|
i've read that joe elliott played in various bands before def leppard, not all of them as a singer, but i'm pretty sure these were garage band type bands. they all probably played covers of other peoples' songs.
{{controversial}}
{{oldpeerreview}}
<center><div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: none; padding: 5px; width: 220px;">For older discussion, see '''archives: [[/Archive 1|1]], [[/Archive 2|2]], [[/Archive 3|3]], [[/Archive 4|4]], [[/Archive 5|5]], [[/Archive 6|6]], [[/Archive 7|7]], [[/Archive 8|8]], [[/Archive 9|9]], [[/Archive 10|10]], [[/Archive 11|11]], [[/Archive 12|12]], [[/Archive 13|13]], [[/Archive 14|14]], [[/Archive 15|15]], [[/Archive 16|16]] [[/Archive 17|17]], [[/Archive 18|18]]'''</div></center>
<br>
[[User:Gringo300|Gringo300]] 12:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
==Incorrect to refer to an Arab by last name==
I'd like to point out that it's wrong to address Saddam as "Mr. Hussein" or even "Hussein", because Hussein is not a family name. It's the first name of Saddam's dad. We are making a very common western error here, and I propose we correct it by changing the article to address him by first name.
--[[User:212.219.0.5|212.219.0.5]] 14:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) shoosh Mr. Hussain
==yep==
[http://web.archive.org/web/20030210052010/www.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush most nuetral version of this page I've seen]
==Proposed article split==
This article may be controversial but it is also vastly overweight at 70KB, and needs splitting, probably into 3 different articles. I am happy to split the article according to a consensus gathered here, and will write a piece asking readers to contribute to this debate here. I wouild like to be able to split the article on Sunday according to a consensus gathered. I would say I am reasonably neutral on George W. Bush, and am not American. I find it hard to imagine me making any other contributuion to this article. My only agenda is to see this article split up so that all information about him on wikipedia can be freely edited. [[User:Squiquifox|Squiquifox]] 20:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:FWIW, it already is split into 3 articles. I think 70kb is long. In my opinion, it's pushing it, but I wouldn't ''neccessarily'' say it's ''too'' long. Paper encyclopedias would probably have longer articles on presidents. I do not mean by this to state my formal position on this matter; I am undecided. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 21:28, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
:I think alot of what is said in this article could be moved to the [[George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States|first]] and [[George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States|second]] term articles. --[[User:The stuart|The_stuart]] 21:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Splitting between first and second term is generally unhelpful to the reader. The discussion of, for example, Bush and Iraq should be in one place, not arbitrarily divided at January 20, 2005 (a date of no particular significance to Iraq policy). In general, I don't think this article is overly long. If material were to be moved out, it would still be necessary to leave behind at least a summary, so the article wouldn't be greatly shortened. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::I totally disagree. Understanding the chronology of the events and placing them into a historal context could be much more helpful in understanding them.--[[User:The stuart|The_stuart]] 14:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]].[[User:Squiquifox|Squiquifox]] 02:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I too think that the length of this article is too long. I think it's so long that it ceases to be of great help to a casual reader. Even as a Bush supporter, I can admit that his alcohol and drug history are important. Their relevance, however, to this article, is questionable. Much of the material in here belongs at Wikinews, not Wikipedia. I would suggest at least breaking off one section for biography. A biography in the main article would, of course, be necessary. Then, when it comes to policies, highlight major (read "not necessarily current") concerns, give them brief descriptions, then move point readers to other pages for more details. In the Domestic Policy section, we would see sections on social policy, policy towards minorities, tax policy, immigration policy, healthcare policy, Social Security policy, science policy, environmental policy, and (I don't know why it's not there) security policy. Think about it. It would really be much better. Indeed, the domestic policy article already begins this process, but it appears that everyone comes to the main page and adds whatever news they think is appropriate. [[User:savantpol|savantpol]]
== Link to a video of drinking out of a bottled water container? ==
re. "Some have argued that a 1992 video shows him drinking at a wedding.": You guys should really take a look at this video and think about whether it's really appropriate. Then re-read the NPOV section entitled "Giving equal validity." If I might opine, it's lines like the above that are one of types of problems continue to keep wikipedia from being considered a place for 1st-rate scholarship. Best of luck.
--[[User:67.101.66.193|67.101.66.193]] 02:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: Exactly. But be careful...the gargoyles that haunt this page will call you a censor if you edit out such vital information. Neutral?...it is suggestive...and misleading...the fluid could have been anything...Bush may have been drunk, who knows, but conjecture such as this and the stupid narrative that goes along with it is pure sleaze and has no place here except for those that wish to push a leftwing point of view.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::It's not misleading unless you censor it, or it's presented with a specific spin. The fluid could have been anything. Bush could have been drunk, or just acting loopy for the fun of it. Therefore it should be up to the ''reader'' to decide, not the Defenders of the President's Image. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 15:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::No, let's leave it in here...it continues to show Bush in a questionable situation and that makes it suggestive...that is what I call fine journalistic endeavour...a blind man should understand that my argument is less about the content than the context. The content is inconclusive, the context is cheap, sleazy and sensationalist as one would expect from a tabloid...it is high schoolish and moronic and does not in any way provide the reader with an encyclopedic level of reporting. I say let the readers be educated with intelligent research not let the readers decide...the latter is the National Enquirer mentality many of the folks here have.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::I am well aware that modern "journalism" is self-censoring, with anything "questionable" sat upon unless it fits the agenda of the journalist...but that doesn't mean journalism ''should'' be that way. It should not be the journalist's job to make sure the reader draws a certain conclusion. "Inconclusive" information is at least as important as, if not moreso than, the stuff that is clear and obvious, when it comes to what should be reported.
::::It is speculative content, like "''What'' is Bush drinking in this video? Is it ''ALCOHOL???''" that makes reporting taboid quality, not the inclusion of information that does not lead one to a clear conclusion. The simple fact that we can't know for certain what's happening means that we need to let the reader decide, himself. One can say the same thing about the Ron Brown funeral footage. Maybe it's OK for Clinton to be laughing at the man's funeral. Maybe he really did suddenly break down in tears the moment he saw the camera on him. Or maybe he was a heartless poseur. To censor it is to be truly a junk journalist; making the decision ''for'' the reader. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 17:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::I agree that we shouldn't make a decision about whether the charge is correct. (I think whoever first added it used much too definitive language, saying that it showed Bush was lying about not drinking.) The serious issue is whether the matter is important enough to merit inclusion. I haven't even looked at the video; I was assuming good faith on the part of the editor who added it. We can't include every crackpot praise or criticism of Bush, though. If the video doesn't make clear what he's drinking, and this is just one person's interpretation of it, I'd be inclined to remove it. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::In US law there is a standard for evidence that I think is a propos here. Paraphrasing, does the probitive value outweigh the prejudicial nature of the evidence. This really offers no probative value for an encyclopedia article. Quite frankly there is just too much stuff in this article that is non-encyclopedic. Just as there is no reason to include the footage from Ron Brown's funeral in Clinton's article, there is no reason for this to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. On all these politically charged articles the problem IMHO is that there is this desire to get in "stuff" (stuff that proves the person/entity is superhuman or that proves they are satanic) as opposed to identifying what about that person is notable - That GWB claimed to stop drinking is not notable - in a encyclopediac article about the man - now in a full biography - that is another matter. If it was up to me I would redline this article and make it about half as long {{User:Trödel/sig}} 20:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::I'd say US law would be, if anything, an example of what ''not'' to do. Such tricks really are used to censor information that one side or the other simply finds embarassing. Even judges regularly impose their agenda by excluding perfectly arguable evidence that would undermine their goals. When the Michigan government was trying to confiscate millions from tobacco companies in order, supposedly, to compensate for the cost of smoking to the government health care system of that state, the judge threw out completely factual evidence that the tobacco tax itself brought in more revenue to the state than the cost it was claiming for the health care. And banned the government's own numbers, cited by the defense, that showed the alleged speed and earlier age at which smokers died actually resulted in a net "savings", economically. Why? What judge would want to let such a pivotal change in the way tobacco is prosecuted happen on his watch? [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 21:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::Not sure of the arguement made here - a bad decision by a judge implies the rule is useless? Anyway - how about this - a fundamental fairness issue arises when something is being included because of it casts the subject in a bad light purposefully - when there is no useful information also being presented by the information. That fundamental fairness concept is attempted to be implemented under a prejudicial v. prohbitive rule. Regardless - the issue remains and stands '''unattacked''' - there is no useful or probitive information being presented by this link. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 21:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::Well, you're certainly ''behaving'' like a judge or lawyer...pretending you've proven something when you clearly have not, and acting preemptively on it. I've reverted your invalid delete; it's not been settled, here. That was a prime example of agenda taking precedence over truth, and of the difference between someone who alters data to make it more appropriate, or deletes the data to censor things counter to one's PoV.
::::The very pretense that the jury...whose powers are generally being stripped away by corrupt judges...is not the one to decide the relevence of some evidence, but a Rule of Man judge instead, is the kind which is inevitably going to lead to abuse, as it is here. As with juries, the actual solution is to allow the actual people to see the evidence and decide, not some agenda-touting censor.[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 14:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::So taking something out that is disputed is pushing a POV but inserting it is not - get real - Are you going to continue to argue about the applicability probitive vs prejudicial while still not providing '''any''' reason why this is notable? {{User:Trödel/sig}} 23:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::The legal standard of "probative" evidence is always applied in relation to a specific issue. Evidence may be probative in one case but not in another. This article, though, isn't a legal brief aimed at proving that Bush is or is not a good President, or aimed at proving any other particular point. It's supposed to be an encyclopedic summary about Bush. Some facts about an article subject are worth reporting if sufficiently notable, even if they're not probative of anything. (I'd leave in his height, for example.) Factual reports of opinions, even irrational and ill-advised opinions, may merit inclusion here. The legal standard for admissibility of evidence isn't a good fit for our purposes. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 14:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Agree this is not a brief and it was not a good opener - In determining whether something is notable shouldn't there be some rational evaluation of the allegation, and whether the allegation is notable for something other than the fact that it was raised as an allegation. The fact remains that the inclusion of this is soley to push a specific POV - and it is not notable enough to be included. And no one has given any reason why this is notable other than the fact of the allegation itself. The justifications for it (Ron Brown funeral) argue against its inclusion since that is not in the Clinton article and is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 23:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::I agree with arguments on both sides of this debate. I don't like the idea of removing information because it ''may'' portray someone in a bad light. Information can be neutral and still be unflattering. However, I also don't like implying that some event may have occurred (Bush drinking at the wedding) without including both sides of that argument. If it's stated that "Some have argued that a 1992 video shows him intoxicated at a wedding", there should also be a statement of what others believe that video shows. As it stands, there's already a fairly thorough discussion of Bush's drinking habits. In my opinion, the disputed statement doesn't add enough value to warrant inclusion. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] | [[User talk:Carrp|Talk]] 00:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::If the consensus is that such a statment should be included, I suggest this: ''"There is debate over whether a [[1992]] wedding video shows Bush intoxicated or simply tired."'' [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] | [[User talk:Carrp|Talk]] 00:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::That would make sense to me. Probably the possibility that he's simply holding bottled water should be mentioned, too. Like "There is debate over whether a 1992 wedding video shows Bush intoxicated and drinking alcohol, or jovial and drinking bottled water"
::::He needn't be tired to act that goofy...people act goofy in front of wedding video cams, for some reason. Well, then again, I suppose they're usually drunk. But I still think one can simply be in a jovial mood from the whole wedding event. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 01:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::I have more reservations about the link to the alleged party scene where Bush is "drinking" or "intoxicated" than I do to the picture of him reading the Pet Goat. With the goat picture, we know he sat there..we don't know what he was thinking, and that is besides the point. It is a FACT that he did sit there and in all honesty, I'm not sure why he didn't get up...I said it probably was a brain fart. However, the link to the party video is inconclusive. Yes it appears to have been a wedding party, and yes, I think he looks like he is a bit tipsy or stoned, but there is no proof of that. I see no reason that it is here unless it is singularly significant that Bush was at that party and it could be proven that he was drunk...drinking...stoned or whatever. I also wish it could be authentically dated. The presentation by the smoking gun has a lot of suggestive prose. If it was admitted in a court of law as testimony it would be stricken from the record. I know, facts about opinions...but not if those opinions are not based on facts. I say it should be eliminated.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::I still say that his staying to read the book to the kids was commendable, and it's authority-worshipping nonsense to think that he could magically have helped in some way, just because he's the President.
::::::You keep insisting on comparing this encylopedia to a trial, yet (fortunately for the quest for truth) it's nearly the opposite. It's not about forcing people to only hear what both sides agree is airtight and directly related, but allowing people access to any arguably relevant information, and knowing they can choose what to believe for themselves. It's a shame the justice system doesn't work that way, as well. Anything a judge can hear and decide may not be valid, a jury can also hear and decide isn't...at least it could if it weren't carefully selected for its complete incompetence by the judge and lawyers.
::::::I'm beginning to think, considering your constant reference to courts of law, that you might be a lawyer...but it seems even more likely, from your delivery, that you simply watch/read way too many crime dramas. And I suppose I should assume the latter, to give you the benefit of the doubt.[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 22:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::: I am not a lawyer nor do I watch or read any crime dramas.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::re Video: Shouldn't there then be a complete section for drug abuse in the entries for [[Bill Clinton]], [[Al Gore]] and everybody else who has allegedly experimented?--[[User:hazmat|hazmat]] 14:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== Poll on TotallyDisputed tag ==
:''This discussion was moved from [[Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17]].''
Since some people really want to keep the TotallyDisputed tag on this article, let's take a vote on whether we want to '''keep''' or '''delete''' the tag, a sort of "VfD" for the tag. [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 18:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I suppose that is a useful thing to do. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 18:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''KEEP'''. I just read the article for the first time and it is an embarrasing total piece of crap. Full of innuendo, rumours, half-truths and Democratic propaganda.----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Well, it's certainly full of stuff that a dedicated Bush apologist, if he is for silencing the opposition, would not want included. But it's still stuff which is reasonably arguable. You should be spending more time making sure the equally valid Clinton-embarassing stuff is included in that guy's article, not trying to censor its equivilents here. What happened to that analysis of Clinton as the codependent adult child of an alcoholic, with various power-abuse issues against women? And didn't Safire base his claim that Hillary was a pathological liar on some psych guy's analysis?[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 03:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Thank you [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] for admitting that the information that you are putting in the article is bias. Good Job!----[[User:Keetoowah|Keetoowah]] 14:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''delete'''. I have disputes with the article, but they're more properly sociological disputes, centered around ethics, understanding, and fueled by hope. As passionate as I am about these things, I know that I have to understand that people prefer happy illusions to gruesome realities, and that they need that, emotionally, to get by. I want them to get by. So I vote against the Totally Disputed tag. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 19:09, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
*'''Replace with POV tag''', unless someone can identify what's factually disputed. Accurately attributed opinions, even if their inclusion is disputed, do not justify a TD tag. [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 04:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' the tag as it is. Archiving the previous discussion pages doesn't dismiss the fact that myself and a lot of other folks here do not find the article to be neutral and in that we also dispute some of the information and they poor quality of some of the referencing.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
**Okay, so the fact that the talk pages are archived is supposed to be some kind of proof of a left-wing plot to make this article biased? Talk page archiving is a pretty common practice throughout Wikipedia when talk pages become very large. The talk page was archived because it was getting to be more than a megabyte long, not because Wikipedia's socialist, anti-Bush cabal wants to hide evidence of a dispute. In regards to the "poor quality of the referencing," that's not proof that the article's inaccurate. [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 08:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:You were taking a poll and I voiced my opinion.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Taking van Wormer as a much-discussed example: MONGO, it was my understanding that you didn't dispute the ''accuracy'' of the report that she had made this comment; you thought that her opinion, although correctly reported, reflected only her political bias, should be given no weight, and therefore didn't merit being reported in the article (even if reported accurately). To me, that sounds more like a neutrality dispute than a factual-accuracy dispute. An example of the latter would be if the article said, "Bush didn't take his required National Guard physical exam despite a direct order from his superior officer, Jerry Kilian, that he do so." That would support a dispute about factual accuracy, given that there's a dispute about whether Killian gave such an order. I thought the disputed facts had all been changed so that Wikipedia wasn't endorsing either side, but just accurately presenting evidence. If the referencing is, in your opinion, of poor quality, we're being accurate if we disclose the source, so that readers who agree with you can discount it appropriately. Are there any specific instances where you think something is asserted as a fact that should be qualified in that way? [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::I'll get back to you on all that later so as not to take up all the room here...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I have major issues with this page, but I know that it will take ages for any compromises. --[[User:BaronLarf|BaronLarf]] 14:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. At least two people have expressed serious reservations with the content. One would be enough, and we can't accuse MONGO (for instance) of not being forthright and clear about his reservations. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Replace with POV tag'''. What information in the article is factually disputed? [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] | [[User talk:Carrp|Talk]] 15:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Replace with "Controversial" tag'''. The topic is inevitably controversial. Anything that makes Bush look bad will offend the Bush apologists, and anything that makes Bush look good will upset the Bush critics...and there is plenty which does one or the other, even when presented neutrally. So there will always be cries of PoV, even if there isn't PoV present. Therefore the most logical tag is "Controversial", acknowledging that anyone with an opinion's gonna dispute ''something'' here. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 15:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. We can't slap on a "totally disputed" tag because of every new editor that comes along. Is this article really "totally disputed", or does it just come down to a few minor elements? If we must, a "controversial" tag should be more than sufficient. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 18:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*: Well it isn't just any "new editor". It's someone who has come along and made a coherent, if not necessarily completely convincing, case that lots of the pieces in this article are only there to smear mud on Bush's name. He isn't being unreasonable, he's making legitimate points that have to do with the balance of the article and the effect that all the negative material has. I think it's a legitimate question whether, for instance, the cocaine allegations are being overstressed and giving a false impression of Bush's character. Until I can convince both myself and MONGO that they aren't I'd rather the notice remain there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::As I said, this is inevitable in a controversial article. Any serious criticism of Bush is going to offend his apologists, and any pro-Bush information his critics. This article would have to be stripped of most of its real value in order to not be disputed. It is, therefore, inherently controversial, but not necessarily biased in such an overwhelming way that it needs the most pejorative of tags. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 21:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' the tag; OK to replace it with the POV or Controversial tag. Several days ago, I commented that the dispute "sounds more like a neutrality dispute than a factual-accuracy dispute." I asked for examples of alleged factual inaccuracy (as opposed to NPOV violations). Having seen none, I vote to delete the "Disputed" tag. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::I didn't get back to you about that and in honesty, after close analysis of the article, I see that it suffers mainly from a POV controversy instead of any major accuracy problem. However, as I stated in another response, the following passage is food for thought in that I feel that in some cases, the innuendo here is deliberately misleading..."If those opinions are derived from falsehoods, innuendo and or bad judgement on the part of the person or entity providing the opinion, and we are aware of their dubiousness yet knowingly recite them anyway, then our inclusion of said opinion is malfeasence and is a mirror of that distortion.".--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::We can include significant facts that tend to cut against the cited opinion (although we have to rein in collateral disputes). In many cases of claimed POV, though, all we're omitting is something like "Now that we've told you the facts about this opinion and the facts that some people believe refute that opinion, we want you to know that some Wikipedia editors are among those who believe the opinion to have been refuted." [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 17:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' and '''Replace''' with "Controversial" tag. It is obviously controversial - and I do think the contents are moving towards NPOV through the normal editing processes {{User:Trödel/sig}} 16:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
*such a tag would be absurd and unsupported by any reasonable argument as MONGO himself admits just above. so, i '''oppose''' a "totally diputed" tag. [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 17:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Back to the pet goat in response we resume with the last few discussions ==
I think both of you saw too much news coverage of that situation and or F911 and reach the conclusion you do about him being indecisive. I say it is here and you support it here because it supports your biased opinion of Bush. I don't use the word biased in a hostile manner. We all have our biases...no doubt. But I think that the entire issue of this photo is a misrepresentation in that the media, which tends to be leftwing, has looked at it from that manner and has passed it on to all of us. I do not see controversial pictures of this nature in similar articles. I do not see that at all. It sits solitary and alone and is not connected to the article...but due to the bias of the media, we have all been well indocrinated to what that picture was guessed to mean about what Bush was doing which appeared to be nothing. As far as Bush having the chance to show independent thought...well, some of his staff were right there with him...and no President acts alone anyway...I say the picture should be replaced with this one for, as I said, we know what he said.[63] (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911jointsessionspeech.htm). That would leave no ambiguities and would be neutral because it is attributable to a known, not some perception.--MONGO 13:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, sidestepping the issue of whether to keep the pic or not, I don't think people have been biased by the leftwing media to see the photo as an indictment of Bush. Quite the opposite; everybody, without exception, I have talked to who has seen the whole clip of him just sitting there for a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time has said the same thing: 1) it clearly portrays him as rudderless and 2) why the hell hasn't this clip been shown in the media before? Gzuckier 15:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I disagree, which is why I think my opinion on this is significant; I think it's utterly ridiculous to pretend that Bush could have accomplished anything more if he'd run out of the room (panicking the children) and started trying to micromanage the situation seven minutes earlier. This is the kind of authority-worshipping nonsense that really irks me about our society in recent years. People "taking charge" doesn't automatically improve a situation or crisis. And yet I agree the pic should stay. Especially if it's a Bush PR pic. If we don't censor PR pics for making Bush look good, we shouldn't censor them for supposedly making him look bad. And, anyway, the fact that the pic is historically significant makes it that much more appropriate, good or bad. One of the most famous individual pics of Clinton is the one of him laughing at Ron Brown's funeral. Because the pic is so famous, it would be appropriate in his article, though of course the Clinton apologists would try to censor it purely out of their own bias. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's utterly ridiculous to pretend that the only alternative to Bush sitting there continuing his photo op was to run out of the room screaming. He could have easily excused himself in a calm manner without scaring anyone. Despite what Mongo thinks, all these possible interpretations prove that one single POV is not being pushed by including the picture. This is an important, unrehearsed moment in American history as it is happening and should be included, and is much more important than some varnished, rehearsed picture of a politician's speech. (Incidentally, someone should put a Lewinsky pic in Clinton's article.) Gamaliel 17:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bush's behavior since September 11, 2001 is something about which I have a particular interpretation but that is not something for discussion here. I will simply say that it is possible to have interpretations of Bush's reaction to the incident (and American's reaction in general) other than the one that is loudly promoted by the White House.
You can rest assure that, being European, I have never had the opportunity to become "indoctrinated" by the US media, since I do not have access to their output and my local media have their own independent US political correspondents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:OK, let's be realistic here...if the premise is that people might get a bad impression of Bush from the US media, that's true cubed for European media. I still say the pic should stay, but you're not exactly gonna get a positive impression of Bush in Europe. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 17:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed you won't. But my point handily demolishes MONGO's belief that there is a small clique of Washington "liberals" or whatever the mot-du-jour is engineering bad PR for Bush. If anything, the Washington press corps is seen by outsiders to be a bunch of spineless bootlickers for Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I used an example of quid pro quo per se in that I stated in another argument that if the Pet Goat picture is going to be here, then why isn't there a picture of Monica Lewinsky in the Bill Clinton article. I don't wish to see either of these pictures in here. The argument was also presented that there are people that are apologists for Clinton and will censor Monica pictures out, and that there are apologists for Bush that wish to "censor" out the Pet Goat photo. I apologize for nothing. But here's the deal. I believe that Wikipedia is dominated by folks who have a left leaning political bias and I am cool with that. In fact, that means that we probably have a large number of academics and that bodes well on items of specialization....but it is bad news for articles such as this one. I now want to leave in the Pet Goat picture because that proves my point. I also don't want to have any photos of Monica in the Clinton article. If the left is watching the pages then it is expected that they would want to leave out a photo of Monica and leave in a photo of Bush reading the pet goat. Neither photo repesents a "defining moment" in either man's Presidency. As I said, the defining moment for Bush was when he delivered his speech to the joint congress on 9/20/01. I am also concerned about the zeal you have with all of a sudden wanting to put in a picture of Monica in the Clinton article...makes me think you are here more to bash our Presidents than to provide a neutral point of view. As far as what the European press thinks of Bush, well that's easy to deduce. I am sorry if I left out the obvious bias of the European media when I spoke only of the U.S. press's leftward bias. If you think that The Washington Post is pro Bush, you are gravely mistaken.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::"Bash "our presidents"? How about allow a full historic perspective, instead of the usual one-sided spin? Since the pro-president censors tend to be the ones trying to hide embarassing news, that's gonna make me seem anti-president, I suppose. But if someone tries to censor the pic of Bush with Fox, claiming it gives one a falsely positive impression, I'll oppose that, too. What's important is that the information around a subject get presented, not that the information giving the impression I desire concerning that subject get presented alone.
::There are two kinds of people trying to "fix" debatable information in a typical Wikipedia article: There's the kind who wants to present information in the correct, npov format, and the kind who wants to make sure that his "side" is the only one seriously presented at all.
::The former tends to ''fix'' information, by gently changing it to be more neutral and accurate, the latter tries to ''silence'' any information he does not like. Both use the same justification..."this is presented with a PoV", "it's not clear that this is true", "this needs some kind of support".
::But the former, pro-truth kind of editor deals with these justifications by changing the text to a neutral PoV, editing the text so that it says "this is alleged by some", and finding pages to cite in reference to the material in question. The latter, pro-censorship kind of editor simply deletes, deletes, and deletes, if the information in question is counter to his own personal agenda. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 15:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
**Oh, and as for "our presidents":
:::Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.
:::::Theodore Roosevelt
::It is one's job...as an American, a human being, or a thinking entity...to tell the truth, NOT to "help" our "side" get a desirable presentation.[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 15:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::The absence of a Lewinsky pic is taken by you as "evidence" of a leftist bias. When we agree with you that a Lewinsky pic should be in the artice, this is taken by you as "evidence" that we wish to "bash our presidents". (Never mind the fact that not all of our fellow editors are US citizens.) Either way, we can't win with you since neither outcome satisfies you. I can't help but wonder if you're determined to see Wikipedia in an adversarial manner regardless of whatever actions we take. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 18:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I can't resist giving you guys one more pointer. Think about using up the real estate that you are, on a survey article, about a photo from what I would say is a fairly meaningless reaction (and much partisan argument of what that initial reaction even was) in the long-term historical picture of Bush the Man and Bush the Presidency. It would be one thing if this picture was the beginning of months of indecisiveness, withdrawal, etc. But instead, much to either the chagrin or pleasure of many, Bush from within 24 hours onward has taken U.S. policy on a markedly new, determined route. Contrast, for instance, with Joeseph Stalin's reaction to the Nazi invasion. He widthdrew to the Kremlin for over a month (he may have even had a true nervous breakdown) and spent his time fretting over whether rifles should be equipped with double-bladed or triple/triangular-bladed bayonets. All while massive Soviet armies were left strategyless and were crushed by the Germans. Only during the German push to Moscow in the winter did Stalin find his resolve. So again, is wikipedia a serious encyclopedia, and do its survey articles focus on concise first-rate scholarship? Or is it a place where the reader is frequently diverted by Ahab-like focus on pieces of minor carping? No one's stopping anyone from writing an in depth article about, say "A president in the moment of crisis - George W. Bush's movements on September 11". But I think it's misguided and possibly petty to include this sort of stuff in what is ostensably a encyclopedic article titled "George W. Bush". Good luck.--[[User:67.101.66.193|67.101.66.193]] 14:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
* From my point of view, the almost unmitigated disaster that has been Bush's response to a single terrorist attack does not cast him in a good light at all. Recent worldwide opinion polls on Bush seem to indicate that this is the most common view in the world at large. Boneheadedness is not to be equated to resolve. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::: Either you have completely missed my point, or I have completely missed yours. My point is about what belongs in an encyclopedia article entitled "George W. Bush" - which I would take to mean a relatively concise (not a page but not a book) survey article about the man and his presidency. Statements about the kind of things that will matter in 100 years about the man and his presidency belong. Details of every speculation about the man and his presidency don't. This is what elevates the main articles - the big picture, the long view, concise without going down ratholes every paragraph. Not that those speculations can't be covered in other articles devoted to those details. Your point appears to have little to do with this. I am reading your response as an assertion/judgement on Bush's foriegn policy. Which I suppose is because you have mistakenly inferred that I am making an argument/judgement on the effectiveness or wisdom of Bush's policy. I am not. Was it when I wrote "But instead, much to either the chagrin or pleasure of many, Bush from within 24 hours onward has taken U.S. policy on a markedly new, determined route."? That was intended to be a statement on the nature of Bush's presidency, not a judgement on its effectiveness or wisdom. Hence the "either the chagrin or pleasure."--[[User:67.101.66.193|67.101.66.193]] 16:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::That certainly is the common world perspective on Bush, but it's irrelevent. The goal of the pic should ''not'' be to convince the reader that Bush' response to 9-11 was bad. Nor should it be removed to ensure that people do NOT get the impression that it was bad. It should be presented neutrally, as a piece of information that is seen as interesting by many people, and the reader should decide for himself.
::Hell, when ''I'' look at the pic, I see Bush behaving in a very statesmanlike fashion. Many men throughout history have been lauded for maintaining a healthy sense of perspective and normalcy for the people immediately around them, when there's nothing better to be done, anyway. At that moment, there was ''nothing'' Bush could do to change what was happening. There wasn't enough information to order jets to shoot down the planes, and it didn't take the Commander in Chief to simply have some get up in the air and ready "just in case". [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 15:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::All he was told was "America is under attack"... what if it was a nuclear attack? 7 minutes to get into the air as opposed to being on the ground might make all the difference. Also, decisions need to be made as quick as possible. There were other hijacked planes in the air, every second counts in a situation like that, so you are incorrect in that other things couldn't have been done. So you're saying they crash 2 planes so lets kick back, open up a cold one, and chill for 10 minutes, cause its not like there's anything we can do? In either respect, he choked. Like Gamaliel said, its not like the only alternative was to run out screaming, he could have simply excused himself and left his seat, but he didn't. He was stunned like the rest of us, and if he had simply come out and said it, I don't know if I would have minded as much, but to pass it off as not wanting to upset the children is a blatent PR response, and you know it. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 19:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
::::OK, so you seriously believe that if the United States had been getting pummelled by nukes from Russia, someone would have snuck in the room and whispered "America is under attack", and then left him there? That's just silly. And where did you get the idea that this vague phrase is all he was told? I'm under the impression that he was told that an airplane had run into the WTC. And believe me, I'd be the first guy to accuse Bush of blatant PR spin, if it were the case. I care about truth, not some political "side". That's why I'm defending the pic staying, even though I don't agree with the popular interpretation of it. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 21:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In giving my personal view of the Bush presidency and in particular the foreign policy, I was simply rebutting MONGO's suggestion that events since [[September 11]], [[2001]] give a picture of Bush that is at odds with the impression that many get from examining the Pet Goat picture. Your criticism is spot on--I accept completely that my impression of Bush is subjective (as is my view of his Presidency). So yes, it's irrelevant. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:OK, I agree that the goat pic is consistent with the impression people get of Bush from media worldwide. Either way, though, the pic would belong, especially if it's originally a legitimate PR shot. Has anyone bothered to check that out? [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 21:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:: I haven't checked it out fully. The uploader cited the Michael Moore site, so I think it was a press still from F911. The original source was probably a local TV team that was covering the school visit on that day. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::In summary, the goat pic stays because I am hopelessly outnumbered. But it isn't a picture that was taken, not that that should matter. I am almost positive that it is a vidcap from a local television station and I think it was from a NBC affilliate but may be mistaken. Okay, so he sat around right after being told about the events as they unfolded on 911...but to say he was chilling or popping open a cold one is %$#@$%% unfair. I say it is here because it presents a bad view of Bush...possibly he messed up...should have gotten up and done something...who knows. But no doubt that documentary used it and possibly perverted what he was thinking and what a number of you may be thinking...it doesn't merit classification as editorial excellence that's for sure.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::I'm not sure why you say it wasn't a picture that was taken. Do you mean it is a vidcap rather than a posed picture? I'm not sure why this is relevant to the question of whether it is a picture of President Bush reading a book with children in a school classroom.
:::: You say " to say he was chilling or popping open a cold one is %$#@$%% unfair." You will be pleased to note that the article says nothing of the sort.
:::: You say "it doesn't merit classification as editorial excellence that's for sure". Well it's one of the few pictures we have of a President while a devastating terrorist attack was going on. It may not rank artistically with the Iwo Jima flag-raising picture [http://www.iwojima.com/raising/lflage.gif] (and I'm pretty sure nobody is planning on making a statue based on that picture). Nevertheless it is clearly a photograph of some considerable importance. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::Geez, man! I said to leave it in. I think it is biased and I have gone on the record staying as such. I was also responding to the earlier innuendo stated by kizzle: ''so lets kick back, open up a cold one, and chill for 10 minutes'', when he gave his impression of what Bush was doing in the photo, when I made my comment about that being unfair...I know that isn't in the article. I also don't need from you a link to the Iwo Jima memorial...I once lived one mile from where it stands in Arlington, Virginia. We continue to debate what the picture means and that in itself is the reason having it here isn't editorial excellence...it is not a fair treatise on the subject...it is conjecture and has been twisted around by the media. We need to tie it into the text or it has no purpose...what the heck is it here for? The picture is not a PR photograph to whoever asked that question...it is a vidcap...why not link the text to the entire video of events before, during and after that seven minute brain fart to get a better perspective of what was going on in totality. Then get rid of the picture. Regardless, I have bigger fish to fry about this article so unless someone puts a Nazi patch on Bush's shoulder, I won't edit it out for now.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::For the record mongo, I don't think that's what he was doing in the photo, I was just illuminating that to assume there was nothing to be done so he was justified in sitting there was wrong. I agree linking to the video would be good, but if we are going to include the information, I don't think the one photo combined with the current caption unfairly represents Bush. By the way, did you get your name from Blazing Saddles? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 21:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Examine my user page...it is still in progress...when I learn how to use this format I'll make it better.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: Great! I think we all know what purpose that picture serves. We are all curious about how a leader reacts in a situation like this. For better or worse, thanks to this picture we all know what Bush's reaction was. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::You only want it here because it helps your biased case and your opinion, not because it has any other purpose. Your perception of the photo justifies your reasons for wishing to keep it here. It needs to be tied into the text...if that is possible...without creating further point of view.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::I personally want it here because its part of history. I disagree with spoon-feeding the reader about what was going on in his head, i.e. Michael Moore's commentary over the video in this segment, but it is a significant event that needs to be included. And I heavily disagree that the inclusion of a single picture of Bush sitting in a classroom constitutes POV... if it is, its just as much POV as the official photo-ops that take up this page. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 21:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
::::As I've said before, ''I'' don't even agree with the premise that there's something wrong with it. I think it was quite statesmanlike of him, since there was indeed nothing he could accomplish and I'm pretty sure he was just told "a plane hit the WTC". Oh, and Moore is well established as someone who lies with his supposed documentaries. Do a quick google for sites analyzing ''Bowling for Columbine''...it doesn't matter what party you're in, the fact that he cut up speeches to sound like the exact opposite of what was being said is cold, hard fact. And so it wouldn't surprise me at all that he's behind the bizarre premise that Bush was somehow bad for spending seven whole minutes finishing the book for the kids. But it's still a part of history, even if that lying effer Moore is the reason, and THAT is why I don't want to censor it. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 01:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::Amen to that! But does anyone really know what was whispered into his ear and when...I mean, did Bush get informed of the first plane hitting the north tower at the WTC, the one hitting the south tower or was it the Pentagon...because that makes a world of difference. If it was the first plane, then he wouldn't have been told that we are under attack. Only that a tragedy had happened. If it was the second plane, then maybe he was assessing whether it really was an attack...but if it was about the Pentagon,after the first two, then he looks like a moron. I say it stays regardless of how it was portrayed in F911 by that pachyderm. Sorry, had to get that one in.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::So we've agreed on a few things then:
::::::#Michael Moore is a misleading douchebag.
::::::#After being told America is under attack, Bush waited for 7 minutes
::::::#People can decide to interpret number 2 however they wish.
::::::#It still is a part of history and should be included.
::::::I wish I knew where I got this from, but he was told of the first plane right before he went inside, and then Ari Fleischer whispered "America is under attack"... I'll try to find the source for that. Pentagon and all that wasnt reported yet when he was told. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
On 9/11 2001, Bush was Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. Any solider will tell you how important it is to believe that those who give orders KNOW what to do in a time of crisis. And in that clip, Mr. Bush did nothing. But again, that is simply my point of view. I can understand the opposing view, but I really think it is a priceless moment in American history because it is one of the very few unscripted moments when the veil is torn aside and we see the man. That's all I have to say for now. [[User:Fergananim|Fergananim]]
== Neutrality vs. Accuracy ==
Obviously, some people dispute this article's neutrality. But I really haven't seen much of a case made that this article is factually inaccurate. [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute]] gives a list of conditions that merit an accuracy tag. As far as I can see, this article doesn't meet those conditions: it doesn't contain a lot of unlikely information without providing references, it doesn't contain information which is difficult to verify (such as original research, for example), nobody's pointed out factual errors, and AFAIK it hasn't been "edited by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic." As has been pointed out earlier, issues such as whether we should include Katherine van Wormer's view that Bush displays patterns of addictive behavior are about neutrality, not accuracy. For better or worse, that statement merely reflects van Wormer's opinion, but including it is not an "accuracy" issue. It can easily be confirmed through multiple sources that van Wormer holds those views, so it is not inaccurate to say she does. If the article were to come out and say something like "Bush's behavior shows addictive patterns and that is the truth," there would be an accuracy issue. Including van Wormer's statement doesn't make the article inaccurate, but it would if, say, van Wormer had never said anything like that.
The larger point of all this is that attributed statements that can be confirmed from multiple sources, even if some or most people would consider that statement wrong, do not make the ''article'' inaccurate, just the opinion of the person being cited. (Obviously, we should treat statements like that as opinion and not fact to maintain NPOV). For example, let's say an article on the Roman Empire included a statement by a historian who thinks the Roman Empire did not extend to Britain in the second century. He has been very public about his claims and has attracted a lot of interest. It's easy to argue that such a claim is inaccurate; extensive archaeological and other evidence confirms that Rome did indeed rule Britain in the second century. However, if we were to include a statement from that historian, making it clear that it is only his opinion, that would not affect ''the accuracy of the article''. It would only be an accuracy issue if the article were written in a way that assumes the historian's claim is correct. If, say, the article included the historian's opinion, gave a lot of time to it and did not give much time to criticism of his opinion, there would be an issue. But it would be about neutrality, not accuracy.
My point is, when we talk about "accuracy," let's be sure that's what we're really talking about. It can be easy to confuse accuracy with neutrality. [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 03:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Wormer is supposed to be an expert on the subject and gives her opinion based on her expertise. As an expert on the subject she would be expected to deliver such an opinion and such a diagnosis only after a standard evaluation conducted by way of a doctor to patient evaluation rendered only after at least one or more visits. Furthermore, since she believes this to be a side effect of years of drinking and not sobering up with proper professional assistance it is the kind of thing that a professional would not disclose to the public as that would be an invasion of the patients rights. Instead, she blantantly violates that code of conduct and spouts off her opinion not as a caring specialist would, but as a detraction of that person. In light of the fact that she didn't provide her expertise in an standard or ethical manner, her testimony is worthless. It has no more weight than if I had said it...but it is in the sources listed and in this article because it allows those that oppose Bush an opportunity, because of her "expert" opinion, to slander him. Hers is an inaccurate statement because it wasn't arrived at in the standard manner normally approved by those that provide this type of evaluation. It is not neutral because of it's inaccuracy and placing it here violates our efforts to remain neutral.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Personally, I wouldn't shed any tears if the van Wormer "diagnosis" were removed from the article. However, I wouldn't be too eager to say it's in the article just as an excuse for Wikipedians to "slander" Bush. Whether or not any of us agree with it, van Wormer's views are fairly widely known, so this isn't just something some random Wikipedian dug up out of nowhere because he's an anti-Buah pinko who doesn't support our troops and hates America. As I was saying earlier, the van Wormer statement is no justification for an accuracy warning on the article. The mention of van Wormer's statements just says that she made them, not that they're accurate. If van Wormer had never said such a thing, ''that'' would trigger an accuracy warning. See the difference? [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 09:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::We keep missing each other in the point. The point is context. That she said the things she said I do not dispute. That she said them using her position as an "expert" but failed to say them based on an expert analysis is the reason that her opinion isn't accurate. She claims expertise to such a degree that she can render her opinion (which is taken by laymen to be a true diagnosis) simply by listening to his speeches or watching his mannerisms from afar? It is accurate to say that she said these things...it isn't accurate to use them here because it is not based on a normal doctor to patient relationship...in which case we would probably never know what her opinion is (that is if she truly were an expert). Regardless, if it was disclosed that Bush was indeed a Dry Drunk by an expert after a doctor to patient analysis then that would be admissible.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::Even if her ''opinion'' isn't accurate, including her statement doesn't make the ''article'' inaccurate.
::::Really, could you point out one statement in this article that (1) you consider inaccurate and (2) is presented as fact. Those would be reasons to dispute this article's accuracy. Not "I don't agree with this" or "I don't like the sources on this claim." [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 19:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::Are you unable to understand what her motivations are? It is easy for me to see what your motivations are. I say that it is inaccurate and is viewed by the general reader as a fact in that she is supposed to be an expert witness...and in that her opinion carries weight...she uses that in an unprofessional manner as an attempt to slander Bush. But, her witness of whether he is a Dry Drunk or not is not based on a doctor/patient relationship. In that the issue of being a Dry Drunk is not a certified condition recognized by any medical/psychiatric board, that she conducted her survey in a manner which would not render her judgement a recognizable one in the view of her peers, and that she belched her opinion on the matter in an unethical manner makes this a poor choice of reference on the subject and therefore makes it an inaccurate statement. That she said those things I don't argue, our inclusion of them without weighing its value as a sound treatise on the matter is the issue. Yeah, Yeah, facts about opinions...but not if those opinions are here to support a biased view. That is why it is inaccurate.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::Opinions are just that, opinions. They're not right or wrong as long as they're clearly stated as opinions. There's a huge, huge difference between "Ben Collins, professor of history at Southern California State University, claims that the Roman Empire did not extend to Britain in the second century, a claim that has been widely disputed" and simply "The Roman Empire did not extend to Britain in the first century." As long as it's clear that opinions are just opinions, they have nothing to do with accuracy, only neutrality. I understand it's totally possible that van Wormer's statement is just a socialist left-wing anti-American plot to smear our benevolent and glorious leader.
::::::What I disagree with is not whether van Wormer's statement should be in the article; I think it should go because I consider it an unverifiable, inconsequential minority view that's unnecessary in an encyclopedic article about Bush. (I wouldn't mind a discussion on the subject in a separate [[George W. Bush drug and alcohol controversy]] article, though). So we agree on that. What I don't agree with is the idea that including the statement makes this an inaccurate article that needs a heavy-duty accuracy warning.
::::::One other thing: Would you mind answering the question I asked before? The van Wormer statement doesn't count because it's not presented as fact. An example of what I was talking about before would be something like "Midland, Texas arrest records show that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession on July 6, 1971." There's nothing like that anywhere in the article, so there's no accuracy issue unless you're coming from the perspective that all criticism of Bush is wrong and therefore "inaccurate." An encyclopedic article on Bush (and Clinton, and Kerry...) needs to address criticisms to an extent. [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 01:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Like two ships passing in the wind. Using "others have said" or similar phrase, and then linking it to some tabloidish, zany or silly source is the reason the article is inaccurate. Accuracy involves meaning that all the items are accurate...factual...not accurate that the items were said. If we link to silly passages or opinion, then it can't be accurate. Wanting to continue to push these issues is the reason it isn't neutral. I say all the referencing from Salon, Hatfield's book, to some degree the Texans for Truth stuff to be false witness. Not to mention van Wormer as well. I want the tag removed too...but only after we resolve the accuracy and neutrality by proper editing and that doesn't mean I am censoring. I have edited out passages that are based on silly innuendo, false diagnosis, wrongful agenda and slander that is unsubstantiated.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::::I understand your point, I just don't happen to agree with it. If for some reason you want to continue this conversation, why don't we take it to our talk pages, OK? [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 02:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: Both the Van Wormer article ''and'' our reference to it make it plain that she bases her opinion on observing his behavior as a President. She is not claiming to diagnose Bush as an addictive personality, but she is certainly sufficiently expert in the subject for her opinion, in a major newspaper, to be of significance. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Wrong. It is not of significance; it is a lie. She claims to be an expert in what...social work? She used a term that isn't even recognized by any medical or psychiatric board as a diagnosis. It is a lie because she hasn't, as an expert witness, performed what would be recognized in her field by her peers, an actual examination per se. Your insistance that it stays in here is not a neutral stand. This isn't an article of science fiction is it? Later.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We've been round a few times on this, so I won't repeat my responses to the above points. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It seems that the Van Wormer section has been completely absent from the piece for over twenty-four hours, now. I restored it once or twice when it was removed before but I've done my bit for now. So as to avoid edit warring I will not restore it again; whether it resurfaces is entirely up to whether others agree with me that it belongs in this article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Just for the record, I wasn't the last person to delete it. I don't know if everything has to come to a vote, especially since other people will surf into this article and have their own detractions, ensuring new edit wars and discussions, but I vote to keep it out. If someone can reference the allegation to an actual doctor/client diagnosis, since it is a serious charge, then it should be included.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: There has at no time been any claim that there was a medical diagnosis. This is not the issue. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering how long it would last (I added it in its original form). I see it's been deleted. Was this the consensus or a pro-Bush editor getting their way? - [[User:Diceman|Diceman]] 14:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Let's split off the drug/alcohol section into a separate article ==
A huge amount of the NPOV controversy about this article centers around claims about Bush's alleged drug/alcohol use. It's a distraction from more important issues and it's caused a lot of unnecessary edit wars. Since deleting that section is not something I or most editors would support, I think it might be a good idea to split the content about drug and alcohol allegations into a separate article--[[George W. Bush drug and alcohol controversy]], perhaps. That'll move all the inevitable edit wars to the new article and give the editors of this article more time to focus on other, more important issues. [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 19:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, but don't think that this would make the article accurate or neutral as there are many other points such as the elections, budgetary comparisons, and use of words and innuendo which would continue to plague this article. Furthermore, the only proof we have except silly jargon from dubious sources which discusses his "drug and alcohol controversy" is his own admittance that he used to drink a lot. A link to a controversy page using as it were the same poorly referenced and unsubstantive sources would be not much better than going ahead and leaving them in here.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::The controversies about Bush's and Kerry's military service were spun off into daughter articles because they were so lengthy and detailed that they were cluttering up the main article. Each of those daughter articles, though, is far longer than the drug-and-alcohol material in this article. That section doesn't really need to be spun off. Furthermore, spinning off details to a daughter article doesn't mean suppressing the subject in the main article. There would still be a summary and a link. The necessity of reaching agreed-upon wording for the summary would just create a new problem. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 21:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes, I agree that simply wanting to shunt aside the troublemakers is not any kind of legitimate reason to split off a section. If anything, it seems strikingly like a means of hiding the Bush-embarssing stuff, which one must then go out of their way to find. I can imagine the response if someone tried to split off a list of things Bush has accomplished and been lauded for. If we're going to split up the article...and that's a good idea...it should be by size, not controversy. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 01:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Alcohol and Drug Allegations ==
I will continue to defend any at least arguable content in the Alcohol/Drugs section, but I'm wondering if it really should be the second major section in the article. Perhaps it could be moved to some later point. At least past the "personal life" section, since it sort of spans Personal and Early Career, chronologically. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 15:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Good point. It really doesn't warrant being section 1.1, especially since it's somewhat sizeable at eight paragraphs. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] | [[User talk:Carrp|Talk]] 15:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Where it is now is where it logically goes, by the chronological organization, since it relates to the early part of his life. Although some of it is appropriate for Carrp's suggested move, because Bush stopped drinking only well after he had begun his business career, it might convey a misleading impression if the references to his wild youth were carried along, too. One possibility that occurs to me, if the concern is the prominence because it comes early on, is that this article might adapt an approach in the [[Bill Clinton]] article: beef up the lead section with a few sentences about notable aspects of his presidency. I hesitate to suggest it, because the fur might fly over what's notable enough to qualify. Still, maybe people could take a look at the second and third paragraphs of the Clinton article and consider whether we should attempt something similar. (The selection of highlights for the Clinton section seems dubious to me -- omitting welfare reform, mentioning Northern Ireland mediation but omitting Yugoslavian intervention -- which I suppose illustrates the kind of dispute we'd face if attempting it here.)
::Specifics on latest edits: Is there any basis for saying that the wedding video has been "widely circulated on the internet"? I was leaning toward removing it on the grounds that it's ''not'' widely circulated. (With attacks on controversial figures, my feeling is that it should be either from a source with some expertise or prominence, or something that got enough currency to be notable by that reason alone, so this question is relevant to the inclusion of a reference to the video.) Also, Kazvorpal has restored the van Wormer graf, apparently not noticing that I'd already done so, so it's now duplicated, but with some highly dubious additions about AA. What's the basis for claiming that van Wormer was relying on AA or any other religious views? [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 16:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::The basic premise of the "dry drunk" is an AA assumption in the first place, and is itself in dispute, seen as a trait of that movement's cult-like religiosity. Follow the two links I included, the result of a very quick search on the topic. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 17:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Actually, Kaz suggested the move, I was just noting that it does seem out of place in section 1.1. I agree with you that it does fit there chronologically, but it's almost ''too'' prominent being the second major section. What about having a summary in the personal life section and moving the rest of the information to a later section? I'm not really against the current layout, but I do think it could be improved. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] | [[User talk:Carrp|Talk]] 16:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::For comparison, I wondered how we treat other such cases (unflattering facts early in life). The first example that occurred to me was [[Hugo Black]], and our article about him follows chronology, so the reader finds out about his KKK membership before his accomplishments on the Supreme Court are detailed. A biography generally follows chronology, so it shouldn't be assumed that what's first is most important. At least the Bush article has a TOC so that a reader who doesn't care about the DUI or the Texas Rangers can skip to the sections about Bush's campaigns or his presidency. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 16:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed the second reference to Van Wormer. In my opinion the wording that you restored more accurately describes the piece (on the other and, I wrote quite a lot of it so I suggest others check and edit accordingly). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: It is bad reporting to even have it here to begin with, as are most of the other charges that depend on innuendo. Wormer uses the term Dry Drunk as though it were an actual diagnostic human condition when it isn't. She arrived at her conclusions without properly surveying her "patient" in a manner that would not be construed as fact by her peers, and she violated ethical standards by discussing it publically and even writing about it. She is just another [[Ward Churchill]], using her freedom of speech and her position to incite discord for no other purpose than to bring upon us simpletons what she either construes as enlightening or simply to push a point of view. Regardless of all that, the passage becomes less neutral by calling AA a religion which it may be but who cares as far as this article goes. Unless we are going to find a fact that Bush stayed out of AA because he didn't agree with their religion. I understand that she advocates AA and hence, her utterance of one of their terms, when discussing Bush. She is well known as a bleeding heart and has made it clear that she dislikes Bush. I cannot see how her biased opinion and the manner in which it was diagnosed and then made public can be equated with good science worthy of this forum.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== 2004: "Close" or "Controversial" Election? ==
There seems to be a question regarding the wording of the 2004 election in the second paragraph. Here are two versions:
In [[2004]], Bush was [[U.S. presidential election, 2004|reelected]] in a [[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities|controversial election]], defeating [[United States Senator|Senator]] [[John Kerry]] of [[Massachusetts]].
In [[2004]], Bush was [[U.S. presidential election, 2004|reelected]] in a close election, defeating [[United States Senator|Senator]] [[John Kerry]] of [[Massachusetts]].
Looking at some past discussion from [[Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17]], there seemed to be some level of agreement that after the Jan 20th inauguration, "close" was a more suitable word. It doesn't have the negative connotation of "controversial" but stills conveys that the country was split. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] | [[User talk:Carrp|Talk]] 18:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I agree that "close" is far more accurate than "controversial". The amount of inconsistencies were no greater than a typical election; it's the closeness which put those normal variances within (if you really stretch hard and suspend a lot of disbelief) the realm of the winner being in question. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 19:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Pick "close" because of the possible negative connotations like Carrp said but don't even begin to tell me the inconsistencies were no greater. The fact that the CEO ''of an electronic voting company'' promises to deliver Ohio's votes to one of the candidates is A) factually correct and B) enough to make this more sketchy then many other elections. Even if only 10% of the elections controversy page is true, it would still have more inconsistencies then almost all other elections besides Nixon. But wait, obviously I'm just a crazy liberal who's just "stretching" to make myself happy. Please continue categorically denying any claim contrary to Our Glorious Leader. I wouldn't want you using too many brain cells. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 19:30, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
:::I say that it should simply be stated that he was reelected and then confine the controverisal part or closeness part to the later discussion which details the elections...I don't think the reader must be subjected to redundancy unless that is what we are attempting to do...be redundant so that we can continue to push a point of view.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::Agree. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
::Kaz said that "The amount of inconsistencies were no greater than a typical election". This is a case in point of why it is important for people to read the controversies articles. The amount of "inconsistencies" (FWIW, the politically correct term is "irregularities") ''were'' greater than a typical election. They were enough to lead to the first congressional contest to certification of electoral votes on the grounds of election irregulaties in American History, and the second contest in American history (the first being in 1877, when the contest procedure was born). Also, the irregularities led to the first legal suit that contested the outcome based on a claim of sufficient irregularities to, beyond a reasonable doubt, change the outcome of the election. Neither of these events are at all "typical", or indicicative of a "typical election".
::On the contrary, these are important historical events, unprecedented in American History, and should be noted in the record. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 20:07, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
*Actually, what's unprecedented is one party being willing to use lawyerly tricks and nit-picking to try to reduce the credibility of the other party's winner. Even Nixon (shudder) and [[Ashcroft]] (double shudder) had the decency to not do this, despite having actually been likely robbed of their elections. What you link to is not an unusual amount of irregularity; it's simply an unusual amount of havoc about it. In fact, one can see some evidence of this in the article itself, as where it points out that there is /normally/ a significant undercount, which in this case it concludes would have made Kerry the winner. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 20:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I'm also wondering why the article doesn't cover the Democrats' efforts to disenfranchise voters, like keeping Nader off the ballots and trying to disqualify military votes on technicalities.[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 20:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Read the irregularities article. There are precincts in Ohio with less than 10% voter turnout. this is not a "normal" undercount, nor is it consistent with the voting trends of those precints or their demographic, nor is it believable. It is these anomolous discrepancies, and unbiased and conservative compensations for them to a statistically more plausible and more believable figure, that, which, when all anomalies favoring either candidate are accumulated together, total enough votes to change the outcome. (see the depositions in [[Moss v. Bush]])
::Regarding "keeping Nader off the ballot", lawyers were trying to make sure that people followed the law in determining whether nader should be on the ballot. Primarily, where the state required the candidate to be that of a national party to be filed other than as an independant, and if filed as an independant to collect enough signatures, that, since the Reform Party is ''not'' a national party, Nader must file as an independant and collect enough signatures to be on the ballot. The court must rule the same way every time: according to the law. To rule ''otherwise'' would be injustice.
:::In Florida in 2000, Democratic lawyers fought ''against'' the law, saying that the law requiring voters to competently and clearly mark their own ballots should be ignored, because it disenfranchised voters...yet in 2004, they argued that laws should not only be kept to the letter, but should be interpreted as strictly as possible, concerning ballot access and counting the votes of military and other typically-Conservative votes, though this would disenfranchise even more people. They don't give a rat's ass about counting votes; they just want to help their cause, using any means. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 22:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::You're very opinionated and don't support your opinion. If the voter's intent is clear, the vote should be counted. That does not favor either candidate, that favors people, and powers derived from the consent of the governed. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 23:34, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
:::::For what it's worth, I was quoting Florida state '''law''' when I said that the vote should be counted if the voter's intent is clear. The court appointed Bush in 2000 purportedly ''because of'' this law, arguing erroneously that it violated the [[Equal Protection Ammendment]] because it was subjective. I have a book by David Boies, the lead litigator in [[Bush v. Gore]], that goes into detail about the case, Florida law, and the legal proceedings. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 00:02, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
::Regarding "disqualify military votes on technicalities" - required fields on ballots not being filed out is not a "technicality". People not filling out their birthdate on provisional ballots, which is not a required field, ''is''. (refering hereto kenneth blackwell in ohio.) The proper, unbiased, unhypocritical solution, would be... (use the integrity of your own mind here) [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 21:27, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
:::Really? So why didn't they do the same thing in 2000? Why'd they insist that technically illegal votes -- those with errors on them -- be counted anyway? [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 22:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::Republicans did the same thing in 2000 as in 2004 with regard to ballots, and so did Democrats. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 22:59, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
:::Kaz, have you even read the irregularities article? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 21:45, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes, I've read it...but more importantly, I've closely followed the irregularities in each election since the eighties, thus I know that this is all normal. Perhaps you should do more research into what's typical for a presidential election. It's normal for there to be a similar list of irregularities, out of the hundred million or so possible votes. Did you ever bother to examine an exhaustive list of irregularities for 1996, or 1992? I'd say the main difference is that, whatever else their shortcomings, the Republicans aren't as unethical about trying to throw an election they've lost. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 05:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::So enlighten us with all your research as to what was so egregious in '96 and '92. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 18:55, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
:::RE: "pushing POV": this is not POV, this is factual. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 20:10, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
:::Intro to FDR:
''Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-01-30–1945-04-12), often referred to as FDR, was the 32nd (1933–1945) President of the United States. He was elected to an unprecedented four terms, and died in office — he remains the only U.S. president elected more than twice, and he will remain so due to the Twenty-Second Amendment.''
:::It would be inconsistent to include this historical note about abnormalities with FDR's election, and not those for Bush's election, or [[Viktor Yushchenko]]'s. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 20:35, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
::::I don't think anyone was saying that the controversial or closeness aspects of the elections should be left out altogether. I was simply attempting to suggest that this can be covered ad nauseum in the later section, not in the introduction. I think the irregularities need to be discussed ad nauseum but later.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::There was significant fraud in the elections of FDR, as well as Kennedy (who won only because of the "inconsistencies")...are their elections cited as "controversial" at the first point where they're described in their articles? [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 20:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::I'm not aware of problems in the election of FDR. The biography I have of him by Conrad Black doesn't mention this. Kennedy, however, I'm aware that his father, Joseph, was the type of person who would do that, had the connections, and that john kennedy himself believed who owed his election largely to his fathers "behind-the-scenes" work. Unfortunately, we did not have the resources then as we do now, in the "information age", to get a more in-depth view of that election. I've read five biographies of Kennedy, and haven't found much detail about this, but I do believe that his father did have a significant effect on the outcome, one possibly meriting mention in the introduction. I found it historically interesting, and I think others would as well.
::::::However, there were many differences between kennedy's election and bush's, for example, in kennedy's election:
::::::*The election problems were not well-known
::::::*They did not lead to a congressional contest
::::::*They did not lead to a lawsuit
This is precisely my point. They didn't lead to a contest and lawsuit, because even that slimeball Nixon was less willing to screw with the election through petty means...even when he was entirely in the right and did really win...than the suing Democrats. And he did know about them in time, by the way. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 05:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I think JamesMLane has a good point below. I wanted mention the "how kennedy won hawaii" article linked to in [[Moss v. Bush]], as an example of nixon's good-naturedness regarding "petty theft". [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 20:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
::::::*There is not a substantial amount of info about them
::::::*Kennedy was not as unpopular as Bush (according to polls); his election not as implausible.
Actually, the race between Nixon and Kennedy was as close as the modern ones, which is why Kennedy could steal it. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 05:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:AFAIK, there is no credible claim that Kennedy stole the election (a charge that suggests his personal involvement in misconduct). There are credible claims that Democratic Party leaders in Illinois engaged in various kinds of fraud that swung the state from Nixon to Kennedy. There are similar allegations that Republican Party leaders in California managed, by dint of fraud, to swing that state from Kennedy to Nixon. I'm sure one factor Nixon considered was that a demand for a full investigation of the Illinois situation would have been countered by a demand that California be included. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::*There was not "controversy"
Yes, because Nixon wasn't dirty and corrupt enough to try to steal an election through legal means. Hmmm...and yet he was quite dirty and corrupt. When it comes to the rainforest of ethics, Nixon might have been the Sahara, but these current guys are Death Valley. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 05:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:"steal an election through legal means"! That's like stealing a watch by paying for it, right? How dirty and corrupt! Now the false analogy, where did that come from? In any case, can bias be more blatent? [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 20:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
::::::*There was no evidence of "irregularites", nor where there allegations.
::::::[[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 22:17, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
Actually, there is evidence of irregularities in every single presidential election. You just haven't been faced with this kind of uproar about it until Bush, since the Democrats don't complain unless they lose. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 05:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:"Since the democrats don't complain unless they lose." '''excuse me?''' This is not reason. This is not rational thinking. This is not logic. This is [[ad hominem]] circumstantial and [[appeal to ridicule]]. This is a [[personal attack]] and '''does not belong here'''; it is '''inappropriate'''. (And as an argument, absolutely worthless.) [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 20:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
:::::I agree. I would be quite against going into any kind of detail about it in the introduction, I would be quite against anything more than a passing mention of it in the introduction. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 20:50, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
::::I think the main difference is that FDR's intro includes objective notes:
::::* Four terms is unprecedented
::::* He did die in office
::::* No other US president has been elected more than twice
::::* The 22nd amendment now limits presidents to two terms
::::None of these statements can be challenged. They are 100% factual and only their inclusion or exclusion can be challenged.
::::On the other hand, both "close" and "controversial" are subjective. Many people consider the 2004 election to be close while many others do not consider a 3 million vote margin to be close. There's arguments on both sides, but neither can be ''proven'' to be 100% factual. The term "controversial" is even more subjective. How many controversies does it take to make an election "controversial"? 1? 100? 100,000? The point is that use of the term is something that can be challenged. Thus, the Bush intro is not similar to FDR's intro. [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] | [[User talk:Carrp|Talk]] 20:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::Point taken on the phrasing "controversial": I was wary on this myself, struggling for a more objective phrasing.
:::::(On a side note: i would say that nationally, Bush recieved about 3 million more popular votes than kerry, but not that the election was "determined" by about than 3 million votes, because of the electoral college. I would also say that this constitutes an uncommonly small percentage of the popular vote. The word "close", refering to an election, is interpretated ''statistically'', and would thus logically refer to the percentage. Insofar as "close" is psychologically interpreted this way - insofar as it is "put in perspective" and proportion - it is factual to refer to the election as relatively "close".)
:::::Personally, I would, as Carrp does, prefer a more objective wording, if possible, and am open to suggestions. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 21:08, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
::::::It seems to me that even advocates for "controversial" agree that it's not really the right word. At least "close" is technically, almost indisputably, true, while "controversial" is more a matter of big noise from the B-list Democrats, not actual controverseys...hell, Kerry conceded the next day, and all real Democratic leaders avoided any dispute from that point on. While we're trying to come up with a third word, it really should be changed back to "close". [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 23:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::If you're argument is based on "Kerry conceded" (which is completely irrelevant) -- which he did, according to him, because he was told by his political advisors that, based on the nowledge they had at the time (which as we know now, was quite incomplete) the circumstances were such that he should concede, and he took what they said in good faith -- if you're argument is that, then perhaps that should be stated plainly, instead of confusing it with things that are logically independant of it, such as "controversy" or lack thereof.
:::::::The statement "all real Democratic leaders avoided any dispute from that point on." is verifiably false.
:::::::While the discussion is ongoing, before a consensus is reached (which does not mean unaniminity, or that if one person disagrees, then that person's version is right, and everyone else is wrong, as a previous contributor VV strongly believed - we don't want that again. (thanks, arbitration committee!)) - before a consensus is reached - I'm bound by reason to accept the opinion of uninterested parties (parties not involved in the dispute) as a stop-gap. That is, I will refrain from editing that part (with the exception of vandalism) so long as progress is being made in discussion, and would expect others involved in the dispute to do the same. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 23:32, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
Kaz - Let me consolidate my responses to you right here, because something has become very apparent: You should simply recuse yourself from editing this article. Your argumentation is so strongly POV that it doesn't seem possible to reason with you, and I can't imagine that, if you can't have unbiased arguments, you'd be able to make unbiased edits. I assume, though, that you aren't aware of your bias/POV and that is why it shows up so strongly in your argumentation. Please don't take offense. An example is that you called challenging the result of an election on account of irregularities unethical, when in fact, it should be clear to most people that failing to do so would be unethical. It is not the candidate that loses, it is the voters. To not investigate problems in an election, and correct those problems by due process, is to disenfranchise voters. That's wrong; that's unethical. And yes, I'm arguing from a POV: the POV of the '''voter'''. The '''POV''' of an American citizen, representing the idea that "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed" and that "the right to vote for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected". This is sacred ground. And you're stepping on it. Step off. You obviously don't know the facts, I can only assume from the strongly biased way you write that you are unable or unwilling to see them because of your bias. If you are unable to put your bias aside in your argumentation, then there is no way to correct each other's errors or make any progress in ideas. That is the problem I am faced with; I have not the clay of reason to work with, but the brick of opinion disguised as reason to butt my head up against. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 19:44, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
After my most recent edit these are the last sentences of the second paragraph. I obviously support this wording:
:''Bush later went on to become president after defeating [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] [[Al Gore]] of the [[United States Democratic Party|Democratic Party]] in a [[U.S._presidential_election%2C_2000#Florida_election_results|controversial]] and extremely close election. Bush was [[U.S. presidential election, 2004|reelected]] in 2004, narrowly defeating [[United States Senator|Senator]] [[John Kerry]] of [[Massachusetts]]. ''
Any thoughts? Do people have issues with this wording or can we reach a consensus? [[User:Carrp|Carrp]] | [[User talk:Carrp|Talk]] 19:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:My only contention is there is no mention or allusion to the problems with the 2004 election, which were in fact more severe, widespread, and diverse, and accounted for more votes, than the 2000 election. The only difference that might suggest giving problems with the 2000 election more attention than the 2004 election is that it got more mainstream media coverage, and neither of the candidates conceded. However, this does not - cannot - effect the election system (in a way significant for this section) or the problems that existed with it before concession and/or media coverage. That is, it is irrelevant.
:In sum, keeping the 2000 election coverage in the intro where it is (which we all agree to), the 2004 coverage should be greater in proportion to the degree that the problems were greater. This means at least that, in the intro, the problems in the 2004 election should be given more attention than those in the 2000 election. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 19:53, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
::I gave it a shot, but I think this is too long. Just to give people an idea of what direction I'm thinking, in the context of the above, recognizing that a) 2004 problems were more severe than 2000 problems, and prompted more (thou less reported by MSM) response, and thus merits more mention, b) the word "controversy" is not fitting - used "election irregularities" instead:
::''Bush later went on to become president after defeating [[Vice President]] [[Al Gore]] of the [[Democratic Party]] in a [[controversial]] and extremely close election. In the [[U.S. presidential election, 2004|2004 U.S. presidential election]], Bush faced [[United States Senator|Senator]] [[John Kerry]] of [[Massachusetts]]. After Kerry conceded the election to Bush, numerous [[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities|election irregularities]] were discovered in Ohio and elsewhere, prompting [[2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities#State_and_Federal_government_agencies|investigations]] and [[2004 U.S. presidential election recounts and legal challenges|legal challenges]].
::[[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 21:09, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
== MONGO Violating Wiki Principles ==
We've been having a discussion on here regarding three different not-Bush-flattering things MONGO would like to censor from the article. Unfortunately for him, the consensus has gone against him...even he has admitted this.
So his solution, apparently, has suddenly been to mass delete all three segments, himself.
This is absolutely unacceptable. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 20:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I'm sorry you feel that way. I would not say that I suddenly deleted the items I did. I have deleted them REPEATEDLY off and on for over a month now. As someone that understands what is and what isn't evidence, what quantifies as substantial (enough to be authoritative), what constitutes medical and forensic ethics and what is fact, I explained in detail why the link to the wedding video and the issues of van Wormer's opinions are here solely to push a point of view. I don't care how many links there are to her opinion. She is an unreliable witness because she is vehemently opposed to Bush and Republicans in general. She was backing up the premise of one of her books. She used terminology which is not recognized as a medical, psychological or physiological disorder by any professional in those fields. She never conducted her research in a doctor(therapist)to patient standard which would constitute a fair diagnosis of the alleged condition. She used her position "of authority" to bias others perceptions and broke a code of ethical standards expected from someone in her position when she belched her opinion publically. The condition Dry Drunk is a slang term used by an organization to describe those that quit drinking without following their one and only methodology....which is not universally approved as the only way to correctly quit drinking. I believe that the majority of folks here will vote against my editing, regardless of the unethical innuendo and falsehoods I try to eliminate. I disagree with the premise that it is okay to state facts about opinions if those opinions are hopelessly biased and without a basis in fact. I also disagree with the idea of a consensus or vote on the matter in terms of this article because I feel that there is quantifiable evidence that there is a leftward bias more strongly represented here than my politics. However, if the consensus is to continue to utilize this type of character assassination that is not worthy of the standards I previously respected in Wikipedia, then I will not edit it out again. I see an effort to equate editing with censoring and fail to grasp that point. Not once, has any one of my edits attempted to eliminate all or even the majority of bad evidence against Bush. To do that would constitute censoring. Arguments from me do not end in this article with van Wormer or silly video or the poor referencing. I have never argued that van Wormer didn't say the things she did, or that it isn't her opinion or that she isn't entitled to that opinion. Her opinion is unreliable for all the reasons I stated above--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:: You say ''Not once, has any one of my edits attempted to eliminate all or even the majority of bad evidence against Bush''. Of course not. But what you are doing, and what people are describing you as doing, is ''eliminating a negative opinion of Bush'', apparently on the grounds that, in your opinion, only validly held opinions should be included in Wikipedia. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::I wish to see zero opinions in this article negative or positive.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 12:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::This encyclopedia is ''supposed'' to have opinions, as long as their status is clearly indicated. A great percentage of human knowledge starts out as "opinion", and it's through the availability of those opinions, so that people may decide for themselves, that the truth is determined. This is not some court of law, where the goal is to establish who is better at documenting their lies and silencing their opponents. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 19:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::If those opinions are derived from falsehoods, innuendo and or bad judgement on the part of the person or entity providing the opinion, and we are aware of their dubiousness yet knowingly recite them anyway, then our inclusion of said opinion is malfeasence and is a mirror of that distortion. I have serious reservations how supportive you might be had I inputed a positive item about Bush here that was based on a dubious or questionable source. Your continued twisting and play on words in an attempt to slander me as a censor is reaching an unacceptable level. If anyone here is attempting to perpetrate lies about Bush it is most definitely those that wish to see perverted, inaccurate and illusionary items and opinions such as those that permeate this article continued. I suggest you need to resort to an quid pro quo application of assuming good faith and make a serious effort to stop lecturing.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I don't see any good faith in your tendency to bring matters to discussion here, and then preemptively go against the consensus in the discussion just because it's not going your way.
:::::::I also, like most ethical people, have a problem with people evoking lawyerly standards when the question of truth and information is at hand. One might as well cite gangsta rappers as proof of how pacifism should work. The only examples I can come up with of systems or professions more bent on distorting or hiding truth for their own agenda than lawyers are those frequently occupied ''by'' lawyers, like the judiciary/judges and government/politicians. In fact, aren't weasily lawyer types supposed to be ''Clinton'' apologists, not Bush backers? [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 23:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::: Lucky for you I am not a lawyer. However, I do know the difference between what is fact and what is fiction. Twice I ceded to the consensus in terms of the Pet Goat picture and on the issue of budgetary comparisons so it is again rude of you to distort that reality. As far as my edits, I didn't see a consensus either way on the issue of the Wedding video or the van Wormer hype. It is your unethical attempts to silence me and thereby censor me by declaring that I am violating Wiki principles which is no doubt singling me out because I am the most vocal detractor of the content and context of this article. Being not fond of the law profession myself, spending most of my time on the opposite side of that table, I will remind you that your continued assumption of my expertise, coupled with slanderous boasts against that assumption are going to end.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::[[User:MONGO|MONGO]], I agree with [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]. The heart of the problem is this statement from your last comment: "I disagree with the premise that it is okay to state facts about opinions if those opinions are hopelessly biased and without a basis in fact." Your contrary premise is that the article should state facts about an opinion only if it's an unbiased opinion (a strange concept), or has an adequate basis in fact, or is suitably reliable. The policy you espouse is not current Wikipedia policy. Obviously, one component of neutrality is that we apply a single general standard to all articles about controversial political figures. If you want the current generally applicable standard to be replaced by the one you propose, you should stop trying to give Bush a special exemption from criticism. Instead, you should go over to [[Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view]] and propose a change in the general policy. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 11:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, if he kept it up for days on end I think it would be unreasonable. He won't. But I think MONGO is probably new to Wikipedia editing so he has yet to learn a healthy respect for consensus. Remember: [[WP:bite|please do not bite the newcomers]]. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would like to go on record saying unless someone can show that the Van Wormer piece has been discussed prominently in the media or anywhere else in the public record besides "The Irish Times", I do not want it included. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 21:57, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Here's a quick Google, 1,100 references to "van wormer" bush drunk...that's definitely "discussed in the public record". [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22van+wormer%22+bush+drunk]
: Oh I can do much better than that. Apparently Fidel Castro himself cited Van Wormer on Bush in a speech. When your op-ed piece is cited in a speech by the President of a nation of some eleven million people, you're pretty firmly on the public record. I'll try to chase this one up and get a better cite for the speech. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Tony, Castro is hardly a reliable reference on being neutral about an American President.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::: Your statement is perfectly correct. However the criterion for inclusion of a source isn't that it should be NPOV (very, very few such external sources are) but that it be encyclopedic. Both positive and negative expressions of opinion of a person should be included where significant. Kizzle further says that he personally wouldn't like to see the source quoted unless it's been ''discussed prominently in the media or anywhere else in the public record besides "The Irish Times"''. Well a speech by Castro would put it unequivocally in the public record.
::: However it seems I was misled. Castro does not appear to have cited Van Wormer, but another American writer, Justin A. Frank. clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center and a teaching analyst at the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. Dr Frank authored a book, "Bush on the Couch", from which Castro quoted extensively in a [[26 July]], [[2004]] speech at a ceremony commemorating, it seems, the fifty-first anniversary of the first attacks in the Cuban revolution [http://www.counterpunch.org/castro07302004.html]. I think this should be included in the article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::I cannot believe that you would think that this is neutral. Do you have any idea how many anti Bush speeches we could find? Should we link into them too? Should we also link in Rush Limbaugh speeches and rhetoric to counterbalance. This article is becoming less neutral all the time.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::His point wasn't just to link to the Castro speech, per se, but that this illustrated another professional analysis of Bush, which is similarly valid for inclusion. In fact, I'm beginning to think perhaps we should consider a section on prominent psychological analyses of Bush. And, since I recall it happening back then as well, one of Clinton. The simple fact is that these are credibly arguable pieces of information. They may be wrong...but they also may be correct, and they're not entirely obscure, despite the best efforts of the censors running the given white house' PR efforts. And since they may be correct, and are reasonably well covered, they belong, so that people ''can'' decide for themselves.[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 19:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::His opinion is the same arm chair quarterbacking technique employed by van Wormer. It is not illuminating or factual and the only reason you could possibly want it here is because it fits into the scheme of things pervasive in this article which is to cast Bush in as bad a light as possible. I have yet to see you make one argument in favor of a positive aspect on the man. As far as me being a censor running the white PR efforts I think that is about as rude as you can get. If you think it is only necessary to make your detractors follow the rules of ettiquette here while you slander them, then you have a very distorted view of reality as far as this forum goes.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::His opinion, nonetheless, is semi-professional, and ''might'' be correct, as with Wormer. And my insistence on including the AA disclaimor with the analysis certainly must be annoying to the people hoping it'll have maximal impact. The problem here is that ''I'' don't have an "you're either with us, or with them" attitude, but simply a "the truth is found in information, not silence" type. Oh, and when I have time, I'm going to go check out the Clinton page, too, and considering the whole pro-censorship Defend Our President mentality, the odds are that Truth will be on the side of uncensoring information there, too.
:::::::And regarding your theory that I was accusing you of being a white house censor, you're being ''way'' too egocentric, there. I was referring to the tendency of the last two (and probably all previous) administrations' tendency to lean on the media, with threat of lost White House access, lost contracts and other financial favors in spending bills, as well as nonsensical claims of "national security" (something being internationally embarassing is no qualification for being a state secret), lawsuits, and even the same bogus arguments you're giving. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 23:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, and note that I'm on the side that pro-Bush types would take regarding close vs controversial. The anti-Bush types are insisting that it should say 2004 was a "controversial election", in the first paragraphs of the article (instead of simply talking about it down in the detail section), whereas the original "close election" is far more accurate, most of the "controversey" just being the current Democratic tactic of trying to undermine elections they can't win honestly. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 23:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::The Google search result is a little iffy in determining public worth, as there are so many worthless blogs mentioning the most random stuff whose readership is in the tens... any major news media coverage, major newspaper articles, anything like that? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 23:20, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes, van Wormer had a different version of the article in the ''San Francisco Chronicle'': [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/IN226761.DTL]. Perhaps we should substitute that link, although it doesn't have the same exact quotations as are in our article now. I'm inclined to think that we should drop the quotations anyway. The point is worth including but that doesn't mean we have to give every detail about it. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::: I'd be inclined to drop the quotations too as long as we don't use the "dry drunk" phrase which would trigger the insertion of another wordy and, in my opinion, beside-the-point screed about AA. Van Wormer is a Quaker, and hardly likely to be any friend of AA. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::Then I suggest she not borrow their terminology and both you look long and hard at the worth of putting this entire treatise in here.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::I think "dry drunk" is OK. In each article, van Wormer clearly identifies it as a slang phrase, a point that's conveyed in our article by putting it in quotation marks. Even if it's slang, if it's a widely used term and it captures her thinking here, it's appropriate. I don't think that going off on this side excursion about attacks on AA is relevant, though. The contention by van Wormer is that there's a particular personality type that exhibits certain characteristics, that this type is referred to by the slang term, and that Bush fits the description. None of that relates to whether AA is overly religious or whether people can quit alcohol through a purely secular program. Those are interesting topics but they're too far removed from ''this'' topic. Of course, whether or not we include the detailed quotations from her article, the unsourced and unattributed statement that certain arguments "lead many to dismiss her conclusions" is against our policy. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 12:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::One learns, quickly, that it's necessary to quote anything that some guy with a PoV agenda is going to try to censor, so he can't just claim it's the editor making up their own material. This is a prime example.
::::::As for the AA disclaimor, you guys are not understanding the point...the entire "dry drunk" premise is an AA concept. Even the quasi-scientific interpretations of it are based upon that foundation. If the basic assumptions of AA are wrong, then the entire version of "addictive personality" they're outlining, like that long list of AA-descended alleged symptoms, may be wrong. So it's essential to acknowledge that fallibility of the premise covered, to that it ''is'' presented NPoV, not with a biased slant. Essentially, the Wormer stuff is given an overly positive presentation, biasing the article, unless its context is explained. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 19:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=10218942 an edit] by [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]]==
This edit removed the qualification that Van Wormer "also employs terms such as "dry drunk" which she acknowledges as colloquialisms" and inserted "uses terminology not recognized by the pychiatry profession. This, plus the fact that Wormer has not personally examined Bush and the perception that her political prejudices influence her choice of examples, lead many to dismiss her conclusions." The sense of this edit seemed to me to be using some [[Wikipedia:Weasel words]] to insert some editorial. I would accept a suitably sourced quotation where the author of the piece was criticised for:
# using colloquial terms in a piece in the Irish Times (!)
# giving an opinion on Mr Bush's psychology without conducting a clinical examination
# exhibiting clear ideological bias
It would also be nice to see a source for the claim that this leads "many to dismiss her conclusions."
Unsourced, it appears to me that the edit was original research. They may well be true, but they are nevertheless personal observations rendering a judgement on the Van Wormer article, disguised by weaseling using the term "many". --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:It's a reasonable concern. I'll see what I can do. [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS. Something funny that came up during research: [http://homepage.interaccess.com/~hollp/Blog/20050130.html] (the quote has some of my words in it)
:::I see that, but am concerned about the date it claims it was last modified...the Irish Times connection was established after that date if I am not mistaken.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 16:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::For the ideological bias, I would not be surprised if some Bush apologist by now, perhaps Fox News, has dug up any political affiliation or donation habits on her part. Somewhere there's probably an article saying "she has donated ten thousand dollars to the Democratic party" or something. Should be easy to find.
::Dismissal of her conclusions, of course have to be easy to find...everyone who tends to categorically defend Bush must have weighed in on it by now.
::On the other hand, Tony, are you seriously claiming you think she may have given Bush a clinical examination? Because it's clear, otherwise, that she has given an opinion on Bush' psychology without conducting one. THAT seems like you just don't want a reasonable caveat to offset the effect of the Wormer reference.
::Wormer actually implies that she's not using hard psychology terms, in her own article. The lists of traits she cites are not from objective psychology texts. Ironically, the two links that were deleted when someone once again censored my AA reference actually point this out. I'm going to re-add them. The simple fact is that AA's premises, like the "dry drunk", an AA invention, are not objective psychology concepts, just part of their religious stance. The premise of the "dry drunk" itself is that if you don't use AA methodology to quit, it doesn't count. You can't quit gradually, you can't quit without surrendering your will to a higher power, you can't believe you've permanantly overcome your poor behavior and no longer an alcoholic, you can't believe you're a strong person who doesn't need outside help to alter your behavior, et cetera. Many psychologists disagree with all of those premises...in fact, I don't know that any of them are even widely accepted, outside of acceptance of AA. Note, too, that AA's own numbers say they're no more successful than quitting drinking unassisted...which leaves little credibility in the claim that it ''must'' be done their way, or else one's a "dry drunk".[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 15:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Splitting Bush ==
You know, the perfect way to split the article, because of its size, would be to simply make a page called [[The Bush Presidency]], or something like that, and put the presidential years in it. They, for good reason, constitute half the article, and are the most significant segment of his life, deserving their own page.
This would even work for presidents in general, especially recent ones where their non-presidential life and time in office are well documented. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 16:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:This would work in theory, but in practice I think the article would be too large if it combined both the first and second terms. --[[User:BaronLarf|BaronLarf]] 16:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
::Perhaps, in absolute terms...but it'd be half the size of the current article, and is a lot simpler and less controversial than other splits which we keep talking about and never accomplishing. Perhaps it could be done as an interrim measure...[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 16:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Agree - this is a noncontroversial split that could put things back to a workable size. And is a good policy for future and other past presidents. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 16:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::So how about we do it? Without adding or deleting anything, so that there's no controversey; simply move the Presidency stuff to its own article, with a summary and a clear, obvious link in the main article. We definitely shouldn't take that moment to alter what we're moving, so we can keep any other motivations clearly absent on a controversial topic like Bush.[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::I think that the huge amount of ink devoted to Bush's past drug use, etc, should be moved to its own article, much as Bill Clinton's impeachment has its own article. I'm not against "the Presidency stuff" being moved as well, but the article shouldn't consist merely of criticisms of Bush's past. --BaronLarf 06:21, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
== election 2000 controversy ==
I notice there is a wikipedia article for the controversy surrounding the 2004 election. Where is the wikipedia article for the controversy surrounding the 2000 election please? As far as I was aware it was the 2000 election that had the greater amount of controversy, so surely there is an article for it. If there is, it could be wikilinked to the word "controversy" in relevant paragraphs. If there isn't an article, then why isn't there? There've been many books written on the subject, so surely there's a wikipedia article for it! --[[User:Rebroad|Rebroad]] 21:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You'll find it at [[U.S. presidential election, 2000]]. I suspect that the reason there was a separate article for controversies in the 2004 election, and with far more detail, was that by then Wikipedia was recording a current event and there were willing eyes and ears amd fingers to obtain potentially significant information in realtime and record it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Find a better source or eliminate this innuendo ==
Bush has also been accused of using cocaine in the past. In the summer of 1999, many news organizations received an email alleging that Bush had been convicted on a drug charge, but that the conviction had been expunged in exchange for Bush's performing community service at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston. The email included the contact information for the director of the Community Center, but she responded, "I've never heard of him doing community services here at this agency, and I've been the only director for 31 and a half years." [14] (http://www.salon.com/people/col/reit/1999/08/25/geob/)
Request that the above information as found in the article be further investigated and collaborated as I consider it to be innuendo. Why would we have this here as a self discrediting source unless it was deliberately placed here to cast Bush in a bad light. Furthermore, all the references from Salon as found throughout this article are conjectural and provide little if any solid evidence or factual basis. I say that this passage be eliminated unless some actual proof can be provided that Bush did in fact use cocaine. "Many news organization"...which ones? Who sent the email? This is a serious charge and it needs to be substantiated or thrown out. The reference provided is just plain silly.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Well I do know that the cocaine issue for Bush was discussed very heavily in the media for a while, hell even Dave Chapelle talked about it, so I think there should be some mention about it. Whether or not that is a sentence or a paragraph concluding with allegations of skipping community service is up to you guys. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 21:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
::Given that we're constantly being accused of left-wing bias, it should be noted that the passage MONGO cites includes a report of the statement from the agency director, a statement that contradicts the criticism of Bush. If there are any notable ''facts'' that are relevant to this subject that are omitted from tis article, whether they be pro-Bush or anti-Bush, let's hear them. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 22:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, how about the fact that Bush is one of if not the most physically fit Presidents we have ever had. How about the fact that there has never been any proof, much less a suggestion that Bush has ever cheated on his wife. How about since we seem so eager to cite Bush's GPA in college why not compare that to Kerry who's GPA was lower...we are so eager to compare budgetary items between Bush and Clinton...but is that okay, since it makes Bush look bad? The only fact I know as far as this cocaine baloney is that there are no facts...that is why we don't have to be the National Enquirer...that is why we strive to set up a better set of standards.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::over one-hundred thousand [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=bush+cocaine+1972&btnG=Search| google hits] for "bush cocaine 1972". 1972 is the year of the alleged use, which is included to avoid spurious hits about drug policy. There is no doubt at all that this rumour was widespread. As such, it deserves mention. Same as we mention that Clinton was accused of all sorts of slime that was never substantiated. [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 22:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::fascinating, the count went down to 60,000 between the time i did the search and posted it. i've got the link open in 2 different browser windows right now, with different numbers. anyway, at 60,000 hits i'd still say it was a notable rumour. [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 22:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::And there are two million hits for Bigfoot. The cocaine allegations should be included, of course, but not this nonsense. - [[User:Calmypal|Calmypal]] 22:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I don't understand. I thought the issue is whether the cocaine allegations should be included. What other "nonsense" is there. And of course, we do have an article on [[Bigfoot]], which is exactly my point. [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 22:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::::Alright, better example: about 65,000 hits for "Bush=Hitler". - [[User:Calmypal|Calmypal]] 23:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Certainly. If that many people feel such animosity toward the man that they compare him to Hitler, then that intensity of loathing should be recorded. As should evidence of fanatical admiration by large segments of the population. Certainly if you look at [[Bill Clinton]] you will find that public attitudes towards him are well documented. I suspect however that a large portion of those links are referring to the [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html illicit business ties] between his grandfather and Nazi Germany, which would properly be covered in the [[Prescott Bush]] article. [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 23:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Mongo, it's not implausible that Bush's response in 2000 (1999?) to the cocaine allegation may have contributed to winning the election. By refusing to engage tabloid questions beyond a certain point, he showed a markedly different approach from Clinton in the you-know-which affair. That would be a reason to keep the cocaine allegation, even for someone sympathetic to Bush. [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 23:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::But that's my point..where's the beef? It is a self discrediting innuendo. I would like to see proof. I want someone to do the research and prove it...not just quote some tabloidish document. At the least, let's get a quote of a quote from the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. the one that is here now looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous. I agree with James Lane...I want to hear the notible facts about this cocaine issue...not some childish National Enquirer dribble. If it's true, lets find it! How can we consider ourselves researchers with this type of silly stuff being quoted?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Proof of what? That there was wide-spread speculation and rumour? See the google search I linked above. That he used cocaine? You won't find it. But the article doesn't say he used cocaine. You also won't find proof that John Kerry lied his way into 5 combat medals, that Reagan was a rapist, that Bigfoot exists, or that Iraq had WMD in 2003. But, we cover the existence of rumour, speculation, and accusation for all of those. [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 07:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::Well then, I would have to say that this is not encylopedic, unless you consider National Enquirer to be encyclopedic. What are we stiving for here....sensationalist mumbo jumbo or an authoritative piece of reference? Besides, the entire passage proves nothing, but it alludes to the possiblity without anything to collaborate the premise...zero evidence. For now I am concerned about this article...if this one can be made neutral, then they all can. I say get rid of this passage...all it is is suggestive.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::Well, the thing is that we seek to be an authoratitive reference in a broader way. We cover not just what is known about Bush, but also what is known about how people view Bush. This is an essential part of the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] policy. Sure if only a handful of people thought that Bush was a cokehead, it would not be worth mentioning. However, the belief is quite widespread among those with a negative view of Bush, as evidenced by the google search above. To omit that fact would be to censor true and important information about the public perception of Bush. It's also an important point that Bush himself sparked the rumours by his carefully parsed denials. However, the text absolutely should not imply that the charges have been proven true in any way. Quite the contrary, it should forthrightly state that no credible evidence of cocaine use has been publicly produced. [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 16:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of [[User:Jewbacca|Jewbacca]]'s edits==
I've restored the wording "controversial and extremely close election" for 2000 and "in 2004, narrowly defeating...". The reason given for removing the words "extremely" and "narrowly" are inadequate in my opinion. Bush had the lowest percentage lead in decades in 2004, with the exception of the 2000 election for which the psephologists had to go scrabbling in their records of nineteenth century elections. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: The way you have it looks best. It is a fact that election 200o was controversial and extremely close and it is a fact in 2004 that Bush, regardless of the 3 million vote spread in the popular vote, would have lost if only one state (Ohio) had gone for Kerry who was therefore, narrowly defeated.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Ridiculous.... ==
What is the following passage doing in this article?
Katherine van Wormer, a professor of social work and writer on addiction treatment, claimed in an Irish Times article on 6 May 2003 that Bush seems to display "all the classic patterns of addictive thinking" She bases this view on her perception that he exhibits "the tendency to go to extremes," a "kill or be killed mentality," incoherence while speaking away from script, impatience, irritability in the face of disagreement, and a rigid, judgemental outlook. (See also [6] (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info/a/aa081397.htm), [7] (http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html), and [8] (http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy1019.html).) Her analysis draws on her own addiction treatment experience and writings, but also employs terms such as "dry drunk" which she acknowledges as a concept of Alcoholics Anonymous, and not necessarily supported by psychology as a whole [9] (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-drydrunk.html) [10] (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Cult_Called_AA.html). Justin Frank, a clinical professor of psychiatry and former Salon magazine writer, has incorporated similar, though apparently independent, observations into a book about the president, Bush on the Couch ISBN 0060736704 [11] (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/06/16/bush_on_couch/), which was quoted extensively in a speech by Fidel Castro [12] (http://www.counterpunch.org/castro07302004.html). Note that Frank personally endorses AA [13] (http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0622-05.htm).
I mean look at this ridiculous passage! You have got to be kidding! I look at this and I want to laugh...and to top it off...one of the last of the leftist thugs (Castro) even quotes some of the "evidence" in one of his speeches...as if his opinion on an American President can be trusted to be unbiased. The fact that he quoted only proves to me how ridiculous it is...not how substantive it is. Besides, her judgement calls on the President can be applied to almost all of them because they are all a bunch of egocentric vainglorious people. I just love the link to the article with a cartoon of Bush looking like a bum, wine bottle in hand....how preposterous can we get?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:The opinion by Frank is notable. That Castro took the chance to dump on Bush isn't particularly notable; I don't see what that reference adds. The point isn't whether Castro is unbiased, because, as MONGO never seems to understand, we don't report opinions on the basis of their being well-grounded. The issue is whether it's noteworthy that Castro has criticized a U.S. President on this particular basis. I'm fairly confident that Castro has criticized every U.S. President since Eisenhower, on multiple grounds. Castro's opinion would be notable on a topic that had some connection to Cuba, but not on the question of Bush's personality. While we're pruning, the whole excursion into AA doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of Bush. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 10:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:: Well, I'd say that little of the passage adds anything to the reader's understanding of Bush either. I do understand, facts about opinions...ah huh...why is it so easy to always stand by that so long as the opinions are outrageously slanderous? If you take out the stuff regarding AA, then all you have left is the original slap. The whole thing is inconclusive and poses more questions than it answers, especially since the part about AA was inserted.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 15:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:: I think the fact that Castro quoted from the book adds to the book's notability, but I'm not wedded to that part. I agree with you that the AA stuff is out of place; an encyclopedia article should not make debating points about the origins of a colloquialism, the status of AA, or whether the opinion of a professional is or is not mainstream. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Yes, it adds (slightly) to the book's notability, but the article should include facts that are informative about Bush, not facts that are informative about our editing choices. For example, we might include something based in part on its number of Google hits, but that doesn't mean we'd include the Google count in the article. Castro has no particular expertise on Bush's personality. There's also no reason to believe that his conduct, as a world leader, was affected by anything from Frank's book. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 10:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::James, Justin Frank doesn't have any expertise on George W. Bush either...no more than you or I. That is the point...these are evaluations done from afar...not in the setting of a typical doctor/patient relationship...both him and van Wormer have biased opinions based on their political affiliations anyway. They have further motivation to stand behind their opinion because they want to sell their books. I think this is a case of wanting to think badly about Bush as some here do, and going to extremes to ensure that all the negative things they can find are put in here...so long as there is some obscure, vague reference to cite. Best leave the AA stuff in there...if you folks insist on citing these questionable unscientific innuendos, then the FACTS that Dry Drunk is a borrowed term from AA and that Justin Frank is an advocate of AA, have just as much right to be here as the original ridiculousness.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 15:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
While I don't totally buy the very narrow view of the article that you promulgate above, I broadly agree with your argument. We can snip Castro, it's just background information that doesn't really belong there and, as you say, didn't have any real effect on foreign affairs, even if Castro did use it to make a jibe at Bush. It's a bit like the AA stuff. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:It's ironic that the Castro stuff was added as a natural result of MONGO's attempts to rationalize his censorship efforts. People whose goal is to hide information, instead of simply to produce a good encyclopedia, will come up with one requirement after another which they claim the embarassing information does not meet. When people honestly trying to balance the article then alter it to meet the requirements, it's ironic when the same guy turns around and pretends the requirements he presented are now a reason to delete the very same information.
:In this case, MONGO was claiming that some Bush-unflattering info was not sufficiently covered or acknowledged by important people/sources. Castro was cited, along with other things, as proof that this wasn't some guy off in a corner making up crank slander which was mostly ignored. And now, of course, Castro is cited by the same MONGO as a sign the whole thing should be censored. [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 22:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Yawn.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Are you tired? I, for one, was very interested in what Kaz said. The first paragraph is a good description of a phenomena that I, and I'm sure other Wikipedians besides me and Kaz, have become quite familiar with. It doesn't bore me at all. I find it impressively lucid. The second paragraph points out an inconsistency in your method of argument, which casts reasonable doubt upon your neutrality, and remarks that you used this inconsistency for the purpose of censorship, as described in the first paragraph. I find that paragraph interesting, too. You must have had a long night or something. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 05:54, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
::::My response was all he deserved. He equates editing with censorship and describes it as pushing a POV. I say, leaving in unfactual innuendo serves no purpose other than to push a POV. It is ridiculous to say that I censor out all bad things about Bush. I have conceded numerous times. In fact, since the recently announced tapes of Bush have surfaced I supported passage even though it was purely a negative treatise on Bush in relation to his substance abuse...I have yet to see you contribute one positive aspect on Bush...so who has a POV? Castro citing a negative about an American President is a given and it doesn't add weight to the argument, it detracts from it...Now if say a foreign political fan of Bush such as Tony Blair had quoted Frank's opinion, then it would have given it more substance, not less. As far as the AA stuff, I didn't put it there and never supported it. Claiming it was a natural reaction to my argument to balance things out is ridiclous. The point here is to create an article that remains as factual as possible, not sit there and come up with some counterargument to every single negative or positive thing that have no basis in credibility to begin with.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==A compromise?==
I think clearly the information MONGO contests belongs in Wikipedia. The question is in what form. One possibility is to take the precedent of the [[Bill Clinton]] page and write somewhat longer separte articles on the various controversies such as the dry drunk/drunk driving, cocaine/party boy, insider trading/influence peddling, etc. Of course, a brief summary would be included here under a Controversies/Scandals heading or the like. We have already done this for the TANG/AWOL controversy. Alternatively, we could follow the precedent of the [[Al Gore controversies]] page and just lump all the minor ones together in one article. Or, leave it as is. Purging the information entirely as requested by MONGO is simply not an acceptable option. [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 17:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:: What some consider information, others such as myself consider to be misinformation.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I concur that the information should be moved to a separate article, will Bill Clinton as a precedent. --BaronLarf 18:21, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree, but what belongs split off and what belongs in the main article?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Long==
Man, this article sure is long. 72 KB? I mean, we don't need to treat 32KB as a strict limit, but we ought to at least not exceed 50KB. Why not break some stuff out into subarticles? [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 22:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:We would, but we're too busy arguing over whether "close" or "narrow" are more NPOV terms to describe Bush's elections. ;-) [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 02:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== missile defence ==
There is a fairly extensive discussion of the flaws of the missile defense system being pushed by the Bush administration as a replacement for the ICBM treaty with Russia; it seems not only to violate NPOV but to be irrelevant. Perhaps it should be deleted, or at least moved to an article on missile defence?
== Opinion pieces ==
I find Neutrality's assertion that this section is "impossible to maintain" to be inaccurate. This section has remained quite stable since the three-link-limit comments were added. --[[User:Xaliqen|Xaliqen]] 09:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Narrow, close, controversial. ==
Constant and ongoing reverts back and forth about simple wording regarding Bush's first and second term election analysis are ridiculous. Can we all agree that the first election in 2000 was indeed controversially close based on the fact that it was decided by the Supreme Court? Can we also agree that Bush was reelected in 2004, narrowly defeating Kerry?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, it's a ridiculous dispute. There are far, far more important issues. [[User:Szyslak|Szyslak]] 03:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Well, some people are unable to edit without pushing their POV. Most people will agree that the 2000 election was very close (in terms of judicial involvement, how the concession was played out, popular vote, electoral college, and the critical state (Florida) as well). However, by each of the measures of closeness and controversy in 2000, the 2004 election was merely close, narrow, whatever, not "very close". There is a difference in magnitude that is clear and difficult to argue, unless, of course, you are pushing a somewhat silly POV. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] 05:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
:::I looked the situation over with the reverts back and forth and decided that some people, such as myself, would like it to state for the 2004 election that simply Bush was reelected. However, since the margin wasn't a great one, and one or two states that were very close could have given the election to Kerry, and since some argue that in one of these states (Ohio) that there may have been some errors, I conceded that it was best to state that Bush narrowly defeated Kerry as I felt this was the only way to satisfy to some degree the truth. In all liklihood, there is no way to to make it neutral 100 percent.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with most of this, but some of the statements have a notable logical flaw, and some do not represent empirical events or data in a faithfull or neutral manner.
:The logical flaw is this: the difference in the number of votes counted for the candidates, and the discursivity and severity of problems with the election (errors is a POV term, and I would go so far as to say is indicative of the bais of the commentor. To call them "errors" is to say there was no will involved, whih is a judgement of legal value that is unsubstantiated.) the vote-count and the amount of irregularities are two separate issues, not to be confused (that is, fused together) in thought or in the article.
:Misrepresentations: to say "may have been", and "some" misrepresents, as it is certain beyond a reasonable doubt that there ''were'', in fact, irregularities (which may or may not have been "errors"), and to say "some" is to make a POV qualification, namely that the number of irregularities was small, which by any statistical comparison is a false qualification. again, bias of the commentor.
:Taking these corrections for POV and misrepresentations, we return to the original status, in which the matter is: does the degree of the election irregularities (not errors), known with certainty to exist in some quantity (It is absolutely ridiculous to think that an election can take place without any irregularities whatsoever), not assumed to be "small" or any size, for that matter, but judged, without bias, according to the [[2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities|information available]], meet or exceed the precedent threshold for inclusion in the intro set forth (by consensus) in the 2000 election irregularities?
:I call attention to the information contained in the respective articles for the 2000 and 2004 election, and state that it is indisputably clear to any person comprehending the information in said articles in good faith, that the severity of the known irregularities in the 2004 election indeed exceed those in the 2000 election, and therefore, upon their merit, deserve as much as, and indeed more, mention in the intro to this article, than those of the 2000 election. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 05:39, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
:: Kevin, I don't know what to say to all of that. I was trying to keep it neutral and not make a mountain out of an anthill. I thought that the use of the term ''narrowly'' when applied to the election in 2004 would be a compromise. Regardless, esentially the 2004 election was narrow victory/defeat, whereby the 2000 election was controversially close to the extreme. In an effort to be neutral I didn't see any reason for this introduction to be riddled with a redundant discussion which is covered elsewhere. No doubt, the media, the public and each political party were looking for every single irregularity they could find after 2000, hence the placement of teams and lawyers all over those states expected to be close due to poll results. In light of this heightened vigilence, I see no reason that an increased number of reported irregularities are out there due in no small part to this extra vigilence. In a nutshell, I feel that the term defeated without the terms narrowly or close was best, but conceded to narrowly. What others do as far as this I can't control. I have bigger qualms about much of the rest of the material anyhoo.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Your comments indicate to me that you haven't read the article. The irregularities were not discovered during said period and scope of vigilance. Therefore, your argument regarding increased vigilance=increased reports does not apply. The MSM media clearly were ''not'' looking for every single irregularity, esp. after kerry's concession - this is in fact a topic in the article. All but one, very significant party, were looking for irregularities, said party was looking away and denying that there were any, (see the videos of the congressional challenge). Said party also refused to participate in any investigation.
:And again, the lawyers and all that were not there because the election was expected to be close; because the polls were close. There were many elections that were (and were expected to be) much closer, and did not havw any more or less lawyers at the poll than usual (that is, none.) You're confusing two disparate issues again. I don't know why the republican "challengers" were there if not to do what some of them did, but the lawyers from the other parties were there as a response to the "challengers" - to prevent them from intimidating voters. It's a good thing they were there, too, as documentary footage in the election irregularities article shows. In any case, the lawyers wre there to watch activities at the polls, not the tabulation of votes, the distribution of voting machines, procedures, etc. You know, the attack points. There was not increased vigilance there.
:So did reports from said sources, any soure for that matter, with increased vigilance, lead to the efforts of the GAO and The House Judiciary? No. Both organizations stated that there efforts began as a response to individual statements by citizens. Individual statements by citizens. What does that mean? It means the media, the lawyers, all that jazz, take it away, double it, quadruple it, invert it, swirl it around.... doesn't make the slightest difference whatsoever, because joe smoe in california, regardless of all that, did ''not'' make a phone call to rep. conyers office, or any government office for that matter. Nor did pat smat from iowa. But those phones were ringing off the hook, and it wasn't lawyers and reporters on the line.
:I could go on, but I think my point should be well made by now. The part said "extra vigilence" played in this all was not only small, but negligible. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 18:23, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
::Individual statements by citizens. Exactly...extra vigilence...and the media was constantly bombarding everyone with those polls. The polls had shown a close race especially in the last month or two...with the reminder of 2000 looming over everyone's thoughts that indeed every single vote really does count...especially in states that were polling a dead heat. The media did have an impact on voters as they always do...to think otherwise would be incorrect. There has never been a time in my life that there wasn't some controversy over the Presidential election results in one manner or another dating back to 1960. However, the issue of argument here as this section began dealt with the use of terminology to compare 2000 with 2004 and as far as the proven election results show, the results were narrowly for Bush this time around. I think he won it without question, but agreed to the use of the terminology of narrowly due to an effort to remain neutral. hat was the only thing I was trying to point out and that I think if you want to deal with the what if of the situation then address all that in the controversy section.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 05:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Now I do not deny that there was "increased vigilance" on the part of indivdual citizens due partly because of the problems with last election, partly because of actions considered by many to be partisan, unethical, and threatening (such as "challengers" (some successfull), attempts at changing election laws (by Kenneth Blackwell), and resistance to reform measures such as using certified voting machines (which is the law, in the first place)), and partly because of the contentiousness of the election, or what some call "the divided electorate": those who are enraptured by bush's charismatic rhetoric vs. those who are angered by his policies - or however you want to call it. Those things all contributed to increased wariness during the election. However, my point is:
:*that the degree of irregularities rose ''disproportionately'' to this increase in vigilance
:*increase in vigilance does not affect the skew of who the observed irregularities favored, which is astounding. (and the survey of irregularities is ''not'' partial, it is comprehensive)
:*118,000 votes, in the scope of things, is ''not'' a lot, when one is talking about irregularities.
:**that number is easily surpassed, by an aggregate ~260,000 vote misallocation alleged with substantial and meticulous evidence that has not been disputed, in Moss v. Bush.
:*the observed irregularities, in sum, are greater in the 2004 election than the 2000 election, regardless of vigilance. The improbability of them favoring one candidate over another, which is not affected in the slightest by vigilance (sample size, that is), is much greater. The severity is greater, all across the board, with many things that would have been seen in the 2000 election, as well, had they occured then.
:**and thus, all thats considered, all probabilities conditioned, the irregularities in the 2004 election were more ''siginificant'' than those in the 2000 election, and insofar (and even further) as there is a link to the irregularities in the 2000 election in the intro, there should be one for the 2004 election in the intro. ka-peesh? [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 17:58, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
:**eww.. i'm not done (this is fun because it's easy!) how about congressional election challenge? there wasn't one in 2000, there was one in 2004. so ask the congressmen which was more severe. I think they wrote a report on it...
:***And you apparently didn't get a point i made in my earlier response: if the reports are due only to increased vigilance, than they should be evenly distributed throughout the u.s., but this was not the case, reported/known problems in ohio were anomalously high compared with the rest of the nation. how would that be explained? Well, [[ockham's razor]]: there were many more problems in ohio than the rest of the nation. (duh.) Ohio had problems that were ''outside of the norm.'' (contrary to what you prostelytize) (thank goodness that's not the norm!!) okay, i'll shutup now. coda the ka-peesh para. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 17:58, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
::::Kerry lost, Bush won. It really isn't any more simple than that. I read the reports numerous times, and I say it isn't the exhaustive review you would like to claim.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::I don't claim the review to be exhaustive. That's what investigations are good for. I do, however, claim the review to be unbiased. By comprehensive I meant that those aspects examined where examined in full (to be more precise, all data publicly available, not all data existing.)
:::::I wouldn't even argue regarding "simplicity" in response to your statement "kerry lost, bush won." - it simply does not apply. It's quite off-topic. This discussion is about the significance of the 2004 election irregularities, not who won and who lost. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 15:34, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
::::::Again, while I respect your efforts at information gathering, I cannot agree that the Ohio irregularities are enough to have swayed the vote overall for the Democrats as was absolutely the case in Florida in 2000. You must be looking at this from a very different angle than many others, as it hasn't been big in the media to the same degree as Florida 2000....and I would think that since the media has a prevelence to see things from the left, they would have been all over this issue. Furthermore, the issue is a controversial one which would make it prime fodder for the media. However, when was the last time you heard anything about the biggest natural disaster in years, good or bad, (the tsunami) which killed something like 300,000 just two months ago....how fickle the media is. So perhaps since it has been almost 4 months since the election, the media thought all of this wasn't big enough or controversial enough to keep banging a drum about.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::::That is an [[argument from authority]], and, as such, has no logical validity. And I, like many others throughout the nation, are completely sick of hearing it. Argue based on ''merits''. (and while your at it, use your ''own'' mind.) [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 19:11, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
You state, "I like many others", what others?...I see no one else arguing this case to the degree you are...are those that don't use our own minds to believe that there really is any comparison between the situation in Ohio in 2004 to be in any way comparable to Florida 2000? As I stated before, the media tends to have a leftist bias...why aren't they all over this? They thrive on this type of stuff....it is what sells, it is the engine of their steamship....are we to believe that since Bush is still the President that the media has adopted a pro Republican stance to appease their customers who only voted "narrowly" for Bush? Wanting something to be true and having it actually be so are different things. The level of conspiracy theory you espouse here just doesn't equal the numbers and I think you are reading too much into it. Again, I think your contributions are strong and hope you keep the fires of dissent going.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:Others on the internet (some of whom i have encountered), not neccessarily here on wikipedia. I would be dissappointed if anyone were to simply believe something merely because it was suggested by someone, or not suggested by someone else. They can look at the information that the other person or people did, and come to their own, independant (and ideally, unbiased (not assuming the conclusion or using ad hominem arguments (such as your ''opinion'' that the mainstream media, which is big business highly centralized, owned in overwhelming majority by a handfull conservatives, and lobbying the government for things such as deregulation, to which predominately republican congressman respond to and give them what they want) is biased to the left) to condition probabilities, or any of the logical fallacy jazz)), simplest explanations. In fact, they have a ''civil responsibility'' to do so. That is my point. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 18:39, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
::Others on the net...leftwing blogs? I know I am not an ultraconservative and in some ways I am very liberal, but I know that anyone that assumes that the media in the U.S. is not left leaning, must view that deception from a far left perspective.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't think you can say "the media" leans one way or the another. Faux news is ''definetely'' conservative, PBS is probably left-leaning, the rest of the media is biased towards profit... whatever stories will help expand viewership. Just because CBS ran the Killian piece does not make it left-wing, every reporter wants to be the one to expose a story like that (except Brit Hume) if it were true, and not because of their personal political background. In addition, MSNBC has Scarborough, Pat Buchannan, Keith Olbermann, and Ron Reagan, I'd say that's a pretty good mix of both sides of the spectrum.--[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
::I'd like to add an official logical fallacy to the philosophy vocabulary: [[Appeal to Mainstream Media]] - Assuming that because an event did not get press coverage, it did not in fact happen. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 22:17, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
==What Classmates?==
I find this paragraph not factual and irrelevant - <i>"In a New York Times article in June, 2000, "Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's" (http://www.dke.org/bushyaletimes.html), senior Times journalist Nicholas D. Kristof, author of the chapter on George W. Bush in the reference book The Presidents, concluded that "For all the buffeting that late-night television has given Mr. Bush over questions of drug use, he was in most respects a very conventional young man, and classmates say they do not recall him ever using marijuana or other illegal drugs."</i>
<p>
The article does not give names of the classmates who backed the statement that he never did drugs. If I went to Yale in the sixties, I could say I never saw him do drugs - even if I never saw him at all! What has been referenced is the taped recording of the President stating he did marijuana but didn't want to admit it to protect the children.
<p>
Having two paragraphs about the same subject is unneccessary. I believe, we should just use the presidents own quote. Any reasons for keeping it? I am open to suggestions. ''unsigned comment by 67.38.242.58''
:Please place new comments on the bottom of the page and please sign you comments, which you can do with four tildes (~). [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 17:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::Bush's self-serving denial is less credible than a third party's statement. Therefore, to be fair to Bush, I think we should include the information. Although the third party is unnamed, we can reasonably rely on a reputable newspaper to be quoting actual classmates.
::Nevertheless, we could convey the information without using the full quotation. Maybe something like:
:::According to a ''[[New York Times]]'' reporter, several of Bush's college classmates said that they did not "recall him ever using marijuana or other illegal drugs." [http://www.dke.org/bushyaletimes.html]
::[[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 02:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Were Van Wormer's and Frank's opinions based on AA dogma?==
The big difference between people who want to create a good encyclopedia and people who want censor to force their PoV is that the former fixes delivery of information to meet objections, and the latter just deletes it, because they don't want anyone to see it at all.
Sidaway seems determined to cut out the clarification of the Wormer/Frank references entirely, even though their claims have a very specific, non-scientific basis which needs to be stated for the readers. The entire premise of the "dry drunk", including the list of symptoms/traits listed by the two authors, is entirely an Alcoholics Anonymous invention. It is not adhered to by the psychology/recovery community as a whole, outside of those in it who specifically believe in AA, which is has been found by the US court system to be religious organization. It is essential that everyone reading the claims understand this. It's as important as the information itself.
One cannot make an informed decision on their analises unless one knows its foundations. If someone were to conclude that Bush is a potentially murderous psychopath, but it was based on the theory that everyone not engaging in [[Transcendental Meditation]] will probably be dangerous, should the conclusion be cited without explaining the religious foundation for it? Of course not...none of the Christians would agree with it, to say the least. And the same is true, here. Those two authors believe that one ''will'' probably show symptoms of being a "dry drunk", if one does not follow the twelve steps program. And even the list of symptoms itself is purely an AA premise. If the TM people had a list of symptoms for being "unrested", would citing matches to the list...without mentioning that it's purely a TM theory...make the entry objective? Of course not. Same here.
I don't know whether Sidaway's obsession with entirely deleting any reference to the sole, unscientific foundations of the "dry drunk" hypothesis is an attempt to slander Bush, some abject dedication to AA, or some other bias...but it's certainly not a sign of dedication to encyclopedic coverage of Bush.[[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 16:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: I've read Van Wormer's article, and some significant parts of Frank's work, but I'm not convinced that their opinions are based on "their belief in the absolute need of [[alcoholic]]s to follow the "[[twelve steps]]" of the religious organization [[Alcoholics Anonymous]] in order to recover from alcoholism." The evidence simply doesn't seem able to support this statement.
: By the way, do you think we could have a decent discussion--one without making accusations against one another and using words like "slander", "obsession", "force" and "censor"? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Time to chime in. I think again, the entire passage is POV. It is just purely the opinions of these "Doctors/Therapists/Whatever". I repeat...if a known diagnosis based on a doctor to patient relationship existed then that would be testimonial. But when the verdict is reached without the use of standard methods of evaluation, then it is not factual and the only reason it carries any weight at all is because these people have credentials. I say they blaspheme those credentials by discussing the matter publically and that in itself destroys the credibility of their arguments. As far as this Kaz character is concerned, he seems to take more delight in arguing with everyone here...and accuses everyone of censoring when in all liklihood, most of us are committed to creating a neutral argument which sometimes equals deletion of passages and innuendo that is self denying, uncredible, lacking encyclopedic merit or downright ridiculously POV. van Wormer and Franks opinions are purely POV...not scientifically accurate and simply do not belong here.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::As I've repeatedly pointed out, the of "dry drunk" criteria they use is purely an AA one to begin with. Which is somewhat inevitable, since the very concept is purely AA. This is necessary, since it's based on the idea that you must follow most of the twelve steps to actually be "recovering" instead of "abstaining". You might as well be denying that claiming someone isn't born again because they haven't taken Jesus into their hearts doesn't require that one be Christian. Give me some purely non-AA examples of the "dry drunk" scenario, especially with those little lists.
::And, of course, you're still simply deleting in wholesale. That's censorship, there would be plenty of room to work here if your obvious goal wasn't simply to hide the info. Which ''is'' the PoV you're protecting? You a devout AA guy? Bush hater? [[User:Kazvorpal|Kaz]] 20:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Though admittedly, I haven't been deep in this discussion, on the surface it appears to me that "dry drunk" is a phrase used by AA to describe people who deviated from the course significantly, who are said to have a number of resulting symptoms. Whether the latter is empirically substantiated or not is an unanswered question.
:::I removed the statement "..not universally accepted" because it is irrational to assume that something is universally accepted, therefore putting the statement in is overemphasizing, and thus POV. However, I think it's ommission left a lacuna. IMHO, something respective to my first paragraph here would be more fitting. That is, something regarding correlations or lack of correlations with "dry drunks", people who have been thru the program, people who followed the steps, and people with said symptoms (whether in or out of AA, whether at anytime alcoholics or not, etc.). That is, a statement regarding empirical causality, from a [[bayesian]] pov. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 23:15, 2005 Feb 22 (UTC)
::::Van Wormer makes clear that "dry drunk" is a slang term. She's talking about a certain type of personality; she describes Bush's characteristics that fit the pattern. She mentions in passing that this type is referred to by the slang term but that doesn't mean she's relying on AA in her analysis.
::::The earlier version included some external links with more on the subject, but they've been deleted. The problem is that we don't want to clutter the Bush article with an excursion into a collateral issue. I suggest that the term "dry drunk" deserves an article of its own, which could be linked to from here. That way the back-and-forth about whether it's dependent on AA analysis could be developed at length. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 02:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::Makes sense to me. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 05:14, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
:::::I agree with JamesMLane. The section I removed seemed to claim that Van Wormer and Frank both based their conclusions on a bit of AA dogma, and I still think that is unsubstantiated. They did both mention the term "dry drunk", however, so it's a good idea to have an article on the subject. I hope this would be acceptable to Kaz. I absolutely am not interested in censoring this article, only in trying to find a version that, to the best of all our abilities, is the most NPOV and accurate. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
== Bush & Putin ...and the [[Slovakia Summit 2005|SK]] conection ==
* Can somone please tell me why we're not keeping this page updated? President Bush has been on a European tour for the past 4 days!(2/21-2/24) He's meeting every prolific politician on the continent - his trip concludes in [[Bratislava Castle]] where he'll attend the [[Slovakia Summit 2005]] -- becoming '''the first sitting U.S. President to visit Slovakia''' -- to hold a private conversation between Russian President Putin. I have made minor additions in the [[George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States|2nd term page]] but it is receiving no attention... can we please produce somting productive (i.e. and not hate to cause rv wars). PEACE ~ [[User:RoboAction|RoboAction]] 00:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::I don't think we want the main article on Bush to include an account of every foreign trip he makes or every world leader he meets. Such a chronology would be very lengthy and would be too much detail. We reserve that kind of treatment for Ashlee Simpson. :) [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 05:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Why not? Many here support a protracted detail on Bush's oil company and Texas Rangers dealings, along with, in part, opinions (and in some cases facts) about Bush's drug and alcohol abuses....or would the discussions such as his visit with Putin and Schroeder and their reaching agreement that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons not be a negative enough? In light of the fact that Bush is one of the least travelled Presidents in my lifetime, I think the recent trip to Europe deserves some mention.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::Keep in mind that information needs to be presented in representative proportion in order to mantain NPOV. If he's one of the least travelled presidents in your lifetime, then the article on him should include among the least about him travelling of all the presidents in your lifetime. Anything else is pushing POV by means of deception - trying to make him sound more or less travelled than he actually is. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 16:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
:::::Being unmotivated to travel has in my opinion made him less popular than he may have been in places like Europe...sort of like the rejection some feel in the U.S. when a President fails to visit their state...ever! The recent agreement between Bush and Putin that Iran was not to have nuclear weapons and then, less than a week later, Russia agrees (under the auspices that the depleted nuclear fuel will be returned to Russia) to give Iran the fissle material they need to get their first reactor up and running. I would say that Bush was very diplomatic and correct in attempting to reach an agreement with the Russians on the issue of Iranian nukes, and that Russia basically turned right around and snubbed it...a brief mention of the issue of the meeting and an unbiased mention of the quick change of direction by the Russians should be here I think...John McCain wants to ban Russia from the G8...and I think Bush has made at least some effort to find a commonality with the Europeans...which I do think he also did before the invasion of Iraq....[http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=6&u=/nm/20050227/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_usa_dc_2]
:::Yeah, only Ashlee gets that level of detail. I wouldn't object to an article something like [[George W. Bush foreign visits]] or something less ... goofy? [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 08:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
== Public defender....asleep? ==
In the section discussing the death peanalty in Bush's home state of Texas...I see this line...."even though these briefings failed to mention critical factors, such as the fact that a condemned man's public defender slept through much of his case." I would like anyone to substantiate this claim or I vote to edit it out. I have found nothing to support this allegation...but hope that there must be a reference available to substantiate it.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:There's nothing particularly surprising about it, to anyone who's familiar with how the death penalty is administered in the U.S. (not just in Texas). I've added a citation. Here's a passage from the cited ''Washington Post'' article:
::Another appointed lawyer with a disciplinary record--whose client, Anthony Ray Westley, was executed under Bush's watch--was arrested in the courtroom during jury selection in Westley's trial, charged with contempt of court for failing to file legal papers in the death penalty appeal of an earlier client. The lawyer's subsequent performance in Westley's case was so poor, according to a judicial report, that it resulted in a "breakdown of the adversarial process."
::But Texas's highest criminal court, the conservative Court of Criminal Appeals, rejected the report's recommendation that Westley be given a new trial. The court, which has one of the lowest death penalty reversal rates in the country, also rejected requests for new trials in the sleeping lawyer cases, saying an attorney who slumbers at the defense table is not necessarily ineffective.
:Picture that -- the lawyer's screwing up of Westley's defense is temporarily interrupted so that he can be arrested in court in connection with his screwing up of an earlier death penalty defense. You can't make this stuff up. It would be truly hilarious, except of course for the fact that some poor guy got fried as a result. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, I agree that it doesn't surprise me...one of the endless rationals for my objection to the death penalty. Would it be possible to insert the link to the Post article and tie it in?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Oops! I see you've already done that...sorry James.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::I inserted the link to the ''Post'' article. If you mean we should add some of this information, I think it's too much detail for the article on Bush. The ''Post'' article is very informative and should probably be linked from a Wikipedia article about the death penalty, but I don't have time to figure out where to insert it. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==Belgian and European links==
I removed a link to a left-wing blog that took various potshots at Bush. (I seem to recall that at one point we had a link to a Democratic National Committee page taking potshots at Bush, which I think is an appropriate balance to the White House link, but I saw no reason to link to some random blogger just because he's anti-Bush.) My change was reverted with the explanation that the link was "Essential to understand the article above." The "article above" was a link to a March 2003 news story about problems for Bush under Belgium's war crimes law, but that law was repealed later that year. [http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/08/belgium080103.htm] The issue of whether Bush has violated international law is a legitimate one to address, but this pair of links isn't a serious discussion of the point. I've now removed both of them. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 21:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I note down that you removed the following link.
:http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/442/
:My only remark is that you don’t seem to understand that it is IN FAVOR of the President.
:But there is no problem. If the argument of a humble blog is enough for you to remove this so annoying article , I will give you another link and this time to the Weekly Standard about the same subject. And that’s a magazine to which the President took a subscription himself! http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/276vsdtv.asp
:I also add out of the same Weekly Standard the very eluding response from mister Y. Mollard La Bruyère - Directorate General for External Relations - European Commission, see letter 4
:http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/280sklbw.asp?pg=2
:It’s interesting to understand the evil/opposing forces in Europe that try to damage the President. But it’s not because they failed up to now, that they don’t exist.
:[[USER:Jvb|--Jvb]] 28 Feb 2005
::As I understand it, you want to include three external links for the purpose of developing the story about the distribution in Belgium of urinal stickers for people who dislike Bush. The article already has information about formal public-opinion surveys assessing Bush's (un)popularity outside the U.S. Those data make clear that many people in Europe dislike Bush. That some people in Belgium made up urinal stickers is much less enlightening about the subject, compared with scientifically designed surveys. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 09:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::These three articles make multiple things clear:
:::The Belgians, at least red Wallonia and their small Flemish socialist allies who have together a majority, wanted to shape the conditions to issue an international arrest warrant against the President for the case he would not be re-elected. This seems crazy, but it illustrates their blind hatred.
:::Even now there is absolutely no understanding in the European Commission for the President’s external policy towards Iraq.
:::French influence in the European Union’s administration is very strong.
:::[[USER:Jvb|--Jvb]] 28 Feb 2005
::::The first point fails in light of the repeal of the law. To cite an article about Bush's possible exposure to prosecution under a war crimes law, without disclosing that the law has since been repealed, is actively misleading. The second point doesn't follow at all from the cited links. That some Belgians disliked Bush enough to disseminate urinal stickers is logically independent from the merits of Bush's policy toward Iraq. The third point is about France's role in the EU, which isn't relevant in the article about Bush. I've deleted this rubbish three times already, though, so I'll see if anyone else wants to take a swing at it. (Perhaps I'm being too cautious. Only my last edit removed all three of these links. Nevertheless, it can't hurt to get other editors involved.) [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 13:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::The Belgian war crimes law has indeed been revoked meanwhile, but it was not done by the Belgians out of their free will. Tough American pressure was needed. America threatened otherwise Belgium to withdraw the NATO siege out of Brussels. So it would rather be misleading to give the impression that the President’s indictment happened by accident.
:::::As far as the Belgian “piss off campaign” is concerned. There is also something extraordinary that should be discussed. Extremist cells exist everywhere, also in America. But in Belgium they dwell in the vice-prime-minister’s cabinet, were the sticker was conceived during working-time. And (Flemish) socialist president Stevaert refused to distance himself afterwards from the action. Is something of the kind conceivable in the United States? No. Therefore it is information.
:::::[[USER:Jvb|--Jvb]] 28 Feb 2005
== Alcohol and drug use ==
The only arguments in the article heading under alcohol and drug use that are encyclopedic are the following and would like to see the dismissal of the rest of the opinions which are here soley to push a point of view. The following abridgement would suffice to both show that Bush did overindulge in the past and that he essentially admits it. I see no reason to continue to use the remainder of the items as I believe they are uncreditible in their referencing, without sufficent basis in fact and, in some ways, are tabloidish in character. My abridement would read as follows:
Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth". Bush admitted to drinking "too much" in those years. He said that although he never joined Alcoholics Anonymous, he gave up drinking for good shortly after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham ([46], [47], [48] ([50] Bush reported that he had not used any illegal drugs in over 25 years. Taped recordings ([51], [52] with old friend and author, Doug Wead, however imply he did use the illegal drug marijuana at some time in his past. In the taped recordings Bush essentially admits to marijuana use. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Mr. Wead reminded Mr. Bush that he had publicly denied using cocaine, he replied, "I haven't denied anything."--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:That charges made against Bush are, in your opinion, "uncreditible [''sic''] in their referencing" is '''''not''''' the standard that Wikipedia applies to the reporting of divergent points of view. If you think we should change the general policy, make an appropriate proposal, presumably at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]. Your continual attempts to give Bush special treatment are just not going to go anywhere. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 12:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::I don't consider that what I propose to be special treatment, only an attempt to be encyclopedic. I continue to say that this argument to continue to utilize the kind of referencing, the innuendo and illusionary unmedical and unscientific analysis of antiBush "doctors" attempting to sell their books or opinions and rendering their opinions outside of the accepted norm expected from persons in their fields, and the use of sensationalist sourcing known for it's typical antiBush rhetoric, all mean that the continued use of these items will ensure that I will not allow this article to be labelled as anything other as POV and it will forever remain as as such. Hence my replacement of the neutrality tag.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I characterize your approach as special treatment for Bush because the standard you suggest is not the one that's applied generally in Wikipedia. The article accurately reports statements that have been made about Bush. We don't suppress such statements just because we disagree with them or consider them inadequately referenced. "Do not mention ill-founded partisan accusations against public figures" would be a plausible policy but it's not our policy. As for the NPOV tag, if a truthful report of charges that have been against Bush, accompanied by truthful reports of facts on the other side (such as Bush's denial), strikes you as unfair to Bush, I'd consider that reaction to be very telling. Whether an article will "forever" be labeled as POV because one editor relentlessly tries to suppress such accurate reporting is another issue. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 20:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::Continued use of poorly referenced, sensationalistic, "junk" journalism is not encyclopedic. Just because some pervasively biased sources of reference were used to continue to build a case against Bush to fit left wing dogma and incorporate it into this article doesn't mean that our continued inclusion of these items makes us good editors. Knowing what is and what isn't "news" or noteworthy is how one makes a case. I stated before that this article isn't encyclopedic because it is not neutral. When chilidish innuendo and unnoteworthy opinion make up the bulk of some sections of this article, then I can see no reason to not continue to call this article POV.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Of MONGO's earlier criticisms, I agree with the point that there's no value in referring to Castro's comment. With regard to Van Wormer and Frank, the current text simply asserts that their analysis depends on their support for AA. No one has presented any support for that assertion. I don't see how either the endorsement by Castro or the unsourced criticism based on the AA tie adds anything to the report, so I'm deleting both. Also, the material logically belongs in its chronological place, much earlier in the article. I assume it was moved down because someone thought that material unfavorable to Bush should be given less prominence. To avoid an edit war, I won't restore it to its natural place in the chronology, but there must at least be an internal cross-reference. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 23:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:I say again to delete the entire opinions of both van Wormer and Frank for the same reasons I have said before....not to mention unencyclopedic innuendo of the video of Bush drinking something, and other sensationalistic mumbo jumbo from biased sources such as Salon. I'll concede to the video and some of the rest of the jargon but cannot see how van Wormers and Franks opinions, which only carry weight because they are accredited, can be construed as encyclopedic when their formulation was arrived at beyond the scope of recognized standards normally employed to reach such verdicts. Had they reached these conclusions under the standards accredited by their peers and performed an actual evaluation accordingly and then reached the conclusion, then I would say that their verdicts would be noteworthy. Otherwise it is only here at some insistences because it continues to smear Bush.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 12:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::If van Wormer, while an accredited authority on the subject, is allowed to express her medical diagnosis of Bush without meeting him, doesn't this open the door for anyone with a Ph.D in behavioral psychology and an opinion on Bush to be included in this article? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
:::Precisely. I am sure I can dig up actual evaluations on Bush that show him in a favorable light and they would be factual and noteworthy of recitation, regardless of their favorableness tyo Bush because they would be actual medical diagnosis's, not opinions rendered from afar outside of the scope of normal medical standards.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I am sure his arm is not broken and that he has a healthy liver. However, I'd dispute that his good physical health is anything unexpected, and thus would be significant enough to include. Furthermore, if it is significant, then for purposes of consistency, the same information should be put in articles about the other presidents, unless there is a particular reason that it is significant for Bush and not the ohter presidents.
:::But let's keep in mind that this is about psychology, not internal medicine. Also, until the distance of rendering, or the scope of standards ''within the relevant context'' has been established, no statements based on such premises, not established, are substantiated, by definition. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 02:19, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
::::I agree with Kevin that we don't need to report a physical exam unless it yields unexpected results, or addresses a point in controversy. I'd make an exception, however, for restoring the information that he's 6'0" or whatever the number was. It's not hugely important, obviously, but some people would be interested to know his height. (I think the earlier version gave a few different versions, but haggling over a fraction of an inch is going too far.) Is there any reason not to restore this information? [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 09:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::Both of you missed my point in it's silliness. I was attempting to suggest that the inclusion of medical and or psychological "analysis" rendered from afar and not done so in a standardized manner typical of "analysis" of such a nature, are silly innuendos that are not encyclopedic, and instead are slanderous leftist POV. I stated that I could find actual Doctors/Therapists reports that say that Bush is this way or that, but they are silly....the van Wormer and Frank jargon are not significant as some might wish them to be, and this is because of the nature under which the evaluations were performed, and the manner in which they were communicated....this isn't really that hard for everyone to understand is it?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::::One possibility is that it's hard for us to understand your point. Another possibility is that we understand your point but that it's hard for you to understand the response. We apparently won't reach agreement on general principles, so we'll just have to go case by case in considering any particular proposed change to the article. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 14:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Okay, I'll be as simplistic as possible...we have this van Wormer person and this Frank person and there they are, perhaps independently watching some speeches by Bush on t.v., or in person...they look Bush over and based on their background, see similarities between Bush's behavior, his choice of words and a slang term for someone who never "correctly" recovered from alcoholism known as a dry drunk. Okay, that's fine...they have their opinion. Their opinion carries weight because they have credentials in social work, psychiatry or similar. The problem is that these opinions are not founded on an accepted mode of evaluation normal to their fields...ie: standard patient to doctor/therapist evaluation, usually performed in confidence and privately and unless mandatory, not disclosed to the general public. In light of the fact that neither opinion is based on a standardized method of evaluation, their opinion is not scientifically accurate and is unencyclopedic except to those that wish to deliberately portray Bush as having this condition in an effort to cast Bush in a bad light...it is POV. Additionally, van Wormer and Frank have are Democrats and have either made money on publishing left wing jargon of an anti-Bush nature or have written for left wing periodicals that have tendencies toward sensationalism and anti Bush rhetoric. Their opinions are not worthy of Wikipedia standards and are one of the three or four reasons that their continued inclusion will ensure that this article continues to be POV.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::::::You say, "Their opinions are not worthy of Wikipedia standards . . . ." Might I trouble you to cite and quote the Wikipedia standards you're invoking? The article doesn't present their opinions as fact. Instead, it gives an accurate report of the undisputed fact that they hold those opinions. I realize that such a truthful report isn't worthy of the ''MONGO'' standards, under which the existence of certain opinions is to be suppressed if they are deemed "uncreditible [''sic'']". I'm not asking you to reiterate the MONGO standard yet again. I'm asking you to justify your assertion concerning the ''Wikipedia'' standard. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 07:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
== Public Relations ==
How about a section on how him and his administration interact with the media? This is always an important part of the presidency, and it's alwasys a good idea to examine the lens as much as those things that one examines when looking through the lens. We could do put it in the public perceptions and assesments section. Perhaps we could rename the title PR. And the media relations could replace the alcohol and drug abuse paras, which we seem to agree are disproportionately covered. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]</sup> 22:22, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
| 