, " If you try to silence one or the other, then that is blatant bais, wheather you realize it or not. (Just step back for a minute and look at the names of the two movies... and hopefully you'll see what I mean.]" Repeated here because I agree, how can this be anything else except a basic fairness issue?(Dcokeman 03:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
(a) see my response above to pioneer 12. (b) both woodward books are referenced, as of course they should be. (c) i know what the names of the movies are & i know what the cover says. it says the movie is about moore & his movie. (d) i don't actually care a whit about the link. i suspect you don't care much either. what i care about is principle. and that principle is that this article should be about bush. it's an encyclopedia article, not a political debate. (e) no one is trying to bury 'hype. if you give a damn about 'heit, you'll go read the article about it. and there you will see the link to 'hype. and then you will go read that if you care about it. Derex 04:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
'fairness' to political balance is not an editorial necessity. A relevance and reliance on fact is. And the facts have already been laid out as to the importance of 'Heit'. There is little to similarly validate the importance of 'hype' to this biographical article, except as a 'balancer' to 'Heit' - and without relevance, that does not help the article - it obscures. A discussion of 'Heit' does NOT require a discussion of 'Hype' to be accurate, or representative of fact. And this post is not an attempt to censor, to silence, to hide, to fear, to promote bias. It's editorial accuracy.Please respect the intentions of the authors here. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, fairness to political balance is a necessity if you want a neutral point of view. I know to you that Heit is important. Great. What is the problem with adding another important fact? This isn't even a discussion, it is a link. You claim editorial accuracy: how is it accurate? That has little to do with this present argument. This is relevant. This is factual. You laid out facts about box office receipts and the Cannes Film Festival. Editorial accuracy would be trying to include as much about Bush as reasonably possible and in a balanced, factual, and parallel manner. Listing Hype fulfills this requirement. Even if you claim to not censor, silence, or hide, that is what you are doing. You're right, I don't care much. I don't know why we would spend so much time on such a minor issue. Put both down and be done, since it a.) doesn't hurt the article, b.) does offer balance, and c.) still keeps the article manageable. Let's move on to something more constructive (like needing someone to write about Bush and jobs).(Dcokeman 04:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
If your so concerned about Fact then Heit wouldn't be included in an article about Bush to begin with. Fact requires research not unfounded allegations. In a court of law this would never hold up because the counter argument would be allowed to be heard which is Hype, not censored. You have only two options when attempting to include Heit, either allow for the inclusion of Hype or remove both. NPOV has everything to do with something so controversial as Heit. Allowing one sided controversy in a factual article is bias and with the blatant attempt to push one side's POV on the reader. Editorial accuracy requires getting your FACTS straight, Heit is so disputed in terms of it's alleged facts that its appearance on this page makes me truely question the motives of the "editors". The motives are more then clear when a counter link to Hype is censored. NPOV means nothing only YOUR POV matters. - DebateMaster
That's not the case - you do not need fairness to political balance to establish an NPOV. And you do not need to list every counter (no matter how prominent or relevant to the article) in order to establish an NPOV. You establish an NPOV by ruthless adherence to fact, not by elevating some facts to greater prominence to create a perceived 'balance' - because that itself is POV. THAT is editing. And I will repeat - it is disingenuous to say that I am censoring, hiding or silencing, and I have asked you repeatedly to refrain from personal attacks. The link was in the article before 'Hype' was inserted, and it belongs back in the article. The insistence that 'hype' belongs if 'heit' does is equally repellent and questionable, but I would not question the motives of the editor adding it - I will concentrate on the issue at hand. Again I will state that questioning the motives of the 'editors' is unwarranted, and is certainly not assuming good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
On any questionable or alleged topics or issues, you sure as hell need Fairness. Heit doesn't ruthelessly adhere to ANY facts thus the inclusion of Hype. You are censoring by including one not the other, get over it, that is a FACT. NPOV requires both or neither. - DebateMaster
Patently false. As mentioned ad nauseam, a source does not have to be neutral to be relevant, and despite repeated requests, your post represents a repeated personal attack. I ask you again to Please refrain. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
A source does have to be factual based to be relevant. If the source is disputed as having factual relevancy, it either needs to be removed or an opposing POV allowed to establish a NPOV. Heit is linked for it's POV not it's relevancy in ticket sales. I believe constantly claiming a personal attack is slander, so please refrain. - DebateMaster
Funny - you parrot my words just as Dcokeman did. Heit is linked for it's relevancy to Bush, not ticket sales. Your intimation of slander is erroneous, and laughable. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
So, Ryan, what is your motive for attempting to suppress the link to FahrenHype? Because you are just so determined to keep a "somewhat less important" link off of the page? Riiiiight.
© 2005, Pioneer-12
I have stated my motive. It is accuracy. It is not 'somewhat less important', it is irrelevant to the article. I say so perhaps a dozen times above. In addition, nowhere do I impune the motives of either of the three recently-added posters. I will not stoop to your level. -- RyanFreisling @ 12:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, first it was that Fahrenhype isn't famous enough, now it's that Fahrenhype is "irrelevant". Mmmm hmmmm.
Both excuses are easily disproven, and in fact have already been disproven multiple times. Why don't you come up with a new excuse tomorrow?
If your motive was accuracy, then you wouldn't be linking to Fahrenheit 911 in the first place. Why? Because Fahrenheit 911 probably contains more misinformation than information.
Observe: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
That link by the way, appears to be an honest analysis of Moore's film. It's goal appears to be non-partisan and honorable: the truth.
© 2005, Pioneer-12
Debate Master, for four hours some people have claimed that including Fahrenhype is a bias while just Fahrenheit is not. I think this is so obviously wrong, I thought literally it would be debate over to say just what you have said. And this is just to include the link! Wow! Educate everyone by only presenting one viewpoint. That is called indoctrination. Once again, let's move on to something real. And I'll pretend that I didn't hear "you do not need fairness to political balance to establish" a NEUTRAL point of view. I guess we should just always add one side from now on (the side I want, of course) to achieve neutrality. We don't want to list every counter, just one (though if ever criticism is leveled, then yes, every counter). Elevating facts: naw, just post them and let the reader decide (wait, that is what we did without commentary and still unacceptable). This is not a personal attack, for you have repeatedly said don't include Hype in here because its earnings are less than Heit which means you do not want it to be seen here, you want it taken out (READS: hidden, silenced, censored). Well, just the facts: list one highly contentious item, then balance. So, add the two darn links and move on!(Dcokeman 05:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
I agree 100% Dcokeman. On any questionable or alleged topics or issues, you sure as hell need Fairness. Heit doesn't ruthelessly adhere to ANY facts thus the inclusion of Hype. You are censoring by including one not the other, get over it, that is a FACT. NPOV requires both or neither. - DebateMaster
just curious, have you two met before? Derex 05:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
You can speak in the name of fact, but your simplistic and self-selected criteria of 'fairness' is simply incorrect. You're welcome to your opinion, but this is an encyclopedia, and should be based on fact, not political correctness. NPOV does not equal political correctness. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
If it should be about facts then you need to get YOUR facts straight. Heit attempts to discredit Bush with Alleged "facts". Hype includes "facts" that attempt to show otherwise. If you were so concerned about facts you would include both or neither. PC has nothing to do with this. NPOV = Neutral Point of View. Heit is the farthest thing from this solar system as a "NPOV". If you want it included fine, then include Hype otherwise remove both. - DebateMaster
And again, you misattribute NPOV and so prove my point. A source does not have to be neutral to be informative. Both or neither is not the only axis of choice. Heit is noteworthy. Hype, much as you might not want to believe it, is far less noteworthy, and is not about Bush, but about Heit. Here, in this article, a mention of Heit does not require Hype. Simple. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
A source does have to be factual based to be relevant. If the source is disputed as having factual relevancy, it either needs to be removed or an opposing POV allowed to establish a NPOV. Heit is linked for it's POV not it's relevancy in ticket sales. Hype is as noteworthy as Heit. This is a perfect example of why more people have heard of Heit but not Hype. Censorship on this level is not what Wikipedia is about. What is simple is a mention of Heit requires a mention of Hype or neither. - DebateMaster
'Hype is as noteworthy as Heit' is blatantly absurd. See response above to 'censorship' personal attack. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
sigh. masterdbater, it does not matter if 'heit is factually correct. the point is that it was an extemely well known and commercially successful documentary about bush. we do not link critical reviews of 'unfit for command' in the kerry article. why? because those go in the unfit (sbvt) article. same principle here. good night, all. Derex 05:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Debate Master, you are too simplistic and using self-selected criteria (who picked her criteria as opposed to you using your own brain or why it is too simple to say that it is bias to present one side of an issue when that is what the whole world believes and then dismiss it out of hand with the wacky statement "politically correct"). It is simple: Hype is noteworthy according to Mrs. Fresiling, but not as noteworthy as Heit. A source does not have to be neutral to be informative . . . it has to have huge sales or win a Cannes Film award? No, be factual. No, agree with ?? Mrs. Freisling said the real issue, "You establish an NPOV by ruthless adherence to fact." Wait a minute . . . she means because Heit and Hype both happened, they are actual documentaries that we can verify. Oh, read close: "not by elevating some facts to greater prominence" . . . oh, it is not too ruthless, but if one has a greater "prominence" or not . . . judged by only her or the facts . . . well, she did say ruthless, so "to create a perceived 'balance' - because that itself is POV," now I get it, to attempt to present both sides creates a point of view as opposed to presenting one side, even if hotly debated and many believe it is a total fabrication. Well, get ruthless: both Hype and Heit happened; both are about Bush; both are just links. It is not the editor's job to decide if two facts are equal, but as Mr. Lane stated previously, that the criticisms themselves are presented correctly. (And Debate Master, if you live in the same town as Mrs. Freisling, don't drink the water.) Move on. (Dcokeman 05:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
Well, it looks like Debatemaster is a sock of ? Edit history: [[51]]...this place is getting weird. Dcokeman, the issue is relevence...Farenheit 911 is a big hit, right or wrong, good or bad...Farenhype is a knee jerk reaction to Farenheit...and is a refutation of Moore's movie...I have no problem with seeing them both gone as links or both here as links, but hype isn't anything other than a refutation of heit...lets all take another poll! Consensus is what we're all about here...--MONGO 07:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I am my own Master thankyou. Popularity has nothing to do with Facts. Rush Limbaugh is extremely popular, he constantly talks about bush and was extremely influential in the campaign. Should a link to him be included? This isn't even the point. Farenheit 911 is a biased negative POV about Bush, that is widely disputed as being unfactual. FarenHYPE 911 is a biased positive POV about Bush. Just because it talks about Michael Moore does not make it any less relevant to the issue of NPOV. Discussing Moore is essential for HYPE to provide a factual basis for the allegations Moore makes with Heit. This is a cut and dry issue, in order for this article to maintain a NPOV include both or neither. - DebateMaster 13 July 2005

Master of? 1. Rush Limbaugh is not extremely popular...discuss what you mean by extremely...I would agree with popular. 2. Limbaugh was(?) "extremely" influential in the campaign...give me the facts on that one. 3. "Just because it talks about Michael Moore"...exactly...it does talk about how Michael Moore is wrong so put it in the FarenHYPE 911 article, but not here. 4. We are only talking about a link...we are not discussing the movies in the text of the Bush article...discuss the movies in the text article on those movies. 5. Moore's movie is a movie...what the heck is the other one...i never remember seeing it in the theaters...was it up for the Oscars? You are arguing to include something that is obscure, however I have argued to get rid of things in this article that are obscure.--MONGO 12:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly. Unless your opinion subsequently diverges from mine, MONGO, you have recapped my oft-made point exactly. Thank you. It is unconscionable that the link to 'Heit' should be 'held hostage' by those seeking to neutralize it's presence with 'Hype'. It's disrupting the article to prove (an incorrect) point. -- RyanFreisling @ 12:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
United on this one for sure. I just can't understand where these three new users came from all of a sudden...such similar edits, such a similar message, nice compliments from one to the other...noticed the copywrite with the one and figured since this was an arguement worth fighting for, why not create two socks and forego copywrite concerns...and then try to dominate the article and the talk page....hope I don't get sued...actually, I hope I do!--MONGO 12:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
You may have noticed that 'DebateMaster' (sic) only appeared after Dcokeman received a 3RR warning from Carbonite... could he be a sock to avoid the 3RR prohibition, and to shore up Dcokeman's continued reverting of the doc? -- RyanFreisling @ 12:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, you've done well grasshopper...!--MONGO 12:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
How about this...[[52]] & [[53]]--MONGO 13:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
You've once again proven that if you can't beat the attack, then at least attack the contributor. I believe, and history will bear me out, that Ms. Freisling is really Mongo in a leotard . . . or maybe, just maybe, we can focus on the issue at hand. Since you are united, I believe this is Mongo's attempt to create different names so he can get his point down . . . or maybe, just maybe, people do not see this as fair. Maybe there are others out there that also have a brain in their head. Also, darling, another word confusion muddies the waters: the Latin "sic" is woefully misplaced unless you don't know how to spell Debate and Master. Now, that is besides the point. You say you want the facts on Rush Limbaugh, yet you can't give the facts on Heit (I agree, it is uncorroborated if Limbaugh influenced the campaign because he does NOT give any facts; take note with this criticism, but NEITHER do you). Ms. Freisling says editors don't have to be balanced: well, they do if they want to be fair. It is not a hostage situation, it is an assassination attempt on your part to dictate that you must judge the prominenece of the facts and when it comes down to it, we cannot trust the reader to pick which link he or she might want to read but YOU can. That is censoring! Here are some facts:
1. Fahrenheit was popular and made a lot of money. Michael Moore even hoped the documentary would overturn the 2004 election in favor of Kerry.
2. Fahrnehype is a documentary that was orchestrated by Dick Miller and included several key players in last years election, including Zell Miller. Many groups hoped that it would point out the fallacies of Moore.
3. Each of the above are diametrically opposed to one another.
4. Prominence: Rush Limbaugh was the most listened man in radio during the a.m.[54] and published several best selling books.
5. Prominence: Ann Coulter appears on CourtTV, Fox, and other channels regularly. Coulter is the author of several best sellers. She has a widely syndicated column.
The point? Popularity cannot be a judge of what to insert or not to insert. Hype is an independent documentary. Heit wanted to send a political message to Bush. We don't need to evaluate their veracitiy, but look to a NPOV with balance, fairness, and facts. One or the other is not going to "neutralize" the other -- doubtful people of different political persuasions will pick the one they don't believe in and be swayed (unless they are easily led). First, no one is really going to care if they see either in here. Secondly, Freisling and others claim they want to educate and not censor. Then, put both in (hey, its just a link, even if you don't like it: divergent view points breed neutrality). Finally, the facts are that both are documentaries, one realized nationally, the other through DVD's, and both treat the same issue. I don't know why we would want to include political commentary into the article of George W. Bush -- this is sending the message that if you are popular and you talk about Bush, we'll put you in. Fairness is a basic principle that must be achieved. When editing Wiki articles often people only know one view point; their ignorance should not be an excuse to prevent other editors from presenting both. Add both. Add neither. You add Heit, I'll add Hype. Maybe then the reader, if they have nothing better to do on this earth, can then figure it out for themselves. At least give them the chance to figure it out if you must include these commentaries that have not been taken seriously by Bush (well, at least through the evidence, we can only contend that Bush never mentioned or responded to either one). Move on. (Now I need to use my 87 other log-ins to say what I believe.)(Dcokeman 14:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
I understand what you are trying to say...I don't think you understand what we are saying...in conclusion: heit is notible, hype isn't...get it? As far as I am concerned, the only reason hype came out was in reaction to heit...jekyll/hyde?--MONGO 19:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

George Bush Kills Science

it's official now, the born again christian has officially killed everything he doesn't belive in, we have now entered a new stone age, and by stone age I mean an age where we'll stone non-believers to death on national television, right before we renounce television as a sin, I sugest you pick up your local newspaper for science's obituary - 172.131.205.237 12:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

you poor soul......I pity you