|
==Deletion==
{{controversial}}
''213.42.1.165 deleted the following text from the article, without giving a reason. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:16 Aug 19, 2002 (PDT)''
{{oldpeerreview}}
<!-- Fact and Reference Check Banner BEGIN -->
{|-
|width="15%" bgcolor="#fff3f3" style="border:1px solid #ffc9c9;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;" align=center|
[[{{PAGENAME}}|This article]] is the Biweekly Special Article for the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|Fact and Reference Check]] WikiProject. Please add references for this article as you see fit.
|}
<!-- Fact and Reference Check Banner END -->
<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]], [[/Archive 19|19]], [[/Archive 20|20]], [[/Archive21|21]], [[/Archive 22|22]], [[/Archive 23|23]], [[Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 24|24]]'''</div></center>
<br>
Since 1994,
==Terrorism==
==Presentation of substance abuse issues==
--[[User:151.188.16.45|151.188.16.45]] 20:41, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)[[Media:[[Image:
== [''[[
== '''Syria''' ==]]''] ==]]]] has been on the official [[U.S.]] list of [[state sponsors of terrorism]].
[[Palestinian Islamic Jihad|Islamic Jihad]], considered a terrorist group by the U.S. and [[Israel]], has its headquarters in Syria.
Some writers advocate the removal of Syria from the U.N. Security Council, on the grounds that its support for terrorism contradicts the stated mission of the council.
This article has seen a long-running dispute about how to present information related to Bush’s use or nonuse of alcohol and drugs. Everyone agrees that Bush’s conviction for drunk driving (DUI) should be mentioned, and should appear in its chronological place in the account of his early years, but otherwise, there’s been no stability.
----
:Ed, I agree with this removal because, until we cannot expand the article in order to better describe this country (which will certainly have something of important in many other fields too), this (perhaps offensively) seems as if there is nothing to say but this.
Presented below are:
:Also, IMHO we can't report such statement only, without a wider note on the theme and, before, on Syrian politics. A political list, even if credible and of serious origins, is not produced from a NPOV by definition. We can add it as a reference, but it cannot be the main argument. --[[User:Gianfranco|G]]
* Four different [[#Versions|versions]] of the treatment of this subject.
* A summary [[#Proponents' statements|statement]] on behalf of each version.
* A [[#Poll|poll]] section where you can express your preference.
* A section for [[#Comments|comments]]. (Your comments are welcome but please put them here, not before the poll.)
::I'm going to put back "Islamic Jimad" and "state sponsors of terrorism", both of which are factual. Q or Jacob or someone else can add all the balancing information they like. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:24 Aug 21, 2002 (PDT)
===Versions===
----
Each version includes a link to a snapshot of the article as it stood with that version incorporated. These snapshots were taken at different times; you can ignore any differences among them that don’t relate to the substance abuse issues.
Why isnt it there? Is it fact or not? Surely listing facts is important, and listing reasons is also important. Hiding the truth because noone can explain a fact isnt very open is it? [[User:Paul Weaver|Paul Weaver]] 15:20 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Please don't edit these versions here. Other people are responding to specific text, and changing that text might distort their responses.
------
====Version 1====
Could someone verify the info that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=210.50.112.97 210.50.112.97] is adding? (also on [[Politics of Syria]]) [[User:Evil saltine|Evil saltine]] 17:18, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
*''In this version, the only items included in the body of the main article are essentially the items found in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Version 3. They are not found under a seperate heading, instead placed in the section under Personal life, service and education. There is no link to the internal daughter article created discussing substance abuse.
----
I removed the second sentence of this article "Syria is often seen to be in support of terrorism and terrorist groups in the Middle East"? Because of NPOV concerns. Yes, this is an issue with Syria -- but in its current ___location it gives the impression this is the primary item of interest concerning Syria. Other countries accused of harboring terrorism -- [[Libya]], [[North Korea]], [[Iran]] -- do not have a statement in such a prominent position. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] 17:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth." and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years; he says 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. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushtext072599.htm], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072599.htm]. In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4282799.stm], [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/].
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15062588 ''Snapshot of Version 1'']
------
====Version 2====
*''In this version, the entire subject is in a daughter article and the following reference constitutes the second section of the main article, after "Personal life, service and education".
'''Drug and alcohol abuse controversy'''
There has been much discussion regarding possible drug and alcohol abuses, primarily during Bush's youth. Though Bush admitted to alcohol abuse, he only alluded to using both marijuana and cocaine in his youth. Many books have been written and in at least two of these, Bush is described as having symptoms visible today which indicate that he did abuse drugs and alcohol excessively at some time in his past. See [[George W. Bush substance abuse controversy]] for more discussion.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15096613 ''Snapshot of Version 2'']
------
====Version 3====
*''In this version, the details are in a daughter article and the following summary constitutes the second section of the main article:''
'''Substance abuse controversy'''
{{main|George W. Bush substance abuse controversy}}
Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth." and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years; he says 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]]. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushtext072599.htm], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072599.htm], [http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/]
Some Bush critics have suggested that his public statements and actions reflect a "classic addictive thinking pattern" common among former alcoholics [http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html], and one psychiatrist (Frank, 2004) wrote a book describing him as "an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies." [http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4704.shtml] Other professionals have expressed their disagreement with these analyses. For further details on these arguments, see [[George W. Bush substance abuse controversy]].
Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/19/president.2000/bush.drug/] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1143/a08.html?4588]
In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author [[Doug Wead]], Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4282799.stm], [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15240201 ''Snapshot of Version 3'']
------
====Version 4====
*''In this version, the "Business and early political career" section of the main article includes an internal cross-reference to a separate section on "Alcohol and drug issues” much later in the article, after the "Public perception and assessments" section. Text of the cross-reference, which would come at the end of the paragraph about Bush's arrest for drunk driving:''
For further discussion of substance abuse issues, see [[#Alcohol and drug issues|below]].
*''Text of the separate section:''
'''Alcohol and drug issues'''
Bush has described the first part of his life as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth" and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years. He has stated that, some ten years after his guilty plea to driving under the influence of alcohol, he gave up alcohol, although he never joined [[Alcoholics Anonymous]]. He ascribed the change in part to a [[1985]] meeting with The Rev. [[Billy Graham]]. The final impetus, he says, came when he woke up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushtext072599.htm], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072599.htm], [http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/]
In an article published by [[Counterpunch]] on [[October 11]], [[2002]], [[Katherine van Wormer]], a professor of social work and writer on addiction treatment, stated that Bush still displays "all the classic patterns of addictive thinking", which can occur even in an alcoholic who has stopped drinking. [http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html] More specifically, she argued that Bush 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, judgmental outlook. She added that the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] was primarily a result of his relationship with his father: "the targeting of Iraq had become one man’s personal crusade." Van Wormer's analysis, expressed in colloquial rather than clinical terms, drew on her own addiction treatment experience and writings, as she did not meet with Bush in person.
[[Justin Frank]], a clinical professor of [[psychiatry]] at [[The George Washington University]] Medical School, has incorporated similar, though apparently independent, observations into a book about Bush, ''[[Bush on the Couch]]'' <small>ISBN 0060736704</small> [http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/06/16/bush_on_couch/]. Frank's book has been highly praised by other prominent psychiatrists and has found confirmation from a childhood friend of Bush and from Bush's disaffected former treasury secretary. [http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4704.shtml].
Frank's book also has its critics. Irwin Savodnik, a psychiatrist who teaches at the [[University of California, Los Angeles]], described Frank's book as a "psychoanalytic hatchet job" and said that "there is not an ounce of psychoanalytic material in the entire book." [http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/004/644uyavx.asp] The code of the [[American Psychiatric Association]], of which Frank is not a member, states that "it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement." [http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/ethics/ppaethics.cfm] Although Frank had in the past written for [[Salon.com|''Salon'']], the online magazine reviewed the book unfavorably, arguing that it included "dubious theories" and that Frank had failed in his avowed intention to distinguish his partisan opinions from his psychoanalytic evaluation of Bush's character. [http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/06/16/bush_on_couch/index_np.html]
Bush has also been dogged by suspicions about possible drug use. He has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/19/president.2000/bush.drug/] He has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1143/a08.html?4588]
In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author [[Doug Wead]], Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4282799.stm], [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/]
In 1999, [[James Hatfield]] published a [[biography]] of Bush, [[Fortunate Son (book)|''Fortunate Son'']] (ISBN 1887128840), a largely favorable account of the life of the younger Bush and the Bush family in general. Hatfield said that he had investigated allegations that Bush had been arrested for cocaine possession and that the Bush family had the record expunged. Hatfield wondered if Bush's work at Project P.U.L.L. in [[Houston, Texas|Houston]] in 1972 could have been community service performed as part of such an arrangement. Hatfield stated that this version of events was confirmed by three sources; he did not name them, but described them as being close to the Bush family. [http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/] Hatfield's original publisher later recalled the book after learning of Hatfield's concealed [[felony]] conviction resulting from an unsuccessful murder conspiracy. Hatfield responded that, before the Bush campaign brought pressure to bear, the same publisher had stated that the book had been "carefully fact-checked and scrutinized by lawyers". [http://www.drudgereport.com/411.htm] Hatfield never named his sources, but in 2001 his new publisher, against his wishes, stated that they were [[Karl Rove]], [[Clay Johnson]], and [[Michael Dannenhauer]]. Bush called Hatfield's book "totally ridiculous". [http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1143/a08.html?4588] Hatfield committed suicide in 2001. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A29283-2001Jul20¬Found=true] [http://www.davidcogswell.com/Essays/DeathHatfield.html]
During the 2004 campaign, a ''Salon'' writer asserted that, on [[April 21]], 1972, the National Guard began random drug-testing of guardsmen, and that Bush stopped flying at about that time and took no more Guard physical exams. The issue had also arisen in 2000, when a Bush spokesperson said that he had not known of any drug testing by the Guard. [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/], [http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/1676664.php]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15227617 ''Snapshot of Version 4'']
===Proponents' statements===
====For Version 1====
Version 1 constitutes the only passages almost universally accepted as fact. It has been agreed by almost everyone involved that these two major points are factual, NPOV and based on reliable witnesses. In the two major points, Bush essentially admits to alcohol use and alludes to illegal drug use. Though some have argued that Bush was misinterpreted due to his usual poor choice of wording, most feel that his comments that he "hadn't denied anything", in response to a question posed regarding his public denial of illegal drug use, and his comment that "he didn't want some little kid doing what I tried" in response to why he wouldn't answer a question posed by others regarding marijuana use, are both essential admissions on his part to the use of illegal drugs. Placing the paragraph immediately after the DUI conviction he had in 1976 is a good fit as they are chronologically accurate. There is no link provided to the sub article because the same information is also there and the remainder of the information is the reason this is in Rfc. This version provides the only version that has information that is not under dispute. Proponents of this version feel that nothing more is needed to "prove" the issues, and that the remainder of the information is mainly opinion, sensationalistic and politically motivated. Incorporation of this version would contribute to the probability that the NPOV tag on the article could be dropped. An example of the version is here [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15062588]].
====For Version 2====
Version 2 provides a summary and an adequate link to the sub article which provides all details. The summary removes most of the argument off the main article helping it to become more streamlined. This compromise would result in a significant reduction in edits and or edit wars regarding information that has been disputed by some and supported by others. All of the material that has been in dispute can be easily linked to in the link provided. The summary provides a snapshot of the sub article in that it openly states that Bush admitted to alcohol abuse (which is not much of a revelation to anyone) and may have also abused two illegal drugs. Additionally, the summary mentions two detractors of the current behavior patterns of Bush as being the end result of previous alcohol and or drug use without making direct quotes which are provided in the sub article. Direct quotes in the main article have resulted in a demand by some for direct quotes disputing this information in a form of quid pro quo, making the article longer. The summary allows balance to return to the entire dispute as it removes the dispute to another article. This has occurred repeatedly in this article as evidenced by many links to discussions regarding election controversies and military service. This version appeared here: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15096613]]
====For Version 3====
This version is based on some editors’ efforts to reach a compromise ([[Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 23#Possible compromise|discussion]]). It presents the issue in full in a daughter article with a summary in the main article.
As compared with Version 1, which wouldn't even link to the detailed article, Version 3 includes the link and at least makes the information available. The link is repeated in the second paragraph (contrary to normal style) because of a desire to make absolutely clear that there is controversy about the criticisms referred to in the first sentence of the paragraph.
As compared with Version 2, which says only that Bush "alluded" to past abuse, Version 3 quotes what he actually said. His statements about his past are unusually personal for a world leader and should be in the article verbatim. Furthermore, in treating the allegations made against Bush, Version 3 follows Wikipedia policy for spinning off a particular controversy into a daughter article: "In most cases, it is a violation of the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] to specifically break out a ‘controversial’ section without leaving an adequate summary." ([[Wikipedia:Article size#Restructuring and splitting articles]]). The summary in Version 2 is not adequate. Its vague phrase "much discussion" doesn't tell the reader what allegations have been made. The only expansion it provides is misleading; the sources are discussing Bush’s underlying personality, not any lingering effects of past alcohol abuse. Version 2 also uses the word "youth" twice; Version 3 tells the reader that Bush quit drinking at age 40.
As compared with Version 4, Version 3 reduces the length and level of detail of the presentation by limiting it to a statement of what the allegations are, the fact of Bush’s denial, and the fact of professional disagreeents. All the evidence and arguments advanced by both sides are left to the daughter article. Some readers will be interested in seeing that detail and some won’t; Version 3 accommodates both groups.
====For Version 4====
The edit war over this issue has occurred because at least one editor doesn’t want to include opinions about Bush that "are dubious to a majority of persons..." This exclusion of minority opinions would contradict Wikipedia policy as set forth in [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?]]. Version 4 ''describes'' points of view that are unfavorable to Bush, but it does not ''adopt'' them. In addition, it fairly presents the opposing POV, giving all the facts cited by critics. Each of the disputed passages represents a notable viewpoint that merits inclusion:
* '''Drugs''': Hatfield’s book, with his conclusions about Bush’s cocaine conviction, was a best seller that reached #8 on the amazon.com chart and has been the subject of a [http://www.cinemax.com/reel/horns_and_halos/ documentary film]. There was news coverage of the book, of Bush's threat of a lawsuit, and of the publisher's decision to withdraw the book. Version 4 reports Hatfield’s charge, reports Bush's denial of it, and reports the publisher’s action, along with the other facts that people have pointed to in attacking Hatfield’s credibility. Bush's denial of Hatfield's charge is also relevant in assessing his refusal to make a blanket denial of cocaine use before 1974. That refusal is not based on a general refusal to speak about pre-1974 events, as some of Bush’s other comments might imply. The ''Salon'' article noted the coincidence in timing of Bush's National Guard career with the beginning of drug testing; the whole National Guard issue received heavy media attention, in the course of which this aspect of the drug issue was raised. Version 4 summarizes the article and a Bush spokesperson's response.
*'''Addictive personality''': Van Wormer is a professor of social work and has co-authored a book about the treatment of addiction (''Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective'', ISBN 0534596703, reviewed in [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/ebooks/B000826V44/reviews/103-6022226-9852651#b000826v442300 an academic journal] as "a must read for social workers and other allied health and substance abuse treatment professionals"). Her credentials make her opinions on addiction-related matters noteworthy. Her ''Counterpunch'' piece quoted here also appeared in the ''Irish Times'' (available online only for a fee), and a revised version appeared in the ''San Francisco Chronicle'' ([http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/IN226761.DTL]). Frank is a professor of psychiatry who wrote a book about Bush from a psychiatric perspective. His book received enough attention to be used by Fidel Castro as the basis for an attack on Bush, another indication of its notability. [http://www.counterpunch.org/castro07302004.html]
Version 4 presents these assessments of Bush, along with the opposing points of view.
The trouble with moving this subject to a daughter article, as Versions 2 and 3 do, is that there isn't really enough material to need its own article. (See, by comparison, the much longer [[George W. Bush military service controversy]], which couldn't be accommodated in the main article.)
Some editors supported putting this information in the main article but didn't want it to appear an early section, even though that's its chronological place. Therefore, Version 4 leaves only an internal cross-reference in the section on Bush's early life. The section addressing substance abuse comes later on, after the description of Bush's presidency.
===Poll===
Please add your name under the version you think is best. If you’re fundamentally dissatisfied with all of them, you can pick “None of the above”, but please give us some idea of what you’d prefer.
====Supporting Version 1====
:''Note: Version 1 as it stands does not contain a daughter article, thus Tverbeek, PPGMD, and Maltmomma seem to be voting for a different version.
#--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#--[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:Tverbeek|Tverbeek]] 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Though obviously a link to the daughter article should be added. Versions 3 & 4 aren't about GWB; they're about the debate (which is ultimately not a major feature of his life).
# [[User:PPGMD|PPGMD]] 17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : With a link to the daugher article of course. The main article should be entirely based on known fact. Version 2 would be my second choice.
#[[User:Maltmomma|maltmomma]] 19:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) I agree about adding a link to the daughter article. I think the other versions are too indepth. JMO
#--[[User:Steve block|Steve block]] 09:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm not sure whether a daughter article link is needed. Is Bush's substance abuse a huge political issue in the US worthy of an article? If so, yes to a daughter article link, if no, then no link and no article.
#--[[User:Nobs01|Nobs01]] 17:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Very concise & well written. Very, very informative too. All others are extrapolation, exploitation, etc. The "controversy" that exists regards [[brain damage]], and this speculation will never go away.
#--[[User:Dcarrano|Dcarrano]] 29 June 2005 05:51 (UTC) Sets out all the facts just fine, and the Hatfield stuff is the only one I would miss from the expanded versions. The other sources mentioned seem like they haven't attained much notice or credibility among the general populace. Although I don't support GWB politically, I wouldn't like it if fringe positions were included in articles about people I do respect.
#--[[User:Tysto|Tysto]] 2005 July 9 00:56 (UTC) I'm politically opposite Bush (see my [http://www.tysto.com bonafides]), but any mention of substance abuse beyond the admisson that he was a heavy drinker who quit at 40 and has refused to answer questions about drug use in his youth is not encyclopedic and not NPOV. No daughter article. No dry-drunk pseudopsychoanalysis.
====Supporting Version 2====
#This one works for me. I took a look at the Bill Clinton's pre-Presidency scandals (see [[Bill_Clinton#Public_image]]) and there is one short paragraph on sexual issues followed by one short paragraph on drug issues. With the links there, anyone can get all the details they want. Both of these men are well known and we seem to be underestimating the readers' ability to follow the links if the scandal issues are of interest to them. Keep the main article short, but have good detail in the linked article. Version 2 seems to do this for me. [[User:NoSeptember|NoSeptember]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:NoSeptember|(talk)</font></sup>]] 20:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
====Supporting Version 3====
#[[User:Xaliqen|Xaliqen]] 02:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Seems like a good idea to me. Four would be my reluctant second choice.
#[[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:The demiurge|The demiurge]] 20:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Four is good, but too long. The rest of the information can be expanded in the daughter article. Three seems to be just about the right length to get a overview of the situation without being too much for a relatively minor part of his life.
#[[User:Ampracific|Ampracific]] 30 June 2005 21:24 (UTC) I'm sympathetic to version 4, but I don't think that the citations represent a majority viewpoint in the psychiatric community. Therefore, I believe that version 4 gives these minority viewpoints too much emphasis. Version 1 silences a credible minority opinion, which is contrary to the Wikipedia philosophy. (Note: I have changed my user name from [[User:Ampacific|Ampacific]].)
#[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] July 2, 2005 00:02 (UTC) My difficulty with version 4 is that it's neither here nor there - it's too long for a summary and it's too short to deal with the credibility issues that Hatfield and Wormer have in terms of their backgrounds and political leanings. Version 3, to my mind, adequately mentions both sides in summary, and pushes that debate over to a daughter article. That daughter article can then be expanded, organized and sectioned to include each allegation, the evidence supporting and the objections to in a way that will not clutter up the main article. In any case, if we are to be honest, Bush's history of substance abuse or lack thereof is the least of the problems in his administration and does not deserve such detailed treatment in a general, main article.
#[[User:RichardMathews|RichardMathews]] July 6, 2005 17:49 (UTC) Good summary with a clear path to the full details.
#[[User:NiceFriend|nicefriend]] July 13, 2005 01:18 (UTC) A good compromise.
====Supporting Version 4====
#[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC). My second choice would be Version 3.
#[[User:Harro5|Harro5]] 07:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) The two-eyes-shut approach in V1 is very pro-Bush, version 2 somewhat vague, V3 actually adds some perspective, but V4 fleshs this out.
#[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 13:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Trim 10%-15% of the words from version 4.
# [[User:Jamesgibbon|<font style="color:green">james</font><font style="color: blue">gibbon</font>]] 10:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) this one's my first option, but I also find V3 acceptable.
====None of the above====
# [[User:Junes|Junes]] 09:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'd support version 1 with a link to the daughter article. Version 2 is too vague and uses a new section which is not necessary, and the other two are too long, making the allegations look more important than they really are (and I'm saying this as someone who can't stand Bush).
# [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Version 1 with a link to the longer article. Version 2 is too short and the longer ones unnecessarily big. 1 reads quite well and covers all the bases, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Then you can go on to read more detail if you want. The more controversial stuff should be accesible but there is no need for it to be absolutely front line. So we two seem to be in agreement with the three who have said the same but listed themselves under option 1.l
# --[[User:Keairaphoenix|Keairaphoenix]] 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm a new user, just browsing through, and I thought I'd give my perspective. As much as I can't stand the man and truly believe he '''is''' a meglomaniac ex-coke head, I'm voting for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article. Version 2 is too vague. Versions 3 & 4 read as too anti-Bush. Version 1, as it stands, is too pro-Bush, as it ignores the controvery altogether. Verison 1 quickly becomes neutral when you add the sentence: See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for more discussion.
# [[User:Eisnel|Eisnel]] 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC) - I vote for #1 with a link to the daughter article (NoSeptember referred to this as Version 1½). I put this here and not in Version 1's section, because it's been made clear that a vote for #1 ''with'' daughter is not a vote for #1. It looks like everyone in the ''None of the above'' section so far prefers #1 with daughter article, and in addition (as of this writing), three of the eight people voting for #1 say they want it with the daughter article. So far that's seven votes for Version 1½. #1 ''without'' the daughter article is unacceptable, IMO. Like Dcarrano said, I'd also like to see the short Hatfield paragraph from #3 put in, so I suppose I'd be partial to #3 without the "classic addictive thinking pattern" paragraph.
# Agree with Eisnel (just above) about both #1 & #3. For #1, a link to the daughter article is required. For #3, if the 'addictive' view were widely shared in psychiatric circles, it deserves a role in the main article. Otherwise, off to the daughter article it goes. It's just too easy to find one or two ''experts'' backing ''any'' position. So, I need to see at least widespread support for the 'addictive' view to place it in the limited space here, rather than daughter article where it can receive fuller discussion. Else, main wikipedia articles will be swamped with the views of every crank out there. This is a classic right-wing trick in the media -- find one 'authority' that disagrees with overwhelming consensus to make it appear as if no consensus exists (e.g. global warming). We should be careful to avoid leaving any such false impressions here. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 19:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
===Comments===
''The most recent discussions of the subject can be found in the last [[Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 23|archived talk page]] (more than half the threads) and in several of the threads above on this page.''
How does the voting work? Is it [[STV voting]] or [[First past the post]] ?
:None of the above. It's not voting in that sense. It's an attempt to solicit people's views in the hope of moving toward consensus. Separate alternatives aren't provided so that we can apply different algorithms for counting the "votes" and picking a "winner"; they're provided because they're a convenient way to bring other people up to speed on the discussions that have occurred so far. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
====NPOV policy====
The basic reasoning for Versions 1 and 2 is shown in this comment by MONGO: "I believe that if indeed, the arguments are as disputed as they are by folks like me and other critics of expertise in their fields such as Sandovik, then they are just opinion and politically motivated opinion at that." The call for excluding opinions from Wikipedia arises from a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. We do ''not'' avoid reporting opinionated statements. Here are some relevant excerpts from [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?]]:
:The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.
:First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present.
That's why this article reports many of Bush's statements, such as about Iraq, that are, in my opinion and in the opinion of numerous experts, lies, and politically motivated lies at that. We present the facts of what was said and other facts relevant to the reader's evaluation of the statements. It's up to the reader to decide whether Bush was deliberately lying about WMDs, or whether van Wormer and Frank are making stuff up for political reasons, or whatever. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 01:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Oh boy...it has nothing to do with any misunderstanding on my part about what the NPOV policies are. I think that the use of this rhetoric is not what an encyclopedia is all about..this is not a political blog...Wormer has been shown to be opposed to the politics of Bush and her "evaluation" from afar hardly constitutes anything other than armchair quarterbacking...as with Frank's book, the American Psychiatriat Association would render her opinion as unethical in that it wasn't arrived at within what constitutes the normal parameters accepted by her field...her opinion isn't noteworthy. Justin Frank, as shown clearly in version 4 has some serious detractors of his book...it is almost self refuting evidence. Hatfield's claims are unsubstantiated, he was a felon whose book was originally pulled by the first publisher and there has been nothing to show by anyone that claims made in his book have any basis in fact. Obviously as discussed before, there have been numerous books written that make one accusation or another about Bush, yet I don't see them quoted in the article to the same degree. All three items are either politically or money motivated and serve little other purpose. The fight to ensure these items remain in this article is a violation of NPOV as they are all [[Junk science]]. Inclusion of these items is a violation of NPOV, even if the detractions are there because it instills falsehoods illusion and innuendos that are POV.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Actually, MONGO, "misunderstanding" was a bit of a euphemism on my part. Based on what I remember of your past comments, it might be more accurate to say that you understand the policy but you disagree with it, and therefore you deliberately choose to violate it. Over and over and over you give the reasons for your personal disagreement with the opinions. ''Your opinion is irrelevant.'' I strongly disagree with some of Bush's opinions (and with his outright lies as to matters of fact), but my opinion is also irrelevant. Your conclusion that these commentaries "are either politically or money motivated" isn't based on any special knowledge of their motivations. (You haven't personally examined van Wormer or Frank, to apply the standard you yourself have argued for.) Instead, your opinion is based on certain facts. We disclose those facts. The readers can then choose whether to draw the inferences that you do. Your preference is to save the readers that trouble by drawing the inference for them. On Wikipedia, however, the NPOV policy "suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves." [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?]]. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::"I deliberately choose to violate it" as you say is unfair. I have stated that my argument against Frank and Wormer is primarily due to the fact that their opinions are unethical...they never performed a diagnosis on the "patient" as the APA or their peers would expect them to. Obviously, based on what it appears have been their traditional political views, they can hardly expect to have any political congreguity with Bush, and since their opinion was rendered outside the scope of what the remainder of their peers would consider a traditional doctor to patient evaluation, we can also hardly expect them to be reliable witnesses to Bush's mental health or behavior patterns. If you can find one substantive mental evaluation that is sanctioned by the American Psychiatrict Association that proves that Bush is suffering from some post alcoholism trauma, then by all means do so. Hatfield's claims are completely unsubstantiated...so are a lot of other claims made about Bush as found in dozens of other books...books written by people with better credentials than Hatfield. As far as my not having any special knowledge about the motivations behind the opinions of these people, that may be true, but what is the alternative? Would we believe that Bush has these "problems" if they were "diagnosed" from afar by a conservative leaning psychatrist? I wouldn't. There is a great chasm that separates us on these points and I doubt we will ever agree so I would like to remind you to cease with your constant argument that I either don't understand what constitutes the NPOV policies or that I wish to ignore them...I wish to provide a fact based account on the life of Bush worthy of Wikipedia..if you agree with that then help me do so by getting rid of this unmedical claptrap.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::You've said, "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." (09:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)) More recently: "It is poor editing to include such items if they are dubious to a majority of persons." (07:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Both these stated positions of yours are contrary to current Wikipedia policy. You have edited according to your personal positions, not according to Wikipedia policy. I agree that there's a great chasm that separates us on that point -- I believe in following the community policies, even those I dislike, unless and until they're changed. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 10:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::That great chasm is about the information...not about any disagreement over Wikipedia policy. If it is "dubious to a majority of persons" perhaps I was defending NPOV whereby the inclusion of this jargon would be their POV and knowing that their POV is strongly opposed to the subject matter, then the inclusion of such opinion and the support of it is NOT in keeping with NPOV policy.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, MONGO, you lost me with that comment. I think you're saying that the term "dry drunk" is jargon and embodies a particular point of view, so it shouldn't be used. This is where you depart from Wikipedia policy. In keeping with the policy of "presenting conflicting views without asserting them", we have no rule against reporting someone else's use of a POV-laden term. For example, this article reports the Bush administration's use of the terms "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies" to describe bills that were widely considered to be exactly the opposite. Anyway, the point is irrelevant. The use of the term "dry drunk" seemed to irritate some editors, so I omitted it from my proposed Version 4. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I don't think anyone disagrees with you there James, but briefly tell us what specific criteria an opinion must meet in order for inclusion? Obviously there must be some criteria, or else any opinion that anyone has may be included? Does this threshold of criteria apply evenly to all pages? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 01:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
::You raise a valid question that won't always have a clear answer. I think I said, somewhere in the archived ocean of talk, that we don't need to quote the opinion of every crackpot who's learned enough HTML to put up a website. We agree on that. I would say that an opinion merits inclusion if the proponent has expertise in the area (often but not always based on academic credentials); or if the proponent is in such a position that his or her opinion is an important fact regardless of its merits (most often a public official who can act on the opinion, but it could include an influential private-sector figure like [[Henry Kaufman]], an economic forecaster who was so widely respected that his opinions could move markets [http://www.nabe.com/am2001/kaufman.htm]); if the opinion is held by a majority or by a significant minority ([[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?]]); or if the public statement of the opinion was itself a notable fact (for example, [[Rick Santorum]]'s comment linking homosexuality with bestiality touched off the notable [[Santorum controversy]]). There will always be borderline cases where people can reasonably disagree. Under the policy, though, those disagreements are ''not'' to be resolved on the basis of which opinion we think is correct, or better referenced, or ethical, or nobly motivated, or whatever. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page that the source of this dispute is the fundamental perception of whether the authors' works are considered notable, as I agree that editor endorsement of opinion is irrelevant. While I agree with you that this threshold will not have a clear answer, I do believe that this threshold which you describe should be directly proportional to the available commentary on the subject. If we are writing an article that details the school history of my local high school, we can't exactly quote notable historians or PhD's, so we use what we have. However, seeing as dubya is one of the most commented on presidents in history, I think the bar for inclusion of opinion should be much higher than simply "expertise in the area". Following this guideline, any Ph.D in behavioral psychology can add their comment to this page, as there is no requirement for being directly involved with Bush. According to your threshold, if I go out and get a Ph.D (which will take a while, as I'm still working on my undergrad), in behavioral psychology, comment on why I think Bush is a classic case of a narcissist with suppressed childhood trauma in a local newspaper, it can be included in this page? Cause I'll do it James. That's how dedicated I am. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 23:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
::::There's a lot of commentary about Bush's mental state, but we should prefer quoting experts, as opposed to quoting some Democratic Party official who says, "Bush is nuts!" We aren't talking about a "mere" Ph. D. in behavioral psychology. Van Wormer specialized in addiction treatment to the point of co-authoring a book about it. Frank is a psychiatrist with 35 years' experience and director of psychiatry at George Washington University. Furthermore, he wasn't just dashing off a letter to his local newspaper; he put in enough study of Bush (using public information) to write a book on the subject. I don't think we're opening the floodgates to every Ph. D. who rolls out of bed one morning and decides he wants to see his name in Wikipedia. Hatfield's notability, of course, rests on the best-seller status of his book. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*With the daughter article in existance, I see no attempt to exclude discussions of allegations, only an attempt to keep the main article shorter. Version 2 and Version 1 1/2 (those who want a link added to version 1) gets you to the information without anything be held back, just not in the main article (which is huge). [[User:NoSeptember|<font color="A29EBA">'''NoSeptember''']]<sup><font color=00cc00>[[User_talk:NoSeptember| ]] 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) </sup></font>
::The information would be effectively suppressed because the reader wouldn't know what allegations were discussed in the daughter article. By comparison, see this sentence from the [[Bill Clinton]] article, which tells the reader about a daughter article: "''[[Chinagate]]'' involved Democrats accepting improper campaign contributions; allegedly the ultimate source of this money was the Chinese government." Note that it reports the substance of the allegation against the President. Version 3 is fairer than the treatment of Clinton, because it also reports the opposition to the allegations; Version 4 goes further and presents the facts cited by the opponents. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::: At risk of finding furniture flying at my head, I would observe that if the 'ethical code' prevents fully fledged doctors talking about their patients, then there is no chance of ever getting an opinion from one and not much point in waiting for such an opinion before writing your article. I don't want to argue about the merits of the stuff, but I think it deserves reporting. I do not think it has to be in the main article, particularly because of the nature of this medium. If it was a book you would put the whole lot together somewhere, but huge pages are a real problem to deal with here. I am British and have a few issues with the Tony Blair article, but I am very wary of changing it to my point of view. I am content that contentious stuff is on a different page, just so long as the main page DOES mention it in enough detail for an interested person to go looking. If someone is not interested then I see no point in boring him with a screen full of stuff irrelevant to the main points of a biography. Everyone remember that unless articles are readable and interesting no one will bother accessing them. (Ducks chair)[[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::The information is politically biased as has been shown...that we all know this would make us look tabloidish to include it...this is not the place to push a POV with unsubstantiated opinion rendered by "experts" outside the scope of an authentic standard...I can see placing Frank's and Hatfield's books in the addtional reading section, but quoting them without also quoting the numerous detractors of their opinions would be POV pushing. However, the suppression of inforamtion is something I am opposed to so perhaps version #1 with a link to the article discussiong substance abuse controversies may be necessary to achieve a concesus and make everyone, as Kizzle stated, equally unhappy.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::We don't need to quote all the "numerous detractors" of a particular position, any more than we need to quote each and every person who's criticized the invasion of Iraq. The intent of Version 4 was to report the opinions (pro and con) and to provide the reader with the salient facts relied on by each side in support of its position. Are there any such facts that are omitted? Not "does the article fail to beat the reader over the head with the inferences that MONGO wants to draw from those facts" -- the question is whether you are aware of any important ''facts'' that are omitted. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::As far as detractors to Hatfield how about that in addition to his 5 years in prison for solicitation of murder, he also was previously arrested for burglarly and embezzlement of 34,000 dollars in federal housing subsidies? Does this make his allegations more credible for you? Does the fact that after the book was rereleased by another publisher it was again pulled due to the fact that libel charges were brought by another author? Or how about this:[http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/102399wh-gop-bush2.html]. This argument isn't about the NPOV policy James, it is about substance and quality control...if you want to talk about Hatfield and his book, do so in the article on him in Wikipedia...but not in this preeminent article, please.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 05:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Reference to [[Dry Drunk Syndrome]] and [[Brain Damage]] needed ==
The article needs some discussion of the theories that Bush's poor diction and rigid thinking can be explained as a result of [[brain damage]] incurred by [[alcoholism]] and the subsequent [[Dry Drunk Syndrome]] pattern of behavior common among recovering extreme alcoholics. (e.g. "Addiction, Brain Damage and the President "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush by KATHERINE van WORMER" [http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html]) [[User:User]]
:This "dry drunk syndrome"...is that a proven medical term accepted by the AMA or just phrasology AA uses to compel their "patients" to continue with their program? It's hard to say who's more likely to have brain damage...Bush and his poor choice of words or Clinton with his absolute abuse of power getting snarlins from Monica....I'd have to say Clinton, since this one deed alone is the biggest reason history will always see him as less than he could have been...that's brain damage. Besides...is there proof that Bush was an alcoholic or just drank more often than he should have...if he was an alcoholic or still is, he is in big company...according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1 in 13 Americans suffer from this disease...that's more than 20 million people...do they all also suffer from "dry drunk syndrome" or "brain damage"...if so, then we're in big trouble[http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/faq/faq.htm].--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::And if cheating on your spouse is "brain damage", a third of all Americans would be damaged as well. Then we'd really be in big trouble. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 16:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:::And of those, how many were President?...Clinton, regardless of my personal dislike happened to enjoy a strong economy, relative peace and world wide respect higher than many other Presidents...that he did this one act forever tainted his chance of greatness in the eyes of many people...not to mention his impeachment in the House...but I sure am glad he wasn't impeached by the Senate...then we would have had.....oh my gosh...GORE! Then as we critique Bush and his "you're with us or with the terrorists" jargon and not take it into account as being typical forceful talk by a world leader soon after the most distructive terrorist attack in world history...perhaps not the best chouce of word play...and then liberals think this is worse than Clinton..."I did not have relations with that woman" which all the world saw...not only is Clinton brain damaged, but he's a brain damaged liar to boot.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Probably about 50% at least of presidents... shit, he didn't even have illegitimate children out of his affairs like our founding fathers, and look how we revere them. They didn't even have to lie about it, as its pretty hard to explain having half-black children when your wife is white. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
::::And not to espouse cliche liberal talking points, but at least when Clinton lied, nobody died. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Okay, that's sore point..it's okay if you liked Clinton...I can understand and he isn't the worst President in my lifetime...Johnson was. If you're speaking of Jefferson...he was a widower...I hadn't heard that there were other mixed race off spring of former Presidents...or any proven unfaithful ones...even Kennedy never had anyone prove that he had been unfaithful, despite all the rhetoric that he had been.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::If the worst you can say about a 2-term president is that he lied about having an affair, then in modern-day standards of morality, that ranks about a 8.5/10. No watergate, no wars, great economy, budget surplus, smart, all the good stuff that actually affects the people he works for. And I'll get back to you on the (alleged) unfaithfulness of previous presidents... maybe it should be an article ;) sure as hell would carry a lot more weight than some articles on wikipedia (*cough*... [[Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda]]...*cough*) --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
::::::Mongo, as for presidents and infidelity, you might want to [http://www.funtrivia.com/quizdetails.cfm?quiz=67078 play this game] :) --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 23:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Well, it's not the worst I can say and I won't so that ends that. The game is amusing, thanks.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:The "dry drunk" idea is considered in the work by Katherine van Wormer, which is part of the pending RfC (the section just above this one). You should register an account and weigh in on how Wikipedia should treat the whole substance abuse area. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This whole thing is veering dangerously in the direction of original research. The Van Wormer crap is worthy of note because it made the Irish Times, an objective fact, the nutty professor's stuff is in a book that was fondly received by some members of his profession, another objective fact. If we go beyond that and find outselves tempted to hedge and whatnot it's because we've dropped the NPOV standard. Unlike certain television stations, we don't claim to be "fair and balances". But we don't go around discounting stuff just because we think it's tripe. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::There was that article by a doctor in ''Vanity Fair'' that said words to the effect that GW Bush's decline in sentence by sentence speaking ability indicated an underlying cognitive disorder, etc. something like that, I don't have the magazine, I read it at the Dr.'s office. It's not original research, I think the real issue is whether it is credible or not credible, and whether anyone can be qualified to judge Bush's medical condition, anyone who isn't his personal physician. I may think he's a coke addict, and a liar, but I'm not really qualified to judge that. The source needs to be verifiable and credible, and that is really all there is to the issue, beyond that it's just slinging mud, and doesn't belong. With a source of information that is both verifiable and credible, though, you can't go too far wrong by adding any info to any article.[[User:Pedant|Pedant]] 2005 July 4 07:29 (UTC)
:::You may wish to review the Rfc on that information and post a comment there as well as voice your opinion on one or none of the 4 versions. The Rfc is at the top of this discussion page [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush#Presentation_of_substance_abuse_issues]]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 4 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
==Wait, hold on.==
Does Version 1 include or not include a daughter article? You have 2 people (in addition to me) who are voting/would vote for Version 1 if it links to the daughter article, but yet version 1 explicitly states there is no daughter article? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 19:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:Kizzle, I drafted version #1 and excluded the link to the daughter article. I have stated that the reason behind the Rfc is due to the dispute that the remainder of the issues are not factual, but merely opinion and should be omitted. As one reader calls it a two eyes shut view and very pro Bush...I disagree. I feel that it represents the only issues that are not in dispute and provide suffcient evidence that Bush did, in all likelihood, abuse alcohol and probably drugs too. In themselves, they can hardly be construed as pro Bush or help to elevate him as a leader. The remainder of the arguments are just political commentary. I think that this has been shown and is shown in version #4 by the counterarguments that dispute Frank and Hatfield books. I believe that if indeed, the arguments are as disputed as they are by folks like me and other critics of expertise in their fields such as Sandovik, then they are just opinion and politically motivated opinion at that. Besides, there are numerous books and opinions that could also be cited against Bush so why do these have particular merit? I am against the suppression of information and think all readers should "get their money's worth" but not if that information is just pure politics or unsubstantiated referencing just to sell a book. I feel that a link to the daughter article would compromise the efforts to eliminate this rhetoric. I do, however, see your issue and have sympathy with it to some degree...perhaps you think we should have a version #5 which would include all of version #1 and a link to the daughter article...you may wish to mention it to JamesMLane.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Well, you actually have me sold, but look at the 2 other people who are voting for version 1 only if there's a daughter article. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
:::Interesting...I may have no choice. Again, I stated that (and I am not trying to sling mud here) that JamesMLane developed the daughter article so that all this information would never go away. It offered him a win-win scenario and I see no concession by offering a link. If the concensus says we need a link then that is what will happen...but I am completely opposed to one...if indeed there is a link, then version #2 is probably my choice and it also probably needs to be written better.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::: I believe that it simply needs to be mentioned, otherwise next there will be another edit war when another set of allegations come out (as they seem to come out every election cycle since he was elected). Take the political bickering off of the main article, so only true credible facts will be left in the main. You can discuss all you want there, heck you could say that the President isn't even human instead a reincarnation of Hitler by aliens, just as long as it stays off the main article. [[User:PPGMD|PPGMD]] 05:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I think there should be a link to the daughter article. It doesn't matter if the accusations are complete nonsense, as long as they are notable enough. I mean, we have an article on the flat earth society, haven't we? Of course, these books about Bush suffering long-term effects may not be notable enough to merit inclusion in the main article (I don't know enough about the US situation to judge that), but his alleged substance abuses sure are, and they deserve to be fleshed out for readers who want to know more. Now, of course the daughter article should be made neutral too. I think your objection is that it never will be - well, maybe, but at least the most controversial things will be off the main page. [[User:Junes|Junes]] 10:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, we may at some point end up with a version 1 with a link to the daughter article, but time will tell. I am opposed to the use of Wikipedia as a place to vent political frustrations and feel that any mention of the disputed information and or a link to them is poor referencing and makes the main article look like we are trying to peddle tabloid nonsense as supporting commentary. For anyone who may wonder, I even think that the two main points of version 1 are relatively weak...but they have some weight when placed immediately after his DUI charge of 1976.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why don't we take version 1 and simply add to it as we see fit to fill in the missing bits? You keep banging on about political frustrations, but I notice that only you are removing factual references from Wikipedia. For instance your removal of the link to the facsimile of Bush's DUI, which for some reason you seemed to believe was a "weak quote about 1976 DUI arrest". --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Tony...is this how you really feel when you tell me that "I notice that only you are removing factual references from Wikipedia"? That seems to be a pretty bold comment...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Tony, I considered the new link to be more substantive...if my edit summary seemed rude I apologize. It's not like I removed the information...if anything, I made it more believable with a CNN link instead of a "smoking gun" link--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't think it's a question of which link is "more substantive". They're different -- one is the primary source material, the other is explanatory and has relevant detail about the context. Each of them adds something. There's no reason not to have both. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 20:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::James...come on..."smoking gun" I mean really...you're a legal man, does the facimilie look to you like it would be admissible in court in that it isn't fully descriptive...besides, it contains a link, right near the top, that takes the reader to none other than evidence you refute...the video of Bush partying at that wedding...the reference isn't a strong one and I think it makes the information less believeable, not more so. The reference I added is more than sufficent to substantiate the point.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::If you're talking about TheSmokingGun.com, I was under the impression that site was actually pretty reliable, as all they deal in is paper trails. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 18:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
::::::We're truly through the looking glass now, when a site devoted to producing pdf and other graphical copies of evidentiary material is held up to be prima facie evidence of false evidence. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Perhaps I am not familar with this web site...it just looks rather sensationalistic to me. that's all. The fact that there is a link to other information that JamesMLane didn't even think was substantive enough for his version 4 as shown in the Rfc...the video of Bush "drinking"...only supports my opinion that the web site isn't very substantive. If you think it should be there then replace it...everyone chill out as it was a good faith edit on my part and I thought this piece of rather unflattering information about Bush was made more believable with the CNN reference, not less so. It's not like I tried to suppress or delete the information....relax.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::Whether you or anyone else considers the police record "fully descriptive" is irrelevant. An online reproduction of the document would be inadmissible in New York courts, whether it came from The Smoking Gun, ''The New York Times'', or the right-wingers at [[Free Republic]]. You would need to obtain a certified copy from the issuing agency. Of course, if you were to start applying legal standards for admissibility across the board, and not just when it suits your purpose, you'd have to call for deletion of pretty much everything in this article, beginning with Bush's birth date. Bush has admitted that the news accounts of his previously concealed DUI were accurate. As far as I know, no one has raised any question about the accuracy of The Smoking Gun's reproduction. If you have a good-faith basis for contending that the police record has been doctored, you should present it. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the survey has helped, and indeed I would have counseled against holding one if I had been around this article when it was being discussed. About half support version 1 and half support version 4 with a couple of votes for other options, so there is no decisive result. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Well, the survey got us ''somewhere''. So far, of the 15 people who've responded, 13 have said that there should be a link to the daughter article, with one more undecided on that point. I think we can say that MONGO's desire to omit even a link has not met with favor. Otherwise, you're right, that we have sharp disagreement.
:It seems to me that the logical thing to do is to try to accommodate both views by crafting a version that's more informative than the cryptic Version 1 but not so detailed as the much longer Version 4. That was what we tried to do last month. What emerged was basically Version 3. Everyone more or less acquiesced to that compromise, which many of us disliked, and it was implemented. Then MONGO returned to editing the article and re-opened the question. Given that, as you say, the RfC hasn't produced a decisive result, we need to figure out what we can do other than engaging in a full-blown edit war. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::It appears to me you may be misreading the "results" (which I think should be determined after another week anyway so that everyone has a chance to chime in). It appears to me that the majority of voters favor version 1 so long as there is a link. Otherwise, Sidaway is right in that essentially there is no mandate for any major change. Furthermore, your constant referral to any previous recent concensus is erroneous, as only a small number of folks even made an imput into that discussion over the same issues. This Rfc has at least brought out some newer voices top consider. Regardless, you commitment to Wikpedia is highly commendable as evidenced by your development of the Rfc. I want to thank you for taking the time to develop it.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Also James, why not archive all the information above the Rfc except the recent discussion going on about the pet goat picture to make it easier to access the Rfc.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 21:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::No, Tony's reading is correct. As Weyes stated, and I agreed, before the RfC, the point isn't to get a majority behind one particular version. The purpose was to help us work toward consensus. So far we aren't particularly close. And if a few more people show up and prefer Version 4, we still won't be particularly close. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 22:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Religious Conversion due to [[Arthur Blessit]] not [[Billy Graham]] ==
The article neglects to mention the real story behind Bush's conversion, that it was due a travelling preacher [[Arthur Blessit]] [http://www.blessitt.com/] [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/bush/cron.html] , and Bush only met [[Billy Graham]] much later, but likes to mention Graham but not Blessit.
: Dunno who wrote the above. The PBS quote seems to be evidence Jim Sales claims that Bush was converted by this odd godbotherer. Please feel free to add this fact to the article (as if you needed permission!) I take it that Midland is some part of the United States having some more specific geographical parameters than the similarly-named area of England. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Evidently this factual bit of biographical information regarding [[Arthur Blessit]] and [[Dubya]] is too [[controversial]] for the [[genteel]] editors of Wikipedia to tolerate, as it has been repeatedly [[censored]].
== Vote for Portrait Change ==
A celebrity's portrait need not always be a solemn one. A photo which caught up the precious moment of a man's true nature might be more worthy or informative than you think. I believe a new bio-photo might be more helpful than the current one in helping those knowledge seekers who come to this page to distinguish the personal characteristic of the featuring topic in the first eye, hence a vote is held, to change the bio-photo from the current one:
to the proposed one:
Please cast your vote here so it can be decided if the proposed image is going to be applied. The poll will last a week.
*'''Yes'''. The proposer. -- [[User:Curimi|Curimi]] 14:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is this patent nonsense? [[User:PPGMD|PPGMD]] 05:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deleted...ongoing pranks constituting vandalism deleted. He was contributing zero to the article...he also archived this discussion page here [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&oldid=15379370]], just as we were getting busy on the Rfc...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To the hell where in my proposal did you find any vandalism?
#State your reason why you think a change like this comprising a vandalism. Did I make joke of anything in my vote description or did you find it a blasphemy against the featuring topic by changing the picture? I proposed the portrait change because instead of the static, bureaucratic-posed current one, I found the proposed picture has a more dynamic, realistic nature. It addresses the activism and pragmatism personalities of the featuring topic in a vivid fashion. I argue that it can give more information about the distinguishing characteristics of the featuring topic than the trait-less one which now presenting.
#Even if you did not look with favor on my proposal, you could not call it a vandalism. You should not call it a vandalism. Did I applied any change on the article yet? No. I came to the talk page seeking a consensus. And now you claimed I have vandalized this sacred discussion place. What? You trying to strip away my freedom of giving out opinions? As long as this discussion page exists even [[George W. Bush]] is not capable of doing that on me!
#Oh yessss, I was contributing zero to the article, which means I am new to this article, so when I came here and found this talk page has more than 100KB I just archived it. My fault. My apology for this. But you just claimed me guilty and sentenced my poll to death before calling me to a hearing. Is this the proper netiquette a Wikipedian should have?
#Not to mention by excluding my rights of opining or editing just because I am new to this article you have desecrated the very doctrine of [[Wikipedia]], the free-content encyclopedia that '''[[Wikipedia:Introduction|anyone can edit]]'''!
Hence the poll is revived. If you disagree, express your doubts in a civilized way. -- [[User:Curimi|Curimi]] 14:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#Let us not be too [[naive]] wrt to the [[anal]]ity and lack of humor of the [[BOFH]] Wiki Admin-[[Nazi]]s in enforcing the [[NPOV]] [[dogma]] according to their own particular [[POV]] by deleting any such attempts at emulating [[Paul Krassner]]'s [[The Realist]]. The slogan ''[[that anyone can edit]]'' is now empty party doctrine just like ''[[democracy]]'' or ''[[freedom of speech]]'', in actuality, the [[power junkies]] rule here just as in the [[repugnican]] [[plutocracy]] of the USA.
MONGO, this is '''the 2nd time''' you interfered with my attempt of polling '''without any obvious reason'''. If you think it is a bad idea to change the image, than '''say it loud by casting your vote'''. '''Thwart the whole poll attempt just because you dislike one of the options is not the democratic way'''. -- [[User:Curimi|Curimi]] 02:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:This isn't some message board where we all get together and laugh at how silly Bush looks. We're trying to write an encyclopedia. Please stop this. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 02:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
::Someone, please tell me that rule that goes something like, in an argument, as time approaches infinity, the probability that an analogy to the Nazis approaches 1? Seems to be highly relevant in this case. Please, I've never seen such an example of bitter loser-talk as the paragraph equating Wiki Admins to [[Nazis]]. How long did it take for you to come up with that witty paragraph? Geezus. Cry me a river. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 04:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
:::Curimi wants to know why the proposal is vandalism. According to [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]]:
::::Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. . . . Any [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]] effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.
:::This talk page isn't here so that you can emulate Paul Krassner. The real purpose of the page is quite clear: "On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view." [[Wikipedia:Talk page#What is it used for?]] Your post was not a good-faith effort to improve the article, because your picture obviously would not be accepted. The invocation of the Nazis is a confirming instance of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 06:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The intention is to get the featuring topic a more suitable portrait which fits in with the topic's inherent characteristics more than the current one. The topic is an advocate of activism, not a happy smiley. I am not so sure why [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] said the featuring topic just looks like a [[Chimp]] in his [[ifd]] against my original proposal; it is just a normal man speaking. But since many have expressed their dissatisfaction, then fine, I will put up a third option:
So here are the three options:
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15437013 Original Portrait]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15437030 Proposal One]
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15437048 Proposal Two]
I only hope this new poll will be more acceptable among here. -- [[User:Curimi|Curimi]] 09:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:It isn't.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::And you are not the only other people here. I would like to hear comments from people other than you. -- [[User:Curimi|Curimi]] 10:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Read above, they already did.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Yes, Curimi, I agree with MONGO, which is undoubtedly a sign that the end of the world is nigh. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 10:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::[[Godwin's law]], nice touch...I'll remember that one.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::clearly this is some use of the word options I was not previous aware of. clearly only the orginal is acceptable as a head of page portrait.
::::::Then why did you suggest it? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 22:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Stop it Curimi. You're being annoyingly pedantic right now. The current picture is fine, leave it. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 16:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
::If we're still voting, and mine probably doesn't count for much, but I think the current picture barely looks like him and I don't think the average person would recognize it upon first glance. As a democrat I would perfer option 1, but that's not a presidential picture, so I would say option 2 is a very good choice.
==My pet goat picture viewpoint==
The pic is good but I don't believe the viewpoints add anything to the picture itself so I'm removing them.[[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 01:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*My reasons for changing the pic,
#Having the viewpoints inside the picture is pointless. There is nothing wrong with just commenting on where the president was during the September 11 attacks.
#The info belongs in a criticism section where the picture can be added a second time.
#The info currently adds no useful additions to the article.
#Its NPOV, IMHO to state where he was during the September 11 attacks without adding controversy to it. --[[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 01:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I agree that presenting the picture without comment is NPOV, but it's also NPOV, and more informative, to tell the reader something about how Bush's supporters and detractors reacted. It has been the subject of a notable amount of commentary outside Wikipedia. Why do you say that the information about those reactions isn't useful? Regardless of what caption is used, I would be absolutely against including the picture (or any other picture) twice. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 03:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::I'm against including the picture once, but we've been over this before so I won't push it. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] 03:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
:The caption currently reads, "Bush reading "The Pet Goat" in a classroom after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center." Prior to Falphin's change, the caption also included, "He was criticized by some for his apparent nonchalance, but praised by others for not alarming the schoolchildren." May I suggest we move the current image and caption to the comics page? [[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]] 16:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we should keep the picture (there has been quite some controversy over it after all), but suggest we move the reactions and such to the article text itsself. --[[User:Weyes|W]]([[User talk:Weyes|t]]) 16:37, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
:The points about Bush's reaction to 9/11 are closely tied to the picture. It seems more convenient for the reader to have those viewpoints in the caption. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 18:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::But the truth is he sat on his posterior and read that adolescent book instead of politely excusing himself and getting on with business. Who knows what he was thinking, if at all. I dunno but it was a big time brain fart on his part. (Some might argue that he has lots of those). The guy's no Einstein, but I still see the picture as being cross related to F911. I think that is why there have been several objections to it. The picture doesn't make us look good and it doesn't make us look bad...I think due to it's controversial overtones, it wouldn't appear in the article on Bush in Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica or other encyclopedias but that doesn't mean it can't be here. Monkeyman, you can certainly change the caption if you can come up with one that everyone will be mutually unhappy with as it seems that is all of ours ultimate quest...otherwise, none of us will have anything to B*%ch about.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Encarta's for pussies. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 21:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
::I think that as long as the information is balanced and there is a demand for it to be in the article, it definetely should be in. I don't think the previous justification of not "adding anything to the picture itself" is warrant for its removal if it helps even one person. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 19:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:::Is there a reason we need to specify which book Bush is reading? Why not just say, "Bush reading in a classroom after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center." It feels like the book title is included just to make him look like a buffoon. [[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]] 23:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Is there a specific reason why we need to censor the book he was reading at the time?--[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 00:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::::We went through this whole discussion months ago. The result was a caption presenting both points of view and generally accepted as fair, with the sentence: "He was criticized by some for his apparent nonchalance, but praised by others for not alarming the schoolchildren." Howzabout if we just go back to that? Naming the story is useful because it links to the [[The Pet Goat|article]]. I don't see how it makes Bush look like a buffoon. No one would expect an elementary school class to be reading Shakespeare. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::If he were reading Macbeth would the title still be included? [[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]] 01:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::The point Moore was trying to make in criticizing Bush was not the contents of the book he was reading, but the fact that he continued reading for so long. The actual book he was reading at the time of his inaction is irrelevant. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 03:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::So we agree that the title should be removed then? JamesMLane, I would welcome your opinion on this as well. [[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]] 11:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::Sorry, I meant irrelevant to your argument. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 17:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Well, it wouldn't be as funny, but it would still be held up as an example of incompetence. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Monkeyman, I said just above that naming the story is useful because it links to our article on "[[The Pet Goat]]". If Bush had been attending an event at which some adult actors were doing a reading of ''Macbeth'', he would still have been praised and criticized for how he handled the news, and I would still favor linking. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 13:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::I don't see how that information contributes to the article. Should we also include a description of the suit he was wearing that day? [[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]] 13:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::The answer to that question rests upon significance of information, which is different from the justification of bias you referenced earlier in including the name of the book. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 17:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::This does not answer my question. How is the book title more worthy of appearing in the article than a description of Bush's suit? [[User:Monkeyman|Monkeyman]] 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::::How many people would care what suit he was wearing? (The book with "My Pet Goat" was sold out at amazon.com; there's never been a comparable run on a particular type of suit just because Bush was wearing it on 9/11.) Is there a separate article to be linked to? (I can't imagine why we would ever have a separate article on a Bush suit, but if we did, it would be linked to from this article.) [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Interesting that an Rfc dealing with Drug and Alcohol abuse controversies ended up becoming half a discussion page over one picture that has nothing to do with the original Rfc. Monkeyman, this is turning into a petty argument. The picture is a vidcap of an actual event...it isn't based on some opinion...it really did happen...he was really reading that book...[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat]]...he sat there for, I'd like to forget how long...in actuality, he appeared to be off in a trance..I would have been too. This event happened...we even have video and pictures to PROVE it! I wish it didn't, but it did. The consolation is we also have video and pictures of Clinton denying the facts about Monica, we have video and pictures of Reagan denying Iran-Contra...few people would argue that these items have been doctored using some form of movie magic...it's pretty hard to refute this kind of evidence. If it makes you feel better, the suit looks to me to be Brooks Brothers, Deep Charcoal in color.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Fortunately or unfortunately, that was the book he was reading and has become inextricably linked in the public mind to the incident. If you pick 10 people off the street at random, pro or anti bush, and just say "My Pet Goat" to them, they will probably all ten think of this incident.
:::::::#No Bush fan I, but
:::::::#the title of the book, though ridiculous, really has nothing to do with the central issue, but
:::::::#nevertheless, it has become the unofficial "title" of the incident, so I fear I must vote to '''keep''' it.
:::::::[[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I believe moving the text to the article itself makes the most since. The picture doesn't need to be cluttered. [[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 23:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I would rather see the same scene but instead replace it with the moment he was informed of the attacks...otherwise it does look like he is hoping his "Depends" don't leak when he does eventually leave. Basically, it doesn't matter as all we have is a still photo from a video which also appeared in that "movie". I have lived through a lot of Presidents in my time...and none of them were perfect, as no human is. It isn't a defining moment one way or the other...to not have the picture here would be negligence on our parts...how we interpret it by way of the wording of a caption is the area which becomes more tricky to navigate.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Is Bush still a Methodist? ==
Is Bush still a Methodist?
His home church's pastor and his Bishop both have a boatload of problems with him.
http://theymustrepent.com/
This is moronic... there is no central, universally accepted dogma in the Methodist Church (quite the opposite of say the Roman Catholic Church). If Bush says he is Methodist, that is all that is needed, not the opinion of one preacher
== Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP ==
"According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by 2003 these tax cuts had reduced total federal revenue, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to the lowest level since 1959."
Should we now include the numbers for 2004? With a GDP of 11.75 trillion, and 1.88 trillion in federal tax reciepts for 2004 (http://www.nber.org/palmdata/indicators/federal.html), it has gone from 8.6% to 16%. Seems like the newest should be added on to this section, or perhaps restructured somehow. -bro [[User:172.164.13.81|172.164.13.81]] 11:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:There are several different ways to calculate GDP, and several different ways to calculate federal revenue. I doubt that there's any consistent measure by which federal revenue as a percentage of GDP has nearly doubled in the course of one year, with no major tax increases (and, I think, with some of the earlier tax cuts still being phased in). Find a source that says that's happened, and we can include it. (Given the numbers you use and the assumptions you make, GDP in 2003 would have had to be $20.724 trillion, meaning that, in one year, Bush presided over a 43% drop in GDP. The economy's been bad, but not ''that'' bad.) Part of the problem is the difference between federal income tax receipts and all federal revenue. The [http://www.cbpp.org/10-21-03tax.htm CBPP paper] gives both numbers, but your comparison is apples and oranges. (Note that the NBER source you cite gives total receipts, not just income tax receipts.) The CBPP's figure of 8.6% is income tax receipts as a share of GDP in 2003. That same year, "''total'' federal revenues as a share of the Gross Domestic Product dropped to 16.6 percent. The last time that total revenues as a share of the economy fell below 17 percent was in 1959, near the end of the Eisenhower Administration." So, if your figure of 16% in 2004 is correct, then total revenues as a percentage of GDP, which in 2003 hit the lowest level since 1959, hit an even lower level in 2004. That, in fact, is what I'd expect, given the phasing in of more of the estate tax cut and possibly other tax cuts. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 11:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, I really don't care about the politics of it, just noticed a 2003 figure and figured that there had to be an updated one available. Thanks for the explanation though, I was indeed confused. I did find a similar statement regarding 2004 here. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6060&sequence=5
*In 2004, receipts of individual income taxes equaled 7 percent of GDP--1 percentage point below their postwar average of 8 percent. The level of those receipts in 2004 was lower as a percentage of GDP than in any year since 1951.
If someone wants to take a go a pop that in there instead of the outdated one, I think it would be a good idea. On a side note, why is it that adding information from a provided link, in direct reference to the subject at hand, especially in a case that explains the previous statement (the "I haven't denied anything" remark) is being deleted? Secondly, do you not find the part bolded in this statement to be redudant?
*Neither candidate received a majority of the popular vote -- Bush took 47.9 percent; Gore, 48.4 percent -- '''but Gore received about 540,000 more of the 105 million votes cast.'''
At the least this could be rephrased into "a difference of 540,000 votes". The "but" statement isn't refuting anything, or even adding anything thats not present before it, that gore recieved a greater percentage. -bro [[User:172.134.132.223|172.134.132.223]] 12:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:'''Taxes''': The figure for total federal revenue is more meaningful than the one just for income tax receipts. (Bush's tax cuts affected the estate tax, for example, and there's lately been discussion about changes to the FICA tax, which I think is also excluded from the income tax figure.) Should we substitute the 2004 data on total revenue? I don't think so. The 2003 information isn't outdated when you consider its context. It arises in the discussion of the federal deficit. The first time the deficit hit a (current-dollar) record under Bush was 2003, so, as long as we're giving that 2003 deficit figure, it's worthwhile to note that the major factor was lower revenues rather than higher spending. We could give the information for 2004 as well as that for 2003, but I think that would be too much detail, given that there was no huge change from 2003 to 2004.
::Ok, I'm confused again, my first comment on the section in question had the info for total revenue, which was again lower as a percentage, than even the year before, but we dont' want to sub or add that in...Now the second comment, in regards to income tax receipts which is what I thought you wanted shouldn't be subbed or added in? If the reasoning is that we are recording the record reached, then the 2004 numbers should at least be added as they too are a record.
:::Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I don't think we should use the income tax figures. What we have now is the decline in total revenue, as a share of GDP, as of the time the overall deficit first reached a record under Bush (FY 2003). The important figure is the deficit. Revenue as a share of GDP is included only by way of explaining the basic deficit figure -- specifically, that it's not primarily attributable to any post-9/11 economic slowdown. (By 2003, GDP was rising each year.) You're right that we could repeat the statistic for 2004, using the CBO calculation. I'm not strongly against it; I just feel that it's an unnecessary level of detail. In 2004, the overall deficit was a record high but revenues as a share of GDP was not a record low, only a post-1959 low. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 01:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:'''Drug use''': The reason the statement keeps being deleted is that some people want to provide the reader with little or no information about issues concerning Bush's drug use. That's being discussed further up this page, at [[#Presentation of substance abuse issues|Presentation of substance abuse issues]]. You can look at the material there and offer your comments and/or your preference in the poll. You will note, from Version 3 and from Version 4, that Bush has denied using cocaine since 1974 but has refused to comment on his pre-1974 use. I personally consider that an important fact that should be included in this article, but some people want to suppress it; it's omitted from Version 1 and from Version 2. The purpose of the RfC and the above-linked discussion was to get around the edit war problem, of people constantly changing the article to reflect their preference, which results in a constant back-and-forth. While the RfC is going on, the proponents of providing less information have continued to revert to their preferred version, which includes excluding even a link to the daughter article ([[George W. Bush substance abuse controversy]]) where both sides are presented. You shouldn't assume, however, that this is the "baseline" status of the [[George W. Bush]] article. It's just that MONGO, who is practically alone in favoring such total suppression of the information, has been more willing to engage in the revert war than the rest of us.
:::That is another misconception in that according to the Rfc, most prefer only a link to the article you created...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::That's a bummer. I have read through this incredibly long page, but since the discussion/vote has taken place a pretty good while ago, and is buried rather deeply at this point, I rather doubt my voting on a poll (which I don't like the idea of anyway, information should be able to be added/deleted as is neccessary to make the article a -good- one, no matter what a group of people agree to at one point to put into the article) would do any good. Mongo has so far reverted without cause, deleted without comment or even edit summary, I don't think that is very proper.
:::Well there are four versions as listed above in the Rfc...perhaps you need to read through them and offer your comment...nothing here is written in stone but it would be better for us if you adopt a user name and timestamp your posts.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Uh, Mongo, I have both used a name 'bro' and signed my posts, all of them. Secondly, my comments are here, and if you had read them, you would read that I -have- read all the above. I couldn't care less about your attitude toward nonlogged in users, deal with the edits, period. The part added is sourced, relevent, and clarifying. I again, will mention as I did before, that I don't much care for the 'choose one of these' votes. The articles should be edited to improve content, there should be no baselines or untouchable sections. If you wish you can continue to remove sourced, relevent, clarifying material. But it would be wonderful if you wouldn't just revert, or better yet, post a reason. -bro [[User:172.149.84.231|172.149.84.231]] 05:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::You don't appear to have a user name. Your addition is redundant and unnecessary as it can be easily linked to in the articles referenced. It's hard to see your edits as being ones made solely in good faith without a proper user name...and it is a lot easier for all parties involved to remember who you are...it's quite easy. You're comment that I need to deal with it is the same back as I said nothing here is written in stone and I can revert your edit with good faith based on the fact that you are just using your IP address as an identifier...and also that this section is in Rfc and both JamesMLane and I would sincerely appreciate your comments there.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::Using your logic, the whole section is redudant as it can be referenced in the link provided. The added text is not used elsewhere, and is needed for context. as for this '''I can revert your edit with good faith based on the fact that you are just using your IP address as an identifier''' You may want to rethink that. There is a reason why its not required to have a logged in account to make edits, and its certainly far from being in 'good faith' to ignore the edit, and revert based on -your- bias towards nonlogged in editors. If you have a hard time remembering who I am, thats not my problem, and shouldn't be yours. Deal with the edits, who makes them are inconsequential. -bro [[User:172.149.84.231|172.149.84.231]] 07:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No one, especially me will take your efforts seriously without a user name...perhaps this allows you to avoid violating 3RR. I do not have to deal with your edits if you are too lazy or unwilling to contribute in a civilized manner to the Rfc on the issues or by creating a user name...perhaps you are only a sockpuppet.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Mongo, do not state that "no one will take [someone's] efforts seriously without a user name" -- it is the content that matters, not the user. --[[User:ToucheGnome|TouchGnome]] July 2, 2005 20:39 (UTC)
:::The content added by a user will be better received if he/she adopts a user name...see [[Wikipedia:Accountability|Accountability]].--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 3 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)
::::What I see there is that users who create user names are ''still anonymous'', and that "many Wikipedians" (this does not say "all", which is what I objected to in your statement) ''prefer'' that people log in before making ''drastic changes'', and that the reason is that it is harder to contact them to discuss a disagreement. Although I don't know the extent of your dealings with this user, what I've read here does not imply that his changes were drastic. Moreover, I contribute to at least one page which is comprised mainly of edits by a multitude of IP-only users. This does not make their edits any less useful. I have found the content to be quite adequate regardless of whether a user has a name or not. The only exception to this are trolls and vandals, some of whom nevertheless have user names. Again, I say it is the content that matters, and that you should not make such a sweeping generalisation as the phrase "no one". I, for one, take anonymous edits as seriously as anyone elses, even on the occasions where such a user has changed the meaning of passages I've written. --[[User:ToucheGnome|TouchGnome]] 4 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
:::::Not sure what page that is...if you check the edit history of this page, you'll see that the vast numbers of vandalsms are performed by anon's. The passages this editor was altering was in Rfc and over 20 people responded to the Rfc and not one of them made a single alteration to the section, aside from the anon and one I did which was done to ensure there was a link to the daughter article. I for one, give much more credance to those that create a user name...if you feel otherwise, then that is up to you.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 4 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
:::Yes, the section for RfC responses is a while back, but the RfC itself still links directly to it, so anyone coming in response doesn't have to slog through the whole page to find it. We're still waiting, giving more time for people to respond, so I think it would be useful for you to offer your thoughts in that section. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 01:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:'''2000 vote''': The added information is the total number of votes. If we gave only the percentage figures, and gave Gore's vote margin, someone with enough math savvy could work out the approximate total number of votes, but it would be a bit off because of rounding, and anyway not everyone has even that much math savvy. The point of the "but" is that no candidate had a majority but Gore had a plurality. Many of the readers who couldn't figure out the total number of votes are also not sound on the distinction between "majority" and "plurality" and would say, looking at the numbers, that Gore had a majority because he had more than anyone else. I don't think we need to explain these terms here, or even introduce the term "plurality", but it is worth phrasing it in such a way as to note that Gore's edge of 540,000 votes does not mean that he had a majority. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::If you wanna keep the 540,000 number in that sentence, I think that would be fine, but I think it should at the -least- be rephrased. As it is its more the clumsy and less than redudant. The mention of Gore recieving a plurality is actually below the section with the percentages, and would be unaffected by any change on such. Thanks for your time in responding James. -bro [[User:172.140.156.147|172.140.156.147]] 22:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::My preference is to keep the 540,000 and the 105 million, even though there's a slight redundancy. If you want to rephrase the passage, please consider keeping those facts in. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Honestly, I wouldn't dare to actually change the wording, and thats not a dig at you. For there to be this friction when adding a following quote from a source already in the article thats been used, I couldn't imagine what I might run into by trying to rework actual content (again, not in regards to you). I was more trying to throw the idea out there and hoping someone would grab on and go. I do appreciate your time james, I'll see you around. -bro [[User:172.149.84.231|172.149.84.231]] 05:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Blanking ==
What do you mean, Falphin? (And what ''is'' blanking?) All I did was change the line about a "controversial and close election" to say that he lost the popular vote. This is not a matter of opinion, because whatever the actual Florida vote, GWB lost the popular vote. --[[User:Micler|Micler]] 22:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
*I figured you did it on accident so I will show you. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15715658][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=15715829][[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 22:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*Oh, and I don't disagree with your wording change. [[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
**If you don't disagree, why did you revert it? [[User:Micler|Micler]] 22:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
***Did you read the two all the way down. When you made the edit you blanked the rest of the page. [[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
****I see. In both IE 5.1 and Netscape 7.0 for Mac OS 9, this happens. Is there any way t avoid it, or another browser to use that doesn't do this? (iCab doesn't like Wikipedia at all.) [[User:Micler|Micler]] 23:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
*****I might try using the edit on right. I use firefox which has no problems in that regard. I would suggest asking the same question at [[Wikipedia:Help desk]]. [[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 23:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== GWB substance abuse controversy subarticle now linked ==
In reflection of the Rfc and the overall sympathy towards a link to the daughter article on substance abuse, I have added a link now in respect to the overwhelming concensus in favor of the link. I would like to make the following tired old comments.
*Wormer's opinion was reached outside the scope of the traditional doctor to patient relationship...an opinion from afar that has no basis in fact. Her credentials are not noteworthy and her expertise is not necessarily in this field of diagnosis. The American Psychiatrict Association does not support this manner of diagnosis.
*Frank's book is another opinion rendered from afar...and has been derailed by equally prominent specialists in the field of expertise as being nothing more than political fingerpointing. Again the APA would not endorse his manner of diagnostics but he gets around this by not being a member of the APA.
*Hatfield's book was originally pulled by the first publishers after they found out that he was a prior felon having served time for solicitation of murder. The second publisher was sued by another author for libel over the distribution of the book. Hatfield claims that he has valid sources as did lawyers representing the publishers but they never provided any proof of many of the allegations in the book. Hatfield also pled guilty to stealing of at least 22,000 and as much as 34,000 dollars in Federal Housing subsidies. There is a myriad of those that consider the book to be just an effort to make a buck.
The argument has been made that it isn't POV to discuss these items. I have stated that they are less than credible witness. If we know that they are less than credible and still incorporate them in this article, even if we also include the detractors of their opinions proving how ridiculous their opinions are, then we spread gossip only and the entire article looks like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedic effort. My concern is about editing and quality control, not suppression of information and in an effort to appease the concensus, I added the link as mandated.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==Disputed quote==
172.49 asked me to give an opinion on this. I don't see the problem with this if it was part of the same conversation. It's relevant and properly sourced. The only thing I can add is that I'd present it differently. The edit was: "When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." "I am just not going to answer those questions," he said. "And it might cost me the election." I'd say - He added: "I am just not going to answer ..." to make it clear that it was part of the same conversation. Or if he said it just after the previous words, I'd write ... instead of starting a new quote. Hope this helps. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 08:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, that quote was actually my second try at trying to figure out why it was being blind reverted, I thought it may have been something to do with my original one which was '''He said that he would continue to refuse to comment on allegations of drug use.''' which is also from the same source. I personally like the bolded one better by far, but hey, thought a direct quote might be more acceptable.-bro [[User:172.149.84.231|172.149.84.231]] 08:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Either would do, so long as it was part of the same conversation. If he said it elsewhere, you'd want to add another source, as in: He later told xxx that ... [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 08:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks. Both are from the same reference/cite as the other quotes in that section. -bro [[User:172.149.84.231|172.149.84.231]] 08:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I agree with SlimVirgin that a related comment from a different conversation would have to be separately attributed. This is done in Versions 3 and 4 where different quotations from Bush are summarized:
:::Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/19/president.2000/bush.drug/] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1143/a08.html?4588]
::These other statements were made in the context of political campaigning, unlike the conversation with Wead. I think they make the point more clearly. The addition to the Wead paragraph suggested by 172 would be an improvement, but it would be rendered unnecessary if we included these other statements instead. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 12:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Agreed. If the above is in the article, the quote from the link isn't neccessary. The main reason I felt it was neccessary in the original, is the wording conveyed an altieror motive for the 'I didn't deny anything' remark. That motive may exist, but I believe we should leave it to the reader to decide, thats why I placed GWB's reasoning for not denying. -bro [[User:172.147.73.11|172.147.73.11]] 22:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::Already you have now a third IP...is there a purpose for not creating a user page? How about contributing to the Rfc on these issues?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 00:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::Before the night is over I will probably have a fourth, that again, is what happens when you are on dialup. I have answered the rest previously. -bro [[User:172.147.73.11|172.147.73.11]] 00:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::I must admit to being confused as to why anyone would object to the addition of that sentence, given that it's relevant and it's sourced. Now we have 3RR and vandalism accusations flying around because of it. Could those who object - Mongo, for example - explain why? Also, please note that 3RR applies whether you're right or wrong. The only time you can violate it is in cases of simple vandalism, but the addition or deletion of the disputed sentence doesn't count as vandalism. See [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]]. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::There is a standing Rfc on these passages and he has been repeatedly requested to comment there, yet he will not voice any opinion there, instead avoiding it outright. 172 also refuses to set up a user page, instead depending on his term "Bro". As it turns out, this is a heavily vandalized page and the content he wishes to have would be more accepted in this article if he would discontinue his obstenancy and create a user page. It appears he won't do this so he can skirt around 3RR. Nevertheless, he is free to edit as he wishes of course, but as I have mentioned, his behavior appeared at first at least to be vandalism due a combination of causes. The passage he wishes to see in the article is also found in the linked test, and doesn't provide any more insight or clarification than what was already achieved with less redundancy. As an advocate against inclusion of much of the text, I also added a link to the daughter article on the issues as a show of good faith and in respect to the apparent concensus...even though I have been vehemently opposed to the link.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Refusing to get create an account, yep, and? Skirt around the 3RR, untrue, unfounded. Appeared as vandalism, no, as you so eloquently commented earlier, you were reverting due to the lack of an account, '''that''' appears as vandalism. As for the actual content of the edit, I am overjoyed that you decided to address it, I have given the reasons many times here, and in the edit summaries. You appear to be alone in your idea that certain quotes from a reference are useful, and others that relate directly to the ones used, are not. I have no preference in regards to the sister article, you did that of your own violition as you say. At this point, unless further improvement is needed on a passage, I am going to step away. Toodles, "MONGO". -bro [[User:172.147.73.11|172.147.73.11]] 06:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::If you bothered to read the Rfc you would see that I most certainly not alone...you are acting outside of the norm for these highly contested passages, refusing to engage in civil discussion in the Rfc on these passages and refusing to open a user account. SlimVirgin has asked you below to explain why you will not open a user account. Everyone here, including myself has been more than pleasant with you so there is certianly no reason for you to continue to agitate this article or the people that contribute here.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::::::::::Asked and answered. -bro [[User:172.147.73.11|172.147.73.11]] 07:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I do understand wrt the 3RR, as I've stated on the page, if its decided I was in violation, I will certainly take the block without a fight. I do question that blind reverts based soley on them being made by a nonlogged in user isn't vandalism though. But I will bow to your knowledge on the subject. -bro [[User:172.147.73.11|172.147.73.11]] 01:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::::::In regards to the vandalism, from the wikipedia entry:
*Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia....'''Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.''' Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy...
:::::::Mongo's bad faith were made explicit in both his edit summaries, and his statements on this page. That he has, and would continue to revert due to my not being a logged in user. -bro [[User:172.147.73.11|172.147.73.11]] 01:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The deletion or addition of that sentence isn't vandalism; it's a genuine content dispute. Whether you have a user name or not is irrelevant. Your edits must be judged on merit. However, do be careful not to violate 3RR; whether you're right or wrong, now that people have been warned about it, anyone violating it is likely to be blocked for 24 hours. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
::Again, me being right or wrong on the inclusion of the material is rather irrelevent as I've stated I understand that I may be blocked if my edits were considered reversions. I did dispute that I was reverting vandalism, but I see thats not the definition regardless of the article on it here. For future reference, I will remember that deletions of information from an article, based soley on a users anon status isn't vandalism. -bro [[User:172.147.73.11|172.147.73.11]] 03:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Having said that, 172, you'd be saving other people and yourself some trouble if you'd set up an account, and I can't see any reason you wouldn't want to. It makes communicating with you difficult for one thing, because you don't have a fixed talk page. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
::I understand the inherent disadvantages, and as mentioned before if you'd like me to elaborate on my reasons for not creating an account I will do so. I do watch the pages created for my IP's for a day or so after editing on them for information, and when talking to a user I watch their page for their comments. Regards -bro [[User:172.147.73.11|172.147.73.11]] 03:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Why won't you create an account? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 06:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
::::Replied on your talk page. -bro [[User:172.147.73.11|172.147.73.11]] 07:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== "American" versus "of the United States" ==
"American" might be informal, but "an United States" is even worse. Also, "American" is used in approximately 99.9% of other WP articles about U.S. citizens. I removed it entirely because "president of the United States" implies "American".—'''[[{{ns:2}}:Clawson|chris.lawson]]''' ([[User_talk:Clawson|talk]]) 22:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who cares? Why does it matter what you call the people of America? Are they that self important?
== Do we need "Selected quotations"? ==
Does this even need its own section? Right now we've got two quotes that are basically the same things he keeps saying in every other speech. And there's [[List of Bushisms]] ''and'' Bush on Wikiquote, so I don't see how Bush quotes need their own section in the article. There's also the problem of possible bias: the quotes are "selected" by whom? What criteria for notability were used to select them?
I don't think this section should be here. In fact, I think I recall a section just like this having been removed months ago, but I'm not completely positive on that. Regardless, I don't see why we need ''another'' collection of quotes. [[User:Mr. Billion|Mr. Billion]] 28 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)
: I agree completely. Quotations sections are notorious targets for POV pushers and the practice is to use a reference to Wikiquote instead. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 28 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)
== Disputed tag removed ==
I removed the disputed tag that [[Rdysn5]] added due to no discussion as to why it was placed here. Normally this type of tag is either preceded or followed up by a discussion as to why the tag was added.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 28 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)
== Who wrote that? ==
I really don't know what do to. I was browsing Wikipedia and stumbled on the article about President Bush. What the hell is that?!?!?!?! I'm not even a Wikpedia user, but that "article" about Bush getting killed by Dick Cheney has to go. I just needed someone to see that, and do something about it! I would do something about it but sadly I just don't know way too much about the guy. SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:What article are you talking about? -bro [[User:172.133.83.48|172.133.83.48]] 30 June 2005 06:28 (UTC)
This article, anyway, someone fixed it. Thanks
==Wikilinks==
[[User:Jez|Jez]] removed a large number of wikilinks with this comment: "removed some pointless links (one of my pet hates) - eg: is there really any need to link to the United States article every time the phrase pops up?)". Normal style is to link a term only the first time it's used, although, in a long article like this one, it's sometimes appropriate to link the first use in a particular section if the previous link is far above. Beyond removing duplicate links, however, this edit unlinked quite a few terms -- countries in the coalition ([[Poland]]), policy areas ([[immigration]]), etc. I'll relink these unless persuaded that there's a reason not to. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 30 June 2005 17:25 (UTC)
[[User:Jez|Jez]] has now removed a large number of additional links. I don't agree with the practice of many editors in wikilinking every date and year that's mentioned in an article, but many of the other links would be useful. As a lawyer, I know the meaning of "tort" and "moot", but I doubt that everyone does. We have articles on those legal concepts, so we might as well link to them. I'm reverting this second set of mass deletions, while still holding off on doing anything about the first set to see if there's any dialog here. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 4 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
:I thought we were supposed to wikilink every date and year so the user could customize his view? </noob alert> --[[User:Ampracific|Ampracific]] 4 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)
::That consideration applies to dates but not years. At one point, I think, the idea was that something like <nowiki>[[July 4, 2005]]</nowiki> would become 4 July 2005 or 4-7-2005 or 04-07-05 or whatever, but I think it's not implemented in a way that includes the year. That's why dates and years are separate links. (I'm not a noob but, as you can tell, I haven't tried to master the details of this point.) I could go along with linking the <nowiki>[[July 4]]</nowiki> part if people want to accommodate the consideration you mention. For the years, though, the only purpose of linking that I know of is to facilitate inclusion in a timeline. Some of the less important years in this article don't need linking. Anyway, I feel more strongly about the removal of numerous substantive links. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 4 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
==Comment on the beetles==
I'm referring to the revert by {{user|24.136.36.173}} at 20:07, 30 June 2005 (UTC) with the following edit comment:
* Beetle references are CLEARLY POV. See pages dedicated to this naming. [http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/agathidium_bushi_agathidium_cheneyi_and_agathidium_rumsfeldi/ http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/agathidium_bushi_agathidium_cheneyi_and_agathidium_rumsfeldi/]
That's a comment by an old mate of mine, PZ Myers, who is definitely to the left of the US political spectrum.
However PZ didn't give these beetles those names and the people who did so are supporters of the gentlemen in question. They intended the dedication sincerely and it was taken in that spirit. In fact President Bush phoned them to say thanks: [http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May05/Bush.calls.ssl.html President Bush calls to say thanks for the slime-mold beetle]. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 30 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)
== less than Christian ==
last tusday night in a live important speach President Bush urged young Americans to consider a career in the military, saying "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces."
Isn't this an insult to all men of the cloth?
:It's an insult to a lot of people and a lot of concepts. But we're not here to say whether or not it is, merely to describe what others out there in the big bad world do. --[[User:Weyes|W]]([[User talk:Weyes|t]]) 1 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
::I thought it was his way of stating his deep appreciation for those that put others freedom before their own. Besides, many men and women of the cloth also serve in the armed forces.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 4 July 2005 05:28 (UTC)
Saying that being a cook in the armed forces is more important than being a priest in the service of God is an insult to Millions.
Who's Millions and why the hell should I care what he or she thinks?! Whoever he is, I find his belief that being a priest is more imporant than being a cook an insult to the millions (uncapitalised - I'm refering to a number of people here, not your friend Millions!) starving in the world. Millions may be well-fed; millions aren't. Tell your friend to consider that. And also consider the sacrilious nature of indulging in a gluttinous meal. Mmmm that's good eatin'. --[[User:Yoko-onassis|Yoko-onassis]] 6 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
the millions that you don't care about are called Catholics m'kay?
:And the billions that your religion doesn't care about is called the rest of the world. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] July 7, 2005 19:06 (UTC)
''
"And the billions that your religion doesn't care about are called the rest of the world". Here in africa, priests, nuns, and other christians are almost the only ones who help the poor. I am afraid that kizzle here is raving in complete ignorance. Ever heard of Mother Theresa? If not, look her up on Wiki.
: removing other peoples comments is frowned upon. Also, um... any productive member of society is worth MUCH more than a clergyman. atleast they pay taxes and such, rather than spout myths as facts and try and warp the minds of the populace. [[User:IreverentReverend|IreverentReverend]] 7 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
You mean try to help people and at the same time deal with slime in their church that want anything other than to serve god through acts of faith and goodwill.
: No, I meant what I said. Through out history religion has attempted to withhold education, manipulate people, and fight science. Take a look at the intellegent design nuts fighting teaching science in the classroom. Churches are tax exempt, a waste of time, and attempt to destroy education. Due to the religous nuts, we now have "dubya" in office, the FCC censoring things, reduced rights, and a bunch of religious nuts attacking the US and england. religion has caused more war, more suffering, and more death than any other reason throughout history. Just about any one is better than a person that is continuing this needless tradition.[[User:IreverentReverend|IreverentReverend]] 7 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
This is a place for discussion of the George W. Bush article. Please keep on topic. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 7 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
Than you for pointing out that I had allowed antagonists to get get the better of me.
I also apologize. Drives me nuts when religious bigots get going. [[User:IreverentReverend|IreverentReverend]] 8 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)
== so does Bush's statement have a place on wikipedia? ==
so does Bush's statement have a place on wikipedia?
I think so.
== Bush's war is based on his faith ==
this prooves that, and so it should be IN the article, please PROOVe to me why it shouldnt be there ,adn then wait for a response before deleting, this is the EXACT quote, with a cite, so this time would people please show me the respect of trying to talk about this before RUDELY wholsale deleting what i post???
heres the post
It would seem that Bush's War in Iraq is based on his faith as well, for he said "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y 1]
please note that im putting this back in the page, and if you would please follow procedure, id like that.
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 1 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
:Please don't put it in the article. It is not an exact quote - it comes secondhand through [[Mahmoud Abbas]]. Do you trust the Palestinian president to accurately report what George W. Bush says? I don't. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] July 1, 2005 02:18 (UTC)
::I agree with Rhobite on this. [[User:Ampracific|Ampracific]] 1 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)
:::I third Rhobite's comments, this does not belong. -bro [[User:172.138.4.162|172.138.4.162]] 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
this is out of an israli newspaper site, and besides, why would you want to try and say you dont trust a goverment official, no matter what the government is? it should stay, becasue it is factual.
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 1 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)
:This is a better article about the quote's dubious origins. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer] Please keep the quote out of this article. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] July 1, 2005 02:21 (UTC)
::From the article you posted:
:::''Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.''
::That's as best as I can find in terms of describing the dubiousityisness of the quote... is there a more detailed description of why the quote is a fake? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] July 1, 2005 20:32 (UTC)
you know s well as anyone that the washingbton post is as close to a pro goverment propagandist paper as is leglaly allowed, hence, if trust is the issue at hand, then that paper has no cause to be trustworthey.
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 1 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)
:What are you talking about? Aside from the NY Times, the Washington Post is one of the papers which are most frequently accused of liberal bias. Maybe you're thinking of the Washington Times. In any case, even your Haaretz article notes that this is not a direct quote from Bush. Either you failed to read it carefully, or you are being deceptive. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] July 1, 2005 02:29 (UTC)
::Please remember to assume good faith unless you are given a reason to assume otherwise. [[User:Jtkiefer|Jtkiefer]] July 1, 2005 02:33 (UTC)
:::This is the same guy who had a huge edit war in [[United States]] because he repeatedly wrote that the U.S. "stole" the country from the Indians. He's been blocked for 3RR a couple times. Add in his mudslinging here, and I'm sorry - Gabrielsimon's good faith is all used up. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] July 1, 2005 02:37 (UTC)
I am not going to take a side on this, however I suggest that this be resolved here rather than in an edit war that will result in nothing but trouble and 3RR violations. I have no problem mediating such a discussion if desired.[[User:Jtkiefer|Jtkiefer]] July 1, 2005 02:27 (UTC)
i think people who are trying to make this quote go away are politically motiated. hence i do not feel inclined to pay them any heed. though iam trying to follow procedure.
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 1 July 2005 02:31 (UTC)
::As always I won't assume motivation, however I would note that procedure would include discussion such a large change on a controversial article in the talk page before making the change to avoid an edit war and/or a situation such as this one. [[User:Jtkiefer|Jtkiefer]] July 1, 2005 02:44 (UTC)
:Gabrielsimon also added this short paragraph: "It has been contended that bush wanted to put an oil pipeline from an oil field trough iraqi territory to a port thats none to far away, and Iraq's objection was thier true motive. This is supported by the simple fact that there never were any weapons of mass destruction of either chemical, nuclear nor biological nature." The paragraph was in the article for a surprisingly long time, so I wanted to bring it up here. First, this allegation is already discussed in [[Popular opposition to war on Iraq]]. Individual criticisms and theories about the Iraq war don't deserve whole paragraphs in this article - it's already too long. Second, the paragraph is unsourced and makes a POV conclusion. In essence, Gabrielsimon is stating that the simple fact that there were no WMDs found is enough to conclude that Bush wanted to build a pipeline in Iraq. The logic does not follow - the Bush administration genuinely thought there were WMDs, based on the poor intelligence they received. Also, the premise is false: Saddam did have WMDs at some point. He did not have them at the time of the 2003 invasion, but he certainly had them during the Iran war. It is false to say that there "never were any" WMDs. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] July 1, 2005 02:51 (UTC)
::This too, of course, does not belong in the article. -bro [[User:172.138.4.162|172.138.4.162]] 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)
::Also, three out of the five sources cited in that paragraph don't [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|pass muster]] at first glance, IMO. One of them is titled at the top, ''Bush Bashing'', and the two I find credible provide only basic factual claims (Iraq has a lot of oil, and the Bush administration admitted to not having found WMD). <font color=#00A86B>[[User:Android79|<small>A</small>и<small>D</small>я<small>01D</small>]]</font><font color=#B87333>[[User talk:Android79|<small>TALK</small>]]</font><font color=#0047AB>[[Special:Emailuser/Android79|<small>EMAIL</small>]]</font> July 1, 2005 02:55 (UTC)
moe cites have been added. [[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 1 July 2005 02:59 (UTC)
*The new cites are ''all editorials''. <font color=#00A86B>[[User:Android79|<small>A</small>и<small>D</small>я<small>01D</small>]]</font><font color=#B87333>[[User talk:Android79|<small>TALK</small>]]</font><font color=#0047AB>[[Special:Emailuser/Android79|<small>EMAIL</small>]]</font> July 1, 2005 03:26 (UTC)
:::Point of interest - don't get mad, this isn't a personal attack, but frankly I'd lean more towards someone who actually knows how to type and spell than [[User: Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]]. Really, honestly, no offense, but before you try doing things to articles, all of us at wikipedia could ask for ''a little'' grammar and spelling ability, such as capitalization, not missing letters in words, and punctuation. And I stand corrected if this is considered a personal attack.[[User:Stanselmdoc|Stanselmdoc]] 1 July 2005 17:54 (UTC)
== ARTICLE PROTECTED ==
Please note that this article is now protected until further notice. Do not edit it directly until disputes have been resolved on this talk page. Thanks. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 1 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)
:I would prefer it if Gabrielsimon were simply blocked for his 3RR violation. This isn't a significant dispute - he is simply an overzealous contributor whose contributions fall far short of Wikipedia's editorial standards in terms of POV, verifiability, and grammar. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] July 1, 2005 03:02 (UTC)
::I concur with Rhobite. <font color=#00A86B>[[User:Android79|<small>A</small>и<small>D</small>я<small>01D</small>]]</font><font color=#B87333>[[User talk:Android79|<small>TALK</small>]]</font><font color=#0047AB>[[Special:Emailuser/Android79|<small>EMAIL</small>]]</font> July 1, 2005 03:04 (UTC)
:: Sigh, it seems that page protection might be broken in 1.5beta of MediaWiki. It says it's protected, but it's not taking. By my count, [[User:Gabrielsimon]] has reverted no less than six times. I don't like the 3RR, but 2 x 3RR seems excessive. [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 1 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)
:::Hoo boy, don't let that get out. The trolls would have a field day... <font color=#00A86B>[[User:Android79|<small>A</small>и<small>D</small>я<small>01D</small>]]</font><font color=#B87333>[[User talk:Android79|<small>TALK</small>]]</font><font color=#0047AB>[[Special:Emailuser/Android79|<small>EMAIL</small>]]</font> July 1, 2005 03:12 (UTC)
:::The page is protected from page moves already. So I believe you'd need to unprotect it, then protect it from page moves AND edits. But please don't! Just block Gabriel for 24 hours. I know you don't like 3RR blocks but he literally violated it 2 days ago on [[God]] and just came off a block. So 24 hours seems prudent. Gabriel, you reverted the "God told me" section at least four times. See [[WP:AN/3RR]]. [[User:Rhobite|Rhobite]] July 1, 2005 03:13 (UTC)
:::: Rhobite, thanks for the explanation. Seems like we need to have a better interface for figuring out the disposition of a page. :) [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 1 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)
and how the hell is anything i worked on supposed to actually be viewable if you keep removing it? i procedure is DISCUSS, then delete, your not following that edict. its getting rather aggravating. hence i will say this once and once only, return my work, THEN discuss.
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 1 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
also, if you guyes would follow the actual procedure as described to me when i first got her, oi wouldnt be reverting your changes. im not evenvandalizng, you people are just being jerks, knock it off.
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 1 July 2005 03:08 (UTC)
*There is no set procedure for adding controversial content to an article. Your edits are poorly structured and sourced, so I'd prefer we discuss them on this talk page before they get added to the main article, if they do at all. Also, [[WP:NPA]]. <font color=#00A86B>[[User:Android79|<small>A</small>и<small>D</small>я<small>01D</small>]]</font><font color=#B87333>[[User talk:Android79|<small>TALK</small>]]</font><font color=#0047AB>[[Special:Emailuser/Android79|<small>EMAIL</small>]]</font> July 1, 2005 03:12 (UTC)
six times, yes, but on three different issues. its only 3rr if you do the SAMe text three times, which i havent
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 1 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)
:Same page, not same text. -- [[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 1 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)
Purely, on they're technical merits regarding wikipedia policies (someone please link to right policy here) here are the issues with those paragraphs:
*Unsupported: statements should always have fact to back them up, several of your statements could be considered conjecture. i.e. the pipeline claim.
*Uncited, quotes should be cited by who said them and should be properly sourced (you were beginning to fix this)
anyone please feel free to add to this list if you think of anything else. [[User:Jtkiefer|Jtkiefer]] July 1, 2005 03:18 (UTC)
:It's been widely remarked that Bush invokes God a lot. If we want to cover the point, there are better sources than Abbas -- undisputed Bush quotations, people who've counted the references to God in his State of the Union speeches, Falwell types who've praised him as a man of faith (implicitly or explicitly contrasting him with the godless heathen Democrats), and secular liberals who've criticized him for setting himself up as divinely appointed to govern. I agree with not relying on what Abbas says Bush said. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 1 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)
== Regarding Arbusto Energy ==
Can someone please explain to me what the following means:
Bush began his career in the oil industry in 1979 when he established Arbusto Energy, an oil and gas exploration company he formed in 1977 with leftover funds from his education trust fund and money from other investors.
If he formed the company in 1977, then doesn't that mean he started his career in the oil industry in 1977? I'm going to change it to: "Bush began his career in the oil industry in 1979 when he established Arbusto Energy, an oil and gas exploration company he formed with leftover funds from his education trust fund and money from other investors" pending further notice.
(I also looked at the seperate Arbusto Energy article that says the company was founded in 1977.)
== More rumors ==
This article shouldn't be built on rumors such as this edit [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=17990573&oldid=17989165]]. The edit even ends by saying that no connection was made between the Bush campaign and the rumors being spread about McCain. [[Ampracific]], do you feel that this is helpful in creating a fact based and neutral account of Bush? If so, please explain why.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 2 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
:I'm uncertain as to what exactly you are disputing. I cited three separate sources [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/rove/cron.html] [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030512fa_fact3] [http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010618&s=ivins] regarding the smear campaign against McCain. One of them was Frontline, which I personally believe is just about as good as you can get for a top-tier source. Also, here [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/] is an article written later on by McCain's campaign manager, where he talks about push-polling and an email sent in order to spread the rumor that McCain fathered a black baby out of wedlock. A Minneapolis Star Tribune article [http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0328-01.htm] listed a question from the push poll: “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”
:That there was a smear campaign does not seem to be in dispute. The only part in dispute is whether the Bush campaign was behind it. Here is what the Wikipedia entry on [[Karl Rove]] says (I didn't write this):
::"A reporter named Wayne Slater alleged in print that Rove was behind a push poll and whisper campaign before the South Carolina primary, suggesting John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child; Rove denied any involvement and no-one has produced evidence to substantiate this allegation.[3] Bush went on to win South Carolina, the Republican nomination, and the presidency."
:Here is a link to a Frontline interview with Slater [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/interviews/slater.html], where he describes the smear campaign, says that McCain believed that Rove was behind it, and alleges that this is consistent with other political campaigns which Rove has run. The New Yorker article (repeating the link from above for convenience [http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030512fa_fact3]) also says that McCain felt that Rove was behind the attacks. Since both McCain and Slater felt that Rove was behind the smear campaign, it's fair to say that "Some observers believed that Karl Rove, Bush's campaign manager, was responsible for the rumors", which is what I wrote. --[[User:Ampracific|Ampracific]] 2 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
::It looks to me to have more to do with Karl Rove than George Bush in that, the allegations of the smear campaign against McCain are attributed to Rove...of course I know they may have worked together. While I would agree that frontline is fair, it doesn't say that Rove or Bush were behind the "whispers". The other two, especially the Nation, are fairly left leaning. The edit concludes that no connection was ever made, which allows the information to appear NPOV. Does the information in your mind that these allegations were spread support the basic reason behind the surge in the primaries by Bush over McCain or is it attributable more to other causes? The way it is written it appears that the surge in the primaries was causal to these alledged allegations by Rove.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 2 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)
:::"of course I know they may have worked together" Rove was Bush's campaign manager. They definitely worked together. "or is it attributable more to other causes?" It's never possible to say 100% why a particular candidate won a race. The best we can do is to list the most probable reasons. I can try to add some information about Bush's campaign strategy in South Carolina, but I don't want to go too long either. Maybe a sentence regarding turning out religious voters, etc.? --[[User:Ampracific|Ampracific]] 2 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)
:::Interesting side note on this issue -- Al Franken, in his book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" quotes from a February 12, 2000 C-SPAN broadcast (some here may not realize that Franken is incredibly meticulous about his facts):
::::Senator Fair: You haven't hit his soft spots.
::::Bush: I know. I'm going to.
::::Fair: Well, they need to. Somebody does, anyway.
::::Bush: I agree. I'm not going to do it on TV.
:::Little slip of the lip there? :) --[[User:Ampracific|Ampracific]] 2 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)
:::::What I meant to say was they may have worked together to spread the rumours...we both know that Rove was Bush's campaign manager....--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 2 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
::::I don't think your references prove that McCains loss in South Carolina was attributable to gossip. As S.C. is definitely part of the bible belt, no doubt that McCain's more moderate republicanism in terms of items that are important to denizens of the bible belt, as compared to Bush's clamnant of being a reborn Christian are the real reasons he lost that primary. I don't doubt that Franken is meticulous with his facts, but his voice is just as radical to his POV as Rush Limbaugh is to the right. The C-span recitation doesn't prove anything other than there was a typical campaign conversation between Bush and Fair. Candidates oftentimes discuss their political battles as being just so.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 2 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)
:::::You've made some good points. I do think that the smear campaign (or push-polling) bears mention, but I've given it too much of an emphasis, and I've given short shrift to other factors which came into play in S.C. I will try to rewrite and maybe make it smaller in the process. But, I don't have time to do it now, so I'm removing my change since I'm not that happy with it either. --[[User:Ampracific|Ampracific]] 4 July 2005 05:15 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to chase it off. I think since it is referenced and certainly news to me that it deserves mention. I also responded on your talk page.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 4 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)
== Approval Ratings ==
I think that Bush's approval ratings prior to [[9/11]] should be included as part of the approval ratings section of this article.
:If this is done, I think that the idiosyncratic pattern of his approval ratings, namely the spikes on 9/11, iraq, and capture of saddam, should be noted as well, and the record lows that he is currently experiences, if that is not already mentioned. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_baas&action=edit§ion=new new]</sup> July 4, 2005 13:17 (UTC)
::Not to be political, but to be fair, calling his current approval ratings "record lows" is a little misleading. They may be a record for him, but just about every president in the past 50 years has had ratings this low, if not lower. Just saying is all. And besides, what do I know? I can't even kill a little kid. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|Lord Voldemort]] 4 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)
:::I think it would be a good idea to follow precedent on this one. If yearly approval ratings are in previous presidential articles, it should be included, if not, I'd be against it. -bro [[User:172.157.33.19|172.157.33.19]] 5 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)
::::Well since his highest approval ratings are recorded but not his lowest approval ratings, I would say that either the approval ratings section should be removed entirely (which I don't think would be appropriate at all) or they should be modified to give a balanced view of his approval ratings. It is an undisputable fact that Bush had very low approval ratings prior to the intense feelings of national pride that followed 9/11. I don't think any historical article on Bush's precedency will record him as he being an exceptionally popular president, whatever your view of the man may be, and therefore I think it's grossly misleading to ignore the period near the start of his precedency were his approval ratings were low. --[[User:Lord and Master of the Known Universe|Lord and Master of the Known Universe]] 5 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps the specific item of interest might be the incredibly regular clocklike sinking of his approval ratings at 1.6% per month, punctuated by spikes of war patriotism, since that was in fact a topic of some interest, covered by the national news media. [http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/05/22/polls/graph.gif] (Not intended to be a Bush bash, just a clinically objective suggeston regarding the question of whether Bush's approval ratings are germane to the article or not). [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 5 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
::::I think we should follow our most basic standard on this one: Any of Bush's approval ratings that are ''notable'' can recieve mention. I don't think it's out of place to mention a president's highest and lowest ratings, or to mention the approval ratings during major events during the presidency (if there's an notable correlation between the event and the approval rating). In Bush's case, it certainly deserves mention that his approval rating skyrocketed following 9/11, and likewise it's perfectly notable to say what his approval ratings were before the 9/11 spike. Approval ratings in the context of the Iraq war are also perfectly notable, as they've recieved ''much'' press, particularly regarding support at the outset of the war and after a lengthy period of occupation. I don't think we should just follow a template of past Presidents, because not every Presidency is the same. -[[User:Eisnel|Eisnel]] 5 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)
:::::Certainly not every president is the same. However, every president does have 'notable' events in their presidency. Which is why I think we should follow precedent in this case, if such things are included in past articles, then we should include it, if not, then it shouldn't be included, even the high ones. -bro [[User:172.139.207.115|172.139.207.115]] 6 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)
::My mistake. I came off sounding like a huge Bush supporter there. I was just trying to correct the possible misleading statement of my fellow Wikipedian. I have no problem including any of Bush's approval ratings, but only when notable. I haven't looked at other presidents articles too much, but I suppose there should be some continuity between them. Also, to say Bush's low numbers right now are a direct result of the War in Iraq is also misleading. Many people, including many Republicans, are upset with his stance on the border, Social Security, etc. Life in 2005 is not all about Iraq. Feel free to quote me on that. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|Lord Voldemort]] 6 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
== I Agree ==
Adding his early approval ratings, as Michael Moore did in his documentary would give an honest and complete record of his approval records and expose the tyrant for who he is!
Voice of Bush's thoughts: "I ''am'' the senate'!
== Revelatory photo ==
Now [http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050704/480/wvgh10207041434 here] is a photo that shows GWB, orator, in a new light -- and I don't just mean (what appears to be) the Japanese flag. It's AP and presumably it's conventionally copyrighted. Pity. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] July 5, 2005 10:03 (UTC)
: Don't be silly. It's obviously the [[flag of West Virginia]]. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 5 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)
== Mergefrom Impeachment ==
I have placed a tag to suggest a merge from [[Impeachment_in_the_United_States#LINKS_for_Impeachment_of_George_W._Bush]], as to me it looks to be more suitable here, and also in need of POV checking as it sounds a bit like advertisement for a set of petitions. Unfortunately it got lost in the middle of a (lot) of vandalism reverts so I'm placing the suggestion here too. --[[User:Nabla|Nabla]] 2005-07-07 03:36:54 (UTC)
:It would be more suitable in the additional reading section or in links, but not at the top of the article...reasons: Not the Downing Street Memo, and anything else that has come to the surface so far would be sufficient enough for congress to commence imeachment proceedings...besides, with a republican controlled congress, it is doubtful it would ever make it to the floor. Furthermore, the Democrats that are considering replacing him wouldn't think of risking the notority of this action without a lot more evidence since it would probably alienate many centrists.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] July 7, 2005 04:32 (UTC)
::I think corroboration of the Downing Street Memo with what Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill said is enough to warrant beginning the process. Unlike rathergate, there is no question of its authenticity this time. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] July 7, 2005 05:42 (UTC)
:::There may be enough evidence, but that is besides the point in a sense. If the democrats or anyone goes after an impeachment of Bush, they will probably end up looking like they are seeking revenge for Clinton, for the two elections and may feel that unless there is more substance, it isn't worth the risk to their political careers. Even if an article of impeachment is presented, with a Republican controlled congress, it isn't likely to go far, unless there is more substance. I don't argue that there is a case, but as all lawyers and those in legal teams know, it isn't what they know, but what they can prove in a big legal battle as this would be. I think it would be a bad idea for the Democrats to back this unless more comes to light.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] July 7, 2005 06:39 (UTC)
:::If we are gonna get into discussing the particulars, the DSM itself is nothing. It only confirms what was being said at the time publicly. The hoorah around it is rather mystifying. As for Clarke and O'Neill, I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. Oh, and about rathergate, psst, there was no question. -bro [[User:172.168.154.58|172.168.154.58]] 7 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)
::::Huh, I didn't realize Bush was publicly justifying the war by "fixing" facts around policy? Read Against All Enemies and Price of Loyalty, then you'll know. O'Neill and Clarke were saying the same things about plans for Iraq pre-9/11. And not sure what you mean about no question about rathergate... are you saying the Killian documents were authentic? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] July 7, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
:::::Depends on which 'facts' you are referring to. I tend not to enjoy reading books by axe grinders, so I still don't know what you are referring to there. Killian documents, no question that they were fake. -bro [[User:172.172.46.106|172.172.46.106]] 7 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)
::::::It's too bad you have to resort to ad hominem attacks on the authors rather than discuss their arguments. (psst, both of them were Republicans) --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] July 8, 2005 00:50 (UTC)
:::::::If you wish to argue that they aren't ax grinders, fine, go to it. Other than that you haven't presented any argument from them for me to discuss.-bro [[User:172.165.157.184|172.165.157.184]] 05:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::::See, its one thing to discuss someone's ulterior motives. Unfortunately, you ''actually have to say what about their stories is false'' which you have yet to do, otherwise all you are accomplishing is a ad hominem logical fallacy. Our standards should be slightly higher than Fox News here. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 05:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::Sigh, unfortunately, I've asked twice now without success for whatever these arguments are. The issue of their status as ax grinders, I'll leave as a personal decision. However I must point out the inherent humor in your reference to fox news, when complaining about me talking about someones ulterior motives. It seems that you've gotten the wrong idea of my political persuasion, which isn't too odd, it is hard to tell these things over limited contact such as wikipedia. Jabs at Fox, or using 'they are republicans' as someones bonafides isn't going to get you far with me, as I hold neither in high regard. Now, about those arguments.... -bro [[User:172.165.157.184|172.165.157.184]] 10:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:First,I placed the tag on he top of the article. That does not mean that the subject should be placed there. Yet if it is important, and even a serious threat of impeachmenet looks like so, it should be placed somewhere. You would know much better than I where to put it.
:Second, please take a look at the section I've pointed to as it is growing to look more and more as a campaign pro-impeachmeant, and it also looks out of context there. -[[User:Nabla|Nabla]] 2005-07-07 16:28:26 (UTC)
::In my opinion, Bush merits impeachment. In fact, the only close question is whether, under the [[Nuremberg Trials]] precedents, he also merits death by hanging for the crime of planning, initiating and waging a war of aggression. Nevertheless, it's not relevant to this article for us to determine whether he deserves impeachment, or whether it would be politically risky for the Democrats to push for it. The only question is whether there's a serious threat of impeachment, so as to make it notable in Bush's biography. Right now there isn't. The impeachment of Clinton for a comparative trifle was less justified but more significant, simply because the Republicans did indeed press it. Impeachment of Bush doesn't deserve mention in this article unless and until it gains some traction beyond a few lonely, honest voices. Mention of it in the impeachment article is much more appropriate. It's an illustration of how the availability of the impeachment mechanism plays a role in the political process, by giving the opposition party a hook for presenting criticisms of an incumbent President. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 7 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)
:::Agree with James about inclusion of impeachment. If it becomes an actual threat, the article will reflect this, but until then lets just keep watching. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] July 7, 2005 17:43 (UTC)
== bush's bike accidents ==
the # of GW bike accidents constitutes evidence of his having brain damage from substance abuse.
so how many has hed had?
(unsigned comment)
id say his chocking on a soft pretrzel is clear demonstration of brain damage as w ell, i mean, how do you choke on something soft??
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 8 July 2005 17:40 (UTC)
*By not paying attention to what you're doing. Seriously, Gabe, you know I'm not a supporter of the little twerp, but there's no need to damn him with stuff that isn't strictly true. Watch yourself, 'kay? [[User:DragonflySixtyseven|DS]] 8 July 2005 22:58 (UTC)
he did actually choke on it, i saw it on the news a while back. as for drug use and such id say his demenor is much like an ex coke hads.
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 9 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
== Conclusion of Drug Usage RfC ==
As I take a look at the above poll, I see 9 entries accepting Version 1, half of which refer to a "1.5" that includes a daughter article, along with 4 votes under "None of the Above" that also vote for this version "1.5"... It seems that a majority opinion has been formulated from this poll, but since polls are nothing in themselves, I want to ask the group if they believe that as it stands, the group seems to be leaning towards Version 1 with a link to a daughter article. Don't bite my head off if you disagree, I just want to get the ball rolling on this passage as progress on discussion has seemingly stalled. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] July 9, 2005 01:45 (UTC)
*Version 1 or 1.5 is fine with me (I originally voted for version 2) [[User:NoSeptember|<font color="A29EBA">'''NoSeptember''']]<sup><font color=00cc00>[[User_talk:NoSeptember|T]] 9 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
* I agree that version 1.5 should is best. A sockpuppet account added a sentence to version 1 without contributing to the Rfc, even though he was repeatedly asked to do so. Not one other person seemed to need to "mess" with the sentences except this one person. I am removing the sentence due primarily to it being added by this person using a sockpuppet account...if someone puts it back in, that is not using a sockpuppet account then so be it. The evidence of this sockpuppet account is here [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MONGO/sockpuppet_Brodo]].--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] July 9, 2005 06:54 (UTC)
::Oh man, you've gotta be kidding me. You've already been busted for making things up, and now I'm somehow another user? This is my moniker throughout the internet, be it blogs, ie redstate.org, dailykos.com, tacitus.com et al. Considering I live in virginia, the other nonsense is just that. The discussion of voting irregularities is clear there, and the reasons for including fraud in that election, since it cannot be established to have effected only one race. You are absolutely destroying yourself mongo. -bro [[User:172.169.252.227|172.169.252.227]] 01:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Nice try...what's it like talking to yourself? Do a lot of that do you?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 05:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::As kizzle points out, the discussion has stalled. I haven't taken any initiative because I didn't really have any good ideas. The RfC produced a consensus against MONGO's preferred version, which would have given the reader some of Bush's own words but nothing else on the subject, here or in a linked article. That was, I suppose, some progress, but otherwise we haven't gained much. We're left with a nearly equal division between those who prefer Version "1.5" (some of whom, however, would restore the Hatfield information) and those who want at least as much detail as is in Version 3 (although editors in this group represent several differing opinions about how much detail is appropriate). All I can suggest is that we go back to the project undertaken in late May, which I thought at the time had been concluded successfully, and try to craft a compromise version that displeases many people but not enough to start an edit war. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 9 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)
:::No doubt these people said the things they did. No doubt in two cases, books were published. I do not contest these issues. I do wonder that since the opinions produced by van wormer etc. are considered to be parapsychology and quackery, why, as stated on your user page your opposition to such mindsets, you still deem this information to be worthy of this endeavour. As far as your wording that there is a consensus against "my" version, I see that to be a distortion. As evidenced in this talk page, I essentially conceded to the incorporation of a link to the daughter article, and in fact, I edited it into the article. As far as there being "some progress", I agree...the progress is that the concensus is that version 1 is fine, so long as we link it to the daughter article...this has been done...by me. I have conceded much here, James, and I see you as an immovable wall, defending exactly the kind of "evidence" that you claim on your user page to distain. Your further commentary that there was any kind of "concensus" to anything in late May is also incorrect. In that case, only a few people even chimed in and there have been at least two people that have stated that there was no consensus then so I request you refrain from continuing to claim this. I am stepping back from this now. If you start reincorporating these items then I will not delete them. But I go on record stating that I find all of it to be without merit, purely political, and misleading. At least in the articles I have been working on as of late, there is little room to argue over the height of a mountain or the blueness of a lake. Do whatever you want here...no edit war will occur from me...that much I promise.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] July 9, 2005 09:59 (UTC)
::::MONGO, your preference was for [[#Version 1|the original Version 1]], under which this article would not have included the information ''and'' would not have included a link to the daughter article. You favored that approach; one editor said he wasn't sure; everyone else opposed it. That was the consensus I meant. You and I evidently have different understandings of "consensus". You won't accept that term for a previous process in which ''everyone'' who commented acquiesced in the compromise that emerged, yet you now claim that "the concensus [''sic''] is that version 1 is fine, so long as we link it to the daughter article" when there is a sharp division and many people think that Version 1 is anything but fine.
::::I also don't understand this line: "I have conceded much here, James, and I see you as an immovable wall . . . ." What you have conceded, as far as I can tell, is that your attempt at the ''total'' suppression of the information, which only you unequivocally favored, won't fly. Other than that, you've conceded nothing. For my part, I said in the course of the compromise discussion in late May that I would live with the version that emerged from that process, even though it significantly truncated the information available to the reader in this article. You are certainly free to continue to assert your reasons for wanting the material omitted from the article, but your characterization of my position is not borne out by the record. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 9 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)
:::::Did I or did I not also draw up the vague version 2, in which there was a link to the red headed step daughter article. I also wrote the discussion, very neutrally about version 2. My count, (which I hate to see any of this as a vote anyway), is 13 "votes" for version 1 (or) 2 and 11 "votes" for version 3 or 4...of those voting for version 3, at least two of them have almost zero contribution history...not that this matters in the scheme of things. I think Sidaway's comment that there is no consensus (not sic) is pretty accurate. (Please stop correcting my spelling...it's very condescending...I have enough trouble typing with my hands in which I have to wear a size 16 ring...why they don't make keyboards for ogres like me I'll never know). I was merely stating that since I put in the link to the vile daughter article, then that was my "personal" concession...you know how much I would like to see all of that stuff vanquished. You conceded nothing...where oh, where is your concession? As far as it appears to me, "your" version, which is version 4, won't fly either...I am opposed to another "vote" on anymore versions...unless we draft up a completely new Rfc we probably won't get that many "votes" one way or another...in conclusion, do whatever you want, as I am '''not''' going to engage in an edit war...in fact, all I'll probably do now is edit true vandalism and contribute to discussion. I correct you again (and for the last time) that any plurality of anything was achieved in late May. I am not the only one that wishes to see no link...there are three others. Enough, I say...go ahead and install the quackery that your user page says you oppose. I think it makes us all look like writers for the National Enquirer: Bush has brain damage; Bush drank so much when he was young and gives lousy speeches so he must be a dry drunk; Bush was a coke head! Written by very authoritative folks with no axe to grind or desire to make a buck, folks like: van wormer (self described as a "hippee, commie, pinko protester") and no medical credentials. Hatfield , whose books were removed, have no basis in fact and he previously published another book which was also a lie. Then he has a prior for solicitation of murder, pled guilty to stealing federal housing subsidies and theft, then for some sad reason (since those nasty Republicans must have forced his hand)...committed suicide. Lastly, we have Frank, the most distinguished in the lot, practicing his profession in a manner not supported by the American Psychiatrict Association...he gets around this by, NOT BEING A MEMBER of this highly regarded group. An association of this nature is what science is all about...it allows there to be a system of checks and balances in which other members of the association can cross examine the work of their peers and if they find it to be unsubstantiated, to be able to sanction it as so. By not being a member, he avoids this potential for exposure as a fraud. As clearly specified, he has serious detractors anyway. These three are most definitely quacks! But, heck, they had something crappy to say about Bush, so lets put it in here!--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:35, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
:::::It seems to me that to solve this problem, we should have a run-off between v1.5, 3, and 4. It seems to me that while Mongo and I are ok with this v1.5, and assuming that 80% of the other people who voted only for v1 without a daughter article would be ok with v1.5, we have a clear majority opinion in the matter that I estimate is more than 3 and 4 combined. Let's do a final re-poll between v1.5, 3, and 4. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] July 9, 2005 15:45 (UTC)
:::::uhh guys, hello, over here? Re-poll? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 00:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
::::::I don't think we could expect anything other than another fairly close division. It's not normal procedure to decide article content by a simple majority vote. That's why I thought the only alternative was to try to fashion a compromise that everyone could grudgingly live with. For example, a couple of the people supporting Version 1 mentioned that they thought that something about Hatfield should be included. I also remember that, somewhere in all the talk that's gone on, there was a suggestion that quoting van Wormer's and/or Frank's exact point was giving it too much prominence, so perhaps we could come up with a short and neutral paraphrase. (Of course, the tough part is to find a paraphrase that lets the reader know what the contention is, but doesn't present it so fully that opponents feel compelled to try to insert the other side, and then the whole attempt to shorten the passage has misfired.) [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::::True, except I think our poll deserves special attention due to the ambiguous nature of people voting for version 1. Basically, a lot of people (at least 7) voted for a version not even included in the original 4... I think it would only be fair to re-vote between v1.5, 3, and 4, and I do believe a concensus will develop during this process. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 02:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Most of those voting for Version 1 said that there should be a link, but even if you think there's ambiguity, what happens if we resolve it? It's reasonable to assume that all the Version 1 supporters would prefer Version 1.5 over Version 3 or Version 4. Also, the idea of adding a link to Version 1 was introduced early on, so it's also fair to assume that no one would defect from one of the other versions to Version 1.5. Wouldn't we just expend a lot of effort to get right back to where we are now? There wouldn't be a consensus. The current division might shift somewhat, depending on which of the original respondents bothered to return for the re-vote, but this isn't a matter of finding a one- or two-vote margin for one view or another. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, draw it up... I still like version 1 but that one's out...so I guess it's version 1.5 for me. I hate to think we end up with something like version 2.75...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 05:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
==Protection==
I am very strongly opposed to the protection of this page. Certainly, it's one of the most heavily vandalized in Wikipedia, but it also has more people watching it than do most pages. Any particular bit of vandalism seldom lasts more than a couple minutes. All this is nothing new. Soon after the election, the ''New York Times'' did a story about the continual attacks on this article: [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/arts/10wiki.html?ex=1257742800&en=cc30e2e9087b7775&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland].
There's no point to protecting it until the vandalism stops. It won't stop. The adolescent mindset that wants to vandalize thinks of a prominent person to look up, and Bush is an obvious choice. We just have to keep reverting and blocking. The load is shared among many editors, so it's tolerable. In fact, my experience is that, more than half the time, my attempted reversion of a vandal fails, because someone else has already made the same correction. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 9 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)
:In general, I agree with you that protection isn't a great option. However, in this specific instance, a determined vandal was using dynamic IPs to evade blocks. The vandalism (and reverts) were happening so fast that the last 50 edits only covered about 45 minutes. The only real option at this point was to protect the page. In a few hours, I'm sure the page will be unprotected.
:A more long-term solution could be a feature that enables admins to mark certain articles as editable only by signed-in users. This could be useful for heavily vandalized articles such as this one. [[User:Carbonite|Carbonite]] | [[User talk:Carbonite|Talk]] 9 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
::Man, do I ever agree with that...lets commence an Rfc just along those lines...there is no reason that that sort of thing can't be incorporated in articles like this one.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] July 9, 2005 14:01 (UTC)
:::If you seriously want to pursue that suggestion, I think that starting a thread on [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] is the way to go. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 9 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)
::::I personally would like to see only registered users have editing capabilities...it would greatly reduce the vandalism, and make it harder to utilize sockpuppets for the wrong reasons...think of the prolonged life of the Wikipedia servers with the reduction of edits! If you stand with me on this issue, then I will be glad to assist you, but I certainly think that due to your higher organizational skills and better familiarity with drafting things such as a Rfc that my contribution in this would look amateurish.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:41, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the invitation, but I'll decline. First, I'm not sure whether I agree with the proposal or not. Second, my past experience with the breadth and depth of the commitment to open editing leads me to believe that this proposal would have no chance of succeeding... even with the benefit of my alleged organizational skills. :) [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 22:11, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::By the way, discussion of your suggestion is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Semiprotected_status ongoing]... you might want to help put your thoughts in both of you, and anyone else, as this is a good idea that has a lot of people interested and very little admin opposition so far. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 00:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::It would be a bad idea to let a few vandalized articles spoil our commitment to open editing. If users had been required to register before starting to edit, I would never have joined, and I suspect that's true for the large majority of users. Open Editing means that everyone should be able to edit and it's only by commitment to this principle that we will obtain the wide authorship necessary to keep the entire encyclopedia accurate and up-to-date. Limit it to registered users and the site will become deprecated very quickly. [[User:LukeTH|luketh]] 06:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
::::I don't know, I made about 4 edits and then registered...I can see your point though...I doubt the limited requirements needed to register would have detered me, but that is just one example.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 06:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::::The proponents of a change would respond to [[User:LukeTH|luketh]] by agreeing that most articles should be open to anonymous editing. The idea presented is for a small number of heavily vandalized articles to receive this intermediate degree of protection. This is being supported and opposed in the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Semiprotected status|discussion]] that kizzle found and linked to (thanks!). People who want to comment one way or the other would do much better to go there. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
== Scope of details ==
I look over the article and see that there are three short paragraphs that discuss the military contribution of Bush, then a link to a huge daughter article. I look over the drug and alcohol discussion and see there are three paragraphs and a link to a small daughter article. The military daughter article is well detailed, authoritative and relatively NPOV. The daughter article on substance abuse is concise, not very revealing but also NPOV. If one of the efforts is to reduce the size of this article, how is that achieved if we keep adding things back in that a small concensus already thinks they should remain in the daughter article. I am not sure another poll will help. My biggest concern is that now we have a concensus which is essentially this version 1.5, which is currently in the article...I am not happy with it, nor is JamesMLane...so the two of us are already mutually unhappy. If James and I can agree that our mutual unhapppiness is equal then what is there left to argue over. James, the items are still available and there are three paragraphs that discuss Bush and alcohol. I think the drug usage information is really very weak. I do not think that Hatfields allegations, based on his personal history makes the accusations of drug use stronger, I think it makes it weaker. In fact, if I was trying to prove that Bush had used drugs, I probably wouldn't do so by referencing Hatfield. Can we agree that we are equallly unhappy...I mean, you wish to see all the info, and I absolutely don't want a link...we are the polarizations...I have a couple of folks that also don't see a need for a link, you have a couple of supporters that want to see it all just as you do...everyone else falls somewhere in the middle...I inserted the link...is this enough?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Version 1, with or without the link, omits ''all'' the disputed information from this article. Twelve people who responded to the RfC stated clearly that they opposed that omission. MONGO, you can disagree with us all you want, but when you assert that there was a consensus in favor of a version that had so much opposition, you lead me to wonder if there's any point in trying to discuss this with you. Your comments about the link are also misleading. There's no polarization over the link. Even if you look only at the people who supported Version 1, a majority of ''those'' respondents expressly stated that there should be a link -- then, of course, you have to add in all the people supporting Version 3 or Version 4. That's an example of consensus, MONGO. Your preference for a terse statement with no link has been overwhelmingly rejected. Our problem is that a terse statement with a link has ''not'' been overwhelmingly rejected, and a more detailed exposition in this article has also not been overwhelmingly rejected. Therefore, there's a consensus that the reader should have access to this information, either in the main article or in a linked daughter article, but beyond that there's no consensus. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 07:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
::The majority favored a link '''only'''...the majority did not favor versions 3 or 4...even combined, versions 3 and 4 are less than those that see version 1 with a link as being the way to go. I inserted the link...that essentially means that I support it. kizzle supports it as well, even though he voted no link originally, at least he didn't say originally he supported a link when he polled. I am concluding from your comments that we are missing each others points. So now, do we draw up another Rfc which has version 1 with a link and then versions 3 and 4...a total of 3 versions...or is the fact that a small majority favor version 1 with a link sufficient?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::As I said before the RfC began, a small majority is not sufficient. You should also note that some of those nominally voting for Version 1 added that they'd like to see Hatfield included, so there's probably a small majority in favor of that (Version 1.5a?). I hope you're beginning to see my point that there's no consensus. Therefore, my suggestion is that we think about how to craft a version that takes account of the various comments and might be accepted as a compromise. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 11:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
::Looking at the section, in comparison to the section discussing the military issues...are three paragraphs of fact and then a link to the daughter article just as there is in the military issues sufficient?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::Here's how the military issues are treated now: The article sets forth certain undisputed facts about Bush's military service. It then has a link to the daughter article, accompanied by a description of the allegations that are covered in that article -- just the allegations, without including either side's evidence. If we were to follow that model for substance abuse, would that be acceptable to you? I think at one point we had something similar. Bush's defenders couldn't leave it at that, but started tossing in the evidence on their side (conflicting psychiatric views, character assassination of Hatfield, etc.). Then, of course, they complained when evidence on the other side was included. It has to be both or neither to be NPOV. If we were to follow the military model, we'd start with undisputed facts -- roughly what's now Version 1, but with the inclusion of the undisputed fact that Bush denied using drugs since 1974 while refusing to comment on pre-1974 use or nonuse. Then we'd have a paragraph stating what allegations are addressed in the daughter article, as the introduction to the link to the daughter article. All evidence and arguments, pro- or anti-Bush, would be sent to the daughter article, and we would all diligently revert future efforts to re-insert them. (We've seen some such efforts on the military service controversy.) Is that a possible framework for a resolution? [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 11:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
::::No, the need to have hatfield, wormer and frank mentioned in the main article eliminates the need for a daughter article...we essentially end up with version 3+ and I know I wasn't the only one that came in and put detractions refuting their evidence so it would only be a matter of time before someone else would anyway due to the controversialness of their allegations. As I mentioned before, I'm tired of all this. I do want to put it to bed...but I am as expected, relatively inflexible on inclusion of anything beyond what we currently have as of this timestamp.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 12:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::::If you mean that Version 4 would eliminate the need for a daughter article, I agree with you. I'm not talking about the kind of summary that was in the article for quite a while about, for example, van Wormer, with a few sentences presenting her thesis. I'm talking about just enough of a mention to give the reader an understanding of what's in the daughter article. Or, for example, with regard to Hatfield, I'm sure you don't mean that you'd want the article to have no link, but merely to say, "In a largely favorable biography of Bush entitled ''Fortunate Son'', author James Hatfield presented his conclusion that, in 1972, Bush had been arrested for cocaine possession and had done community service as part of a plea bargain, and that the family's influence had succeeded in getting the record expunged. Bush denied it." People would surely start adding the pros and cons and pretty soon we'd be at Version 4. And, by the way, "what we currently have as of this timestamp" is not in any way, shape or form a "baseline" version that remains in place unless and until there's consensus to change it. It's in place because, at the time we were starting the RfC, you and others who preferred the current (totally unacceptable whitewashing POV) version were more willing to engage in edit warring than the rest of us were. I don't know if your reference was intended to suggest any such special status, and if it wasn't, I apologize. I may be overreacting because your comment triggered unpleasant memories of another editor, one who invoked this mythical "baseline" concept as an explanation for why his preferred language always had to remain in place. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 12:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::Okay...let me put this as plainly as possible. As of my last post, the article has three undisputed statements which discuss Bush, alcohol and the consequences he has faced due to alcohol consumption. These three items are not things that make Bush look good...they, in themselves suggest that there is a strong liklihood that Bush, as he even admits, did abuse alcohol...then we have one paragraph which is from an interview in which, in his own words, he essentially admits to drug use. I think that van wormer, hatfield and frank are all bad witness and are unnecessary...absolutely so in the main article. I do not consider the continued incorporation of the 3 small paragraphs to be whitewashing. They are fairly damming evidence in themselves. I consider all the rest to be speculation, opinion and well, bunk. Now if I stand alone on this I stand alone. I also feel that if you think that putting the information in dispute back in is what the consensus wants either now, or previously, then go ahead and reinsert them...I will not delete them. Or give me an example of a lead in paragraph to the daughter article.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 19:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
----
==Copyright==
Notice how the text resembles this web site http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sy/Economy
''Syria's predominantly statist economy'' etc. is the very same. Who borrowed from who?
'''Kizzle's Computed Poll''' - ''All stated user positions are estimates based upon direct quotations. Please go ahead and change your stance if I'm wrong.''
[[User:Kstailey|Kstailey]] 14:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
V1.5
#--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I think you're for v1.5 now, Mongo, let me know if i'm wrong --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 17:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC))
#--[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 20:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:Tverbeek|Tverbeek]] 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) "Though obviously a link to the daughter article should be added."
# [[User:PPGMD|PPGMD]] 17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : "With a link to the daugher article of course."
#[[User:Maltmomma|maltmomma]] 19:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) "I agree about adding a link to the daughter article."
#--[[User:Steve block|Steve block]] 09:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) "If so, yes to a daughter article link..."
# [[User:Junes|Junes]] 09:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) "I'd support version 1 with a link to the daughter article."
# [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) "Version 1 with a link to the longer article."
# --[[User:Keairaphoenix|Keairaphoenix]] 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) "I'm voting for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article."
# [[User:Eisnel|Eisnel]] 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC) - "I vote for #1 with a link to the daughter article"
# [[User:NoSeptember|<font color="A29EBA">'''NoSeptember''']]<sup><font color=00cc00>[[User_talk:NoSeptember|T]] </font></small>(since no one joined me in Version 2, I will support Version 1.5)
# that works for me, or modified #3 as discussed under my 'none' comments [[User:Derex|Derex]] 20:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
V1 (probably will favor v1.5 (Tysto won't))
#--[[User:Nobs01|Nobs01]] 17:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#--[[User:Dcarrano|Dcarrano]] 29 June 2005 05:51 (UTC) "the Hatfield stuff is the only one I would miss from the expanded versions." (inferring a daughter article? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 16:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC))
#--[[User:Tysto|Tysto]] 2005 July 9 00:56 (UTC) "No daughter article. No dry-drunk pseudopsychoanalysis."
====Supporting Version 3====
#[[User:Xaliqen|Xaliqen]] 02:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:-Ril-|<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>]] 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:The demiurge|The demiurge]] 20:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:Ampracific|Ampracific]] 30 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)
#[[User:Khaosworks|khaosworks]] July 2, 2005 00:02 (UTC)
#[[User:RichardMathews|RichardMathews]] July 6, 2005 17:49 (UTC)
====Supporting Version 4====
#[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).
#[[User:Harro5|Harro5]] 07:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
#[[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] 13:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
# [[User:Jamesgibbon|<font style="color:green">james</font><font style="color: blue">gibbon</font>]] 10:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
----
That is why I believe we need to re-poll, because as it stands, it's 10-6-6, and given 2 out of the 3 who only voted for v1 vote for v1.5 (which is highly similar), we have one option getting as many votes as the two other combined. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 16:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
* I added my name to V 1.5 [[User:NoSeptember|<font color="A29EBA">'''NoSeptember''']]<sup><font color=00cc00>[[User_talk:NoSeptember|T]] 18:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
*Kizzle, I support version 1.5...I prefer the original version 1, but accept this 1.5 version to try and achieve some kind of compromise.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 19:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
::The computation is helpful, but it should include another nuance: the comments about inclusion of Hatfield. [[User:Eisnel|Eisnel]], in supporting Version 1.5, said, "Like Dcarrano said, I'd also like to see the short Hatfield paragraph from #3 put in ..." On the other hand, [[User:Albamuth|albamuth]] supported Version 4 but wanted to trim "10%-15% of the words".
::Nuances aside, though, a re-poll could be expected to produce substantially the same result, unless there were a major change in the makeup of those responding. (Many of those who responded the first time probably wouldn't vote in a re-poll.) Assuming hypothetically that the result of the re-poll would be something fairly close to 10-6-6, we'd be facing the fact that none of the five versions polled achieved a consensus. (That would be true even if the result were 13-6-6, i.e., if one particular version had a narrow majority.) That's why I think we need to focus on creating a new alternative instead of re-polling the old ones. Hoping that one of the old ones would achieve consensus pretty much amounts to hoping for a miracle. On this article, I stopped hoping for miracles long ago. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 20:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
:::That's why it's Kizzle's "Computational" Poll, as I was just getting estimates of people's positions :). Here's the thing, James. As it stands, we have over 25 editors responding to this poll about drug usage, of which the leading option has the amount of the next two closest options combined. I think it can be said that this is as close to a concensus as we're going to get. We can draft a new one, but that's where we were about a month ago, which is the reason why we drafted this RfC in the first place. After going through the RfC process, we have a crystal clear front-runner which represents a large amount of editors contributing to this poll. With all due respect James, you are basically proposing to start back at the drawing board and draft a completely new alternative, which I think is unfair given the strong choice by the editors who have participated in this RfC. What happens then? Not everyone is going to agree with whatever passage we come up, and I don't think that whatever paragraph you craft (which I am sure will be well-written) will garner any more of a substantial support than v1.5 has right now. If we follow your suggestion, we'll have to repeat everything we have done before, and for no clear reason as to scrap what we have already accomplished with this RfC. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 02:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::::I realize you were just amalgamating the positions, and I think it was a useful post. As to what we do with your data, though, we can't treat Versions 1, 3, and 4 as three completely distinct approaches. Some of us voting for Version 4 expressly noted that Version 3 would be our second choice, and, given the nature of each version, I think it's reasonable to assume that all the Version 4 supporters would feel that way. If you think that the level of detail in Version 4 is the best, then it would be strange to prefer Version 1 to Version 3, since Version 3 preserves more of that detail than does Version 1. So, I don't agree that we have "a crystal clear front-runner". We have an approximately equal division on the question whether Version 1 is acceptable or omits too much. I agree there's no ready solution that doesn't involve more work, but that's the result of the opinions people hold. We can't avoid that problem by pretending that Version 1, opposed by half those responding, is any sort of consensus. Given that some Version 1 supporters actually wanted Version 1 plus Hatfield, and given that the comments suggest that the psychiatric stuff comes in for more criticism than Hatfield, maybe we could find something between Version 1 and Version 3 on that basis. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 11:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::Geezus you're such a lawyer :). Makes me want to take the LSATs... Yes, there are stated second choices and nuances behind each vote as to present "semi-votes" towards other options. Yes, half of the people in the poll voted against version 1. But that's what you get when you have more than one option. We don't hold another election because more than half of the people voted against Clinton in a 3-party race. Given 4 options in a race, the fact that one now has 50% is ''relatively'' a crystal clear front runner.
:::::My main point is this. Voting on Wikipedia is not a quantitative process, in that if the votes were 7-6-6-6, there's no way in hell we would favor option 1 over the others simply due to it having one more vote than the others. However, given the situation we have, option 1 has an equal amount of votes that the other two have combined. In a 4-party race, this is quite significant, and is not characterized fairly when you describe that "half the people voted against"... that's just lawyer-talk ;). In a 2-party system, yes this is significant. However, in a 3 or 4-party system, ''there will almost always be more than half of the people voting against any of the options.''
:::::Out of 4 options, the fact that option 1 has 50% of the votes is entirely significant, and in my mind is the closest we're going to get to concensus, unless you truly believe that re-drafting yet another option will get more than 50% of the vote. Of course, that would require us to take all the progress from this RfC and start from scratch, and I don't think people want to go through all of this yet again. No further questions, your honor. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 17:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::::::I think you would pass the LSAT's with flying colors as that is a good argument you present. However, since I see versions 3 and 4 to be almost the same on my undesireableness list, I almost group them together anyway. But then again, without getting James upset and starting another argument, I think there is a significant majority for version 1.5....twice that on either of the other two options....so what I would like to see now is an example from James of a lead in paragraph to link up the daughter article...that I can live with (I have to live with it, because I'm not going to edit it out)...personally, I like the redirect we have now, but I know that James wants to talk about the quacks...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
==who's the person who's trying to edit in==
the stuff about '''"''won by the largest majority since bla bla bla''"'''
Every US president wins by the largest majority since whoever else, the population of the US grows exponentially
..by the same token you should point out that despite gore having lost the 2000 election, he too had more votes than any US president in history - <s>[[Tree_frog|Myself]]</s> [[User talk:172.131.142.45|172.131.142.45]] 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thats not techincally true, see, since the electoral colledge controls the actual voting and the poopulace has no real say, no [president can actually win by majority in the first place.
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 13:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
btw, is somene gonnna ding him for 3rr?
[[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] 13:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
What 3rr? did I revert anything 3 times? btw. since I have a dynamic ip address don't you think it would be kind of silly to sign it by ip? not to mention I didn't even link to a user_talk page so how as I impersonating anyone? unless you think I'm impersonating an actual tree frog? I don't think they can type. I made a minor comment, didn't seem like it was worth registering, there are plenty of unregistered editors, besides which, this is a discussion page, not an article - <s>[[Tree_frog|Myself]]</s>/<s>[[User talk:172.131.142.45|172.131.142.45]]</s>/[[User talk:172.154.34.181|172.154.34.181]]
Nonetheless, using a false signature (whether it is obvious or not) is a violation of policy. It is policy to always sign contributions to talk pages; it doesn't matter if you have a dynamic IP or not, it's still our policy. As for the 3RR, I'll leave that to [[User:Gabrielsimon|Gabrielsimon]] -- [[User:Essjay|Essjay]] · [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 14:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:The question of the "largest number of votes ever" has come up before. As population increases, the total vote increases. Therefore, it's not worth noting that Bush received more popular votes than any previous candidate. See the extensive prior discussion of the point [[Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 23#Removing POV statement|here]]. No one thinks that Bush is more popular than George Washington was. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 23:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
: Fine, then take it out but balance, balance, balance. Was it really necessary to point out how Clinton did and disclaim why he never received a majority: this makes him look better, yet has nothing to do with the article. Is it really fair to say that he only won by "3%" as if it is bad? Why talk about all former presidents who failed to get a majority? They say that Bush had the highest approval rating ever, yet look at the unique crisis in American history. Therefore, it's not worth noting? Look at the times of terrorism and gas out of control. Therefore, it's not worth noting? My point: even the inauguration dealt with Bush's failures compared to presidential history. Therefore, it's not worth noting? It seems, just as the science debate went, if it is negative or anti-Bush, it is worth reporting. Fine, your criticism is valid, but everything can't be about criticism, about negative viewpoints, and no pro viewpoints. There are two major problems:
::1. A lot of unsubstantiated criticism, and a great need for both sides.
::2. Negatives, controversies, and scandals indiscriminately put every where as a disclaimer.
:::If you see any unsubstantiated criticism, please point out any specific passages that you see. And if the controversies and scandals did in fact happen and are properly sourced, are you saying they still don't belong in this article? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 04:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, saying scientists criticize under the science section is obviously unsubstantiated (just like the Harken info) and the Enivronment section. I do not add anything unless I can source it (there is no need for speculation on this site; go to a forum and discuss any you might have). You say, "are you saying they still don't belong in this article?" Please, this is insulting to me. If I believed that then I would say: "Please, do not put any scandals or insults here. Pay homage to the great one, George Bush." NO, not what I believe (I also have posted at length on Bill Clinton's website) is that scandals are good, just as are criticisms when backed up by fact. The unfortunate thing is that criticism, unless widespread, by well known people, or well cited are just people's opinion of Bush. There must be caution exercised. And my comments about indiscriminate are that criticisms and scandal should not be placed helterskelter, but she be better laid out. Also, criticisms must be properly identified as criticism, and if it is to be balanced, then both sides must be presented (unless the purpose is to make the criticism the angle of the article and not the facts or the topic, President Bush). To have to say all this should be insulting to any editor: everything should be truthful, corroborated, and balanced UNLESS you want to keep such an article that is vehemently seen (in my estimation, with good reason) as not having anywhere near a neutral point of view. Anon, David
::::Yikes. Well lets see what edits you propose to bring balance to this article :) --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 17:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
==Science==
1. The beginning of the section is clearly misleading and a POV. Why I would even have to make a case for this is beyond me, but here it goes. "Scientists have repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for reducing . . . ." must read to be factual: "Many scientists, including the group Union of Concerned Scientists, have criticized the Bush administration for reducing . . . ." Without the clarification, the article suffers from overgeneralization (does the author of the current statement in the article really expect the reader to be dumb enough to believe that ''all'' scientists believe this), which of course makes if fallacious. See sites cited within the section on the article.
2. More bias seeped in within the same article: "I agree with the conclusions of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I report that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." Note that this is the balance of evidence, NOT unambiguous proof. The report points out that "our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long term variability…." [Both these quotes are from p. 5 of the Summary for Policymakers.] I agree with this part of the assessment, too. . . . Adaptation. No matter what our response, the planet will warm. The most we can hope to achieve is to slow the rate of warming in the next century. Therefore, in the case of each threat to society listed above, all the threats not mentioned, and the threats that will appear that we are not smart enough to imagine now, we will have to adapt to minimize the negative impacts. This adaptation will require much better information and technological innovations. This represents a significant business opportunity in the United States to develop the necessary devices and products and to market them to the world.
Improved knowledge. We need better data, better models, better computers, and more trained scientists and engineers to address the problems presented by global warming. Investing in the nation's scientific research establishment is a very inexpensive and very rewarding allocation of the nation's resources. We have to know where and when temperature, precipitation, storm, and sea level changes will take place. We need to know the biological response of agricultural and natural ecosystems to the changed climate. Only then can we gauge the impacts of our actions, and help to adapt precisely to the changes." Spoken by Professor Alan Robock before the Senate. See [http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/testimony.html]
This simply means that there is NO scientific consensus. Please remove following under science section unless you can produce sound evidence to the contrary (which you can't in this day and age): "ignoring scientific consensus on global warming." Since not supported by fact, an obvious POV. Sorry for the long quote on what should be viewed as obvious spin.
3. Part of the truth is no truth at all. "The presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine released a joint statement on December 13 warning that current visa restrictions are interfering with U.S. science and engineering contributions to important national needs. The statement cautions "recent efforts by our government to constrain the flow of international visitors in the name of national security are having serious unintended consequences for American science, engineering and medicine" and urges the U.S. government to take prompt action."[http://www.aibs.org/public-policy-reports/public-policy-reports-2002_12_20.html] This adds a new dimension to the statement in this section: "hampering cooperation with foreign scientists by enforcing deterring immigration and visa restrictions." Indeed, reading the policy means this statement is SPIN! Obvious POV -- why so many on this site. Balanced would be in place of the preceding quote: "many scientists are upset over increased immigrant restrictions brought on for national security reasons has had the unintended consequence of decreasing immigration by foreign scientists." Whoever put in "hampering" just plain skewed the facts or had them so wrong it is amazing. Whatever the case might be, lets get it right.
4. God forbid something positive fall in here, but hey, contrary to what Gabriel says, including only facts can be negative if they are misplaced, overboard, or do not spek of both sides. That is all I'm looking at: Bush might be great, he might be Satan, but the facts must represent him in a manner that is fair, non-biased, and takes into consideration how other presidents and dignitaries are represented on Wikipedia. Since it is wholly unacceptable to slam Bill Clinton for the sake of the salacious and the juicy (though perfectly acceptable to talk about the bad and the ugly when relevant, such as when talking about Impeachment), the same standard must apply here. Fairness cries for it. This sentence needs to be added to the end of paragraph one under the Science section: "On December 19, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law H. R. 4664 far-reaching legislation to put the National Science Foundation (NSF) on a track to double its budget over five years and to create new mathematics and science education initiatives at both the pre-college and undergraduate level.[http://www.aibs.org/public-policy-reports/public-policy-reports-2002_12_20.html] Factual and balanced!
: I was asked to comment on the [[global warming]] (GW) type stuff in the science section. I don't understand what the anon is talking about above ''I agree with the conclusions of the 1995 IPCC'' is presented as a quote, but its not in the article, so who is being quoted? And anyway we're on the 2001 report now, and the benchmark there is probably ''There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities''. Bush has repeatedly avoided accepting this, and (IMHO) could reasonably be described as not accepting the scientific consensus on GW. If you want the science of GW, then look at the GW page and [[scientific opinion on climate change]]. But this page isn't a place to re-fight the GW wars.
: What should probably be in that section is some comments that Science magazine has made: [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?volume=&firstpage=&sendit.x=0&sendit.y=0&sendit=Search&DOI=&author1=&author2=&titleabstract=&fulltext=george+bush&tocsectionid=special%2FeditorialAORBeditorialAORBlettersAORBp-forumAORBoldlettersAORBpolicy&fmonth=Oct&fyear=1995&tmonth=Jul&tyear=2005&hits=10] and look for The Bush Administration's Approach to Climate Change and Science and the Bush Administration. Both of these (from memory; they require subscription) were fairly critical of the Bush approach to science. Also [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5692/1873?rbfvrToken=760124a9357254ffba3889450f925ddfa670d1ea]. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 22:26:57, 2005-07-10 (UTC).
:: Then say "there is almost universal consensus" or "most scientists suggest," but don't make a blanketed, unsupported statement. I don't want to fight a war, but if a claim is made that is still questionable and, or not exactly understood, then express that contention if only to be honest. Let the GW site fight it out on whether it is correct or not. Give a reference, not an article critical of Bush. Note: author of quote is listed in article.
::: Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement, so "there is almost universal consensus" is pointless. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 23:35:32, 2005-07-10 (UTC).
::: Here is the definition for consensus: Main Entry: con·sen·sus
Pronunciation: k&n-'sen(t)-s&s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Latin, from consentire
1 a : general agreement : UNANIMITY <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports... from the border -- John Hersey> b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief
usage The phrase consensus of opinion, which is not actually redundant (see sense 1a; the sense that takes the phrase is slightly older), has been so often claimed to be a redundancy that many writers avoid it. You are safe in using consensus alone when it is clear you mean consensus of opinion, and most writers in fact do so.
Main Entry: unan·i·mous
Pronunciation: yu-'na-n&-m&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin unanimus, from unus one + animus mind -- more at ONE, ANIMATE
1 : being of one mind : AGREEING
2 : formed with or indicating unanimity : having the agreement and consent of all
- unan·i·mous·ly adverb
So, no William, Merriam-Webster disagrees with your contention that consensus doesn't mean 100%, though it can mean group solidarity (or read as most). The common idea is most; without a citation or a factual claim, this article abous scientific criticism is just someone's point of view. Furthermore, "universal consensus" with or without a modifier is commonly used in everyday English, though I do wince at a hint of redundancy (though others do not). Thanks for the academic discussion. Hopefully we have reached a consensus. Anon poster, David
:: Just don't pass off consensus that doesn't exist as fact. Here are some examples that need to change consensus to either "many scientists" or "the IPCC": Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offered an explanation of the phenomenon during a recent National Press Club briefing "Climate Alarm — Where does it come from?": "With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics."[http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_29c.html] IPCC concludes, "Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely [my words: likely does not mean unquestionable consensu] to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."[http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/syreng.htm] "To highlight the difficulty of reaching true scientific consensus, one need only consider the infamous 1,000-year temperature history prominently featured in the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). It re-appeared in the 2004 Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Overview Report and is a perfect example of the complex challenge of achieving quantitative understanding of the earth’s climate system. The ‘hockey stick curve’ was almost unanimously hailed as a scientific consensus that strongly suggests the exceptional nature of temperature change in the last fifty years. But it wasn’t long before independent-minded scientists and researchers discovered holes in the theory. That fact alone invalidates the claim of consensus." [http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_29c.html] More recently, Theodore Anderson and colleagues (2003) issued several strong cautions in Science: "Unfortunately, virtually all climate model studies that have included anthropogenic aerosol forcing as a driver of climate change (diagnosis, attribution, and projection studies; denoted “applications” in the figure) have used only aerosol forcing values that are consistent with the inverse approach. If such studies were conducted with the larger range of aerosol forcings determined from the forward calculations, the results would differ greatly."[http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_29c.html] And on, and on, and on. The real reason: Bush might have ignored what many (heck, possibly most) scientists believe. That is a discussion for the GW page. It is valid here to state that scientific consenus is a misnomer at best, at worst an attempt to impugn the article. Either way, we need balanced facts, not speculation. REMOVE IT!
:: You can't disprove a consensus by quoting a few counter-examples: its simply a logical fallacy. http://www.co2andclimate.org/ is industry funded disinformation, not science. Go look at the [[scientific opinion on climate change]] article. c 23:35:32, 2005-07-10 (UTC).
:::Although I agree with [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] about the scientific consensus, these comments ignore a more fundamental point: The article doesn't make any assertions about the scientific consensus. In context, what the article says is: "Scientists have repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for . . . ignoring scientific consensus on global warming . . . ." As with any other instance of criticism of a controversial figure, our goal is that our report of the criticism be accurate, regardless of whether the criticism itself is accurate. In this case, there are certainly many, many scientists who consider that there is a consensus. Whether the counterexamples adduced by the anon disprove that point or are simply the industry's efforts to spin the issue is not an issue that needs to be addressed in this article. (If we were to address it, I would favor the conclusions stated by [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]]. I, too, have a great deal of trouble understanding what the anon is talking about.) This page isn't a place to re-fight the GW wars; we're busy enough with the GWB wars. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 23:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
:::First, including the IPCC quote that can be had from the IPCC website, the issue is that there isn't scientific consensus (even if you don't like where some of the information comes from, but you could say the Oregon Petition with 17,000 scientists (now this has to hardly be a logical fallacy?), once again in the mainstream and others, such as Dr. Fred Singer do not lead to a scientific consensus; I only add this to state my main point: there are always two sides of an issue).[http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/pdf/singer000718.pdf] I don't know why anyone has trouble understanding that. Then you indeed do not counter my example but rather bolster it by stating, "As with any other instance of criticism of a controversial figure, our goal is that our report of the criticism be accurate, regardless of whether the criticism itself is accurate." Maybe I have missed something, but state who the scientists are that believe in all three and have issued the statements (saying "Scientists criticize" connotes unfairly that Bush is in la la land by examining the facts -- let the reader know know who the scientists are; to do otherwise is conjecture) . Then to be balanced, give the supporters of Bush (which is why I ask that discrediting statements about these statements be given if the article is to respond to both sides. I too believe in global warming, I just don't know what scientists said all three statements and why such a one sided portrayal would be offered. That is a POV: let's just offer the info that bashed Bush; I respectfully disagree, and as read, it sounds like the consensus is a foregone conclusion. Be balanced: tell exactly who offered the criticism and when, and then give the other side (which I have attempted to do). Source the data and expropriate the material so that two things happen:
::::A. Corrected from generalization (obvious fallacy) to something like, "Thirty leading scientists in Science magazine reported . . . ." (web citation) This is purely an example. It could be 17,000 signing the Oregon Petition to 100,000 doing whatever. I don't care, but "Just the facts, sir, just the facts." Without a source, who criticized? Evidence, evidence, evidence (completely lacking right now)
::::B. Give the other side to be balanced and fair (hey, what does anyone have to be a afraid of). NOTE: I don't give a rat's behind about the merits of global warming, but I do care if it is listed as factual, without corrobation of it as criticism, and without giving both sides of the story. Evidence, evidence, evidence (which is offered on this discussion page).
::::To do otherwise is to offer one unsubstantiated point of view that does not talk about both sides even remotely in a fair manner.
:: I am going to balance the "criticism" offered by scientists in the interest of offering both sides (this is only fair). PLEASE, someone, tell me who made all three claims or if three different groups, then please cite appropriately. Otherwise, this whole discussion is moot.
==Harken Energy and SEC==
The SEC memo quoted is a downright distortion of the truth! It is ridiculous to pass it off as fact, "The federal Securities and Exchange Commission concluded: "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," but noted that its memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result." (Why anyone would state that this is under the title "Bush and early political career" is beyond me.) To be balanced and truthful, it should say, "The SEC, in a final memo dated March 27, 1992, fully exonerated Bush, stating Bush had a "preexisting plan" to sell the Harken stock for his Texas Rangers and that Bush had a "relatively limited role in Harken management."[http://www.publicintegrity.org/docs/harken/harken_doc5.pdf][http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=198]
How the original blog got in there and went unchecked is unbelievable. Give the truth and at least be balanced!
:Sorry, i missed where the SEC "fully exonerated" Bush. The report you link does note that '''Bush's attorneys''' claim the stock sale was pre-arranged. It also notes that Bush was likely unaware of the '''full''' extent of projected Harken losses. Exonerate, I do not see. Am I missing something? [[User:Derex|Derex]] 02:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
::A man after my own heart! Someone that reads the evidence . . . they do peruse this site! Exonerate, according to Merriam-Webster means "to clear from accusation or blame," as you are well aware of. It is my word, and I think it is fully backed up by the SEC memos; nevertheless, it is quite strong and might be better suited with "cleared of any wrong doing" instead of "exonerate" (which he clearly was). Just my own two cents (not supported by facts): Bush's dad was president at the time, so in my opinion, I think there is a good chance of insider trading. Yet, no facts. Anon, David
:::Instead of deciding how to interpret the SEC's words, I think we do better to quote the words (to the extent feasible), and leave the speculation to the reader. I see no indication that the file memo about Bush's "preexisting plan" was an official SEC conclusion; what the SEC communicated to Bush's lawyer is more authoritative. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 06:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Apparently you didn't read ALL the memos and relied on CNN. A shame. The memo is clearly the conclusion for the file in response to a congressional inquiry by Lloyd Benstsen and a representative (by law, they did not send the memo to the legislators, but fulfilled the requests to conduct an investigation because of a New York Times article). Alas, then it is not speculation but a conclusion (PLEASE read the SEC documents before criticizing; even sadder is that the Center for Public Integrity acknowledges on their website something that makes them a trustworthy site: George Soros is their primary backer and they released all these memos to coincide with the 2000 election); this is not what they considered (quote for my little mind where the action memo and the summary for file says they are in the midsts of "considering"; just plain not the truth or a lack or critical understanding or both). Even their action memo dated a week early SUMMARIZES their conclusions. Why is this less authoritative than the SEC communication you quote through a secondary source? Your site is less authoritative because it is a secondary source quoting a primary source (kudos for those of you who realize this is common sense). These are all primary sources, and should be presented as such. Now as for CNN, which you quote, the Free Rupblic and other anti-Bush documents quote what you want included, which might have come from Bruce Hiler. As quoted by the Washington Post, "In October 1993 the SEC cleared Bush of any wrongdoing."["http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/articles/primer.html]
:::A half-truth is a lie. Hiler concluded, "I absolutely feel we did a good job looking at this," Hiler added. "There was no case that I would have felt comfortable bringing. There was no indication of wrongdoing." He went on to say: "Bush has asserted for years that he did not know the extent of Harken's losses when he sold the stock.In a March 1992 memorandum prepared by Hiler and other investigators, the SEC backed up this assertion, saying the "evidence establishes that Bush was not aware of the majority of the items that comprised the loss Harken announced. Based upon our investigation, it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading because it does not appear that he possessed material nonpublic information."[http://www.namibian.com.na/2002/july/world/027249DD97.html] (or check the real thing at the Center for Public Integrity) Is this more authoritative since it is a direct quote by Hiler as well? To be balanced, it is difficult to accept James's assertion when all other evidence besides CNN, Democratic Underground, and the Free Republic source one document. Let's be fair: the entire case, regardless of our feelings, say that Bush was exonerated (which just means cleared of wrong doing). To ignore the plethora of information, which I again laboriously present, is to offer a POV to appear Bush might have done something wrong with ancedotal evidence. Even UPI, which has an obvious anti-Bush slant (which they at least acknowledge) stated about the Hiler document, "The SEC routinely notes that these letters 'must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation of that particular matter.'"[http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020717-062330-9990r] In October 1994 the head of the SEC's enforcement division, William McLucas, went beyond the letter and stated publicly that "there was no case there," even if the author of the article Hiler had been viewed as more cautious.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm] Now that is RIDICULOUS to not post! Please research thoroughly before changing back out of hand. (Still have not located the actual letter given to Bush dated Oct. 18, 1993. This is what is needed.) Also, type in the quote "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation of that particular matter" into a Yahoo search engine and you will find that it very much is stock language.
There you have it: the verdict is in. The overwhelming evidence objectively states that Bush was cleared of wrong doing. If editors think it is better to quote CNN than the actual SEC documents connected with the investigation, then the UPI, Washington Post, and actual memos will have to be posted so that the readers will have a full picture. Just the facts, sir, just the facts. Anon, David
Hey David, just thought I'd point out that you need to check your tone, buddy. It sounds like you have some good ideas to help balance the article, but the forcefulness of which you shove your opinion down our throats is a bit unnerving... I think most of us here are fully willing to discuss these changes with you in a calm manner, remember, assume good faith! --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 17:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Kizzle, point well taken. I know from dealing with the Clinton side that very little was changed without lengthy citings and politicking. For that, I apologize. I am very diligent at editing and sourcing (indeed, that is also a mainstay of my profession). While I am an obvious Bush supporter, I do not and never have supported the war in Iraq (at least not how it has come about). I also do not believe that NCLB, as currently written, is in the best interest of children. It just is that someone dismisses my Harken comments out of hand as ridiculous without offering any new information. I don't mind being wrong (I know on the Clinton page I do not believe a statistic, but I can't corroborate what I believe to be true, so my edit is out). So, I do apologize if I have come off as a bully. I just want balance, the truth, and corroboration. Hey, there are lots of juicy stories out there, but I want the facts to be right and I believe that it is never acceptable to make blanketed statements (believe me, the Clinton article had some much more horrendous than would ever appear on here, such as one statement several editors wanted to keep in: "Clinton is a man of the people"). So, keep me in line, but I hope at least people will respond with you: valid criticism based off of a fair assessmnt of all the facts and open to examining primary sources as well as common ones. Anon, David
::Good start. I was the original author of much of the insider trading allegations section (but not the subsequent memos clearing Bush of charges)... do you have any interesting sources to post that would broaden my knowledge of what is already there, or maybe supply any missing context? I don't doubt that the SEC fully exhonerated Bush, however it is a bit fishy both that his own lawyer advised him not to sell and that the makeup of the SEC at the time consisted of friends of the Bush family. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 22:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:::Kizzle: start with [http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=198]. This is the best site to sort through all the primary source documents of the SEC and Harken (all are in pdfs). Then read what the Washington Post, UPI, and the Democratic Underground have to say (the good point about these last two sites and the Center for Public Integrity is that they have an obvious political slant, so they have digged really deep to find the goods). Good luck, and let me know after that if you want more info. Anon, David
==Please stop protecting this page!==
Now we have yet another protection. The results are: (1) an anonymous editor's heavily POV changes, some of which controvert extensive discussions on this page, are now protected (I know about admins always protecting the wrong version, but this one is more egregious than most); (2) one of our most prominent and most-visited pages is highlighting an implication that our whole approach of open editing is misguided; and (3) all these results have been achieved because of (I gather) one particular vandal, thus demonstrating to him/her that this adolescent conduct can have an effect on this website, a demonstration that will only encourage more vandalism.
Admins are going to have to resign themselves to a simple fact: ''This article will never be free of vandalism as long as Bush is President.'' We can flee in panic and be protecting the thing twice a week for the next three and a half years, or we can deal with the vandalism the way we have been up until now, by which we fix the article, block the vandals to the extent possible, and show them that they're wasting their time. Experience has been that they go away after a while. As ''Wired'' magazine put it in an article about Wikipedia, "given enough eyeballs, all thugs are callow." [http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki.html?pg=2&topic=wiki&topic_set=] [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, and have unprotected the article (again) now. [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
::*cough*....[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Semiprotected_status|semi-protection]]...*cough* --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 04:33, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
==National Guard and 2004 Election==
I can hear it already: this anon blogger wants to remove National Guard issue. NO! Absolutely not, though I believe it is very lacking on fact and balance (as one poster said to me earlier, you cannot use shady sources to be logical); someone (possibly me) needs to balance out the issue -- there is no doubt that there is something rotten in Denmark, but criticism goes both ways. As for relevance of Kerry posting, I intentionally prefaced it the same way as the National Guard comments to make the point that the negative (and nonetheless wholly justified if one-sided) is "relevant," but obvious factual information about Bush at Yale (not wholly positive, but by no means negative) is irrelevant. By what standard? To be fair, either remove the National Guard paragraph (which would be egregious, though does not absolve it of the need to be balanced) or let facts as significant as the one about the Kerry/intellectual versus Bush/mildly mentally retarded (ok, ok, I'm overdoing it, and no, I don't mean by the mildly). What is the difference beside the spin? Remember, just the facts, just the facts. Anon David
:i'd like to see a comparison between SAT scores or aptitude tests rather than simply a comparison of grades, as I think an argument that Bush is smarter than Kerry is a hard one to win. Grades characterize one's ability to do hard work on time, not one's mental capacity for logical thought. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 22:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:I don't think Bush is smarter, by any means. It would be nice to have more info. I am just making an point of how one thing is judged relevant/partisan and another thing is judged irrelevant/factual; this all leads to an earlier criticism, namely my bit about Kerry and the National Guard stuff being in Bush's early life and not in the election or scandal stuff. It would be nice if a good editor would say they were a source of contention or something and then move them to the appropriate section (but leave the DUI and drug allegations). Anon David
::David, this comparison is misguided. You're ignoring a fundamental point. This article isn't "Information to help you decide whether Bush or Kerry would've made a better President". This article is about ''Bush''. Information about his military service or lack thereof is part of his biography. Information about someone else's college transcript 40 years ago is not part of Bush's biography. If we were to compare their grades, per your insert, then, to treat the subjects equally, we'd have to supplement the Texans for Truth paragraph with a mention that, while Bush was somehow mysteriously getting into the National Guard, and not performing even the minimal obligations of that position, Kerry was fighting in Vietnam and receiving several medals. If Kerry's grades are relevant here, so is his service record. In fact, however, neither of those subjects is relevant here. Also, I don't understand your last comment about the military service issues being a source of contention so they should be moved. The history is that the Bush article mentioned the TANG issues, then more information was added about the subject, then still more, until it got to the point that it was so detailed that it was overwhelming the article. Accordingly, it was spun off into a daughter article, leaving only a summary here. What's wrong with that approach? [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 23:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
::'''Addendum:''' I see you've now restored this minor point about Kerry's life (his college grades) while still not putting in anything about Kerry's decorated military service in Vietnam -- which was much more important in his life ''and'' was much more important in the 2004 election. Also more important in the 2004 election was that, although Bush and Kerry both came from the upper class, Bush defended his policy of ladling out huge tax breaks to his rich cronies, while Kerry called for rescinding the tax breaks given to the most wealthy. Should we include all these things in this article? No, we should not. ''This article is about George W. Bush. This article is not about John Kerry.'' The people who think that Kerry's Yale transcript was the most significant news event of the last several months have already inserted it in [[John Kerry]]. It doesn't belong here. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
::Then add in my paragraph a small sentence about Kerry's military service (though I'll have to add a small link to the veterans of the swift boats. Your approach is perfectly balanced (though, as you stated, it is about Bush, so keep it brief).
::::I respectfully disagree. The National Guard issue is fine, except it offers the negatives and mentions Texans for Truth without so much as being balanced. Much more balanced for the approach would be to mention the contention and leave it on the daughter article. Simply unfair to mention part of the criticism (especially the drug testing), and then say see another article. If this is the only page the reader peruses, then he or she leaves with a slanted view. The summary is not a summary but charges leveled. I think it needs to be balanced to the extent that it says there are debates over it and eliminate the Texans for Truth section OR include something from the other side. Secondly, by mentioning the 2004 election in one place makes it relevant to mention it in the same place even if it is positive. The fact is not about Kerry but about Bush. To relegate it to irrelevancy when it was a major political issue is disingenous; if biographical is not acceptable here, then how can we justify giving an entire paragraph to the ambassador to Romania or about the man in Science outed for bias by the New York Times (which comes up, is negative, and is instantly relevant, yet the Kerry-Bush feud about intelligence was and is a much broader issue). The only thing I can see is that both are negative and go overboard. But, if they can receive that much coverage, then maybe everything should (especially when concerning the Science section and the policy chief, the final word is not in yet). My correction has been offered: I moved this commentary to the 2004 presidential campaign. I believe now that the ambassador to Romania and Bush's policy chief shouldn't take up a third of each of the respective sections. Anon David
::::Mischaracterization says Fuz. Well, that is you opinion. The Washington Post says, "Sen. John F. Kerry's grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign." [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_re_us/kerry_grades]][http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/.../07/AR2005060700203.htm] NPR Radio says, "NPR Audio: Bush Beats Kerry by a Point, at Yale Much was made during the past two presidential elections about President George W. Bush's mediocre grades at Yale. It now turns out that his 2004 opponent Sen. John Kerry had similar grades."[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384&sourceCode=RSS] CBS in New York said, "Kerry's Yale Grades Similar To Bush's. Jun 7, 2005."[http://cbsnewyork.com/kcbs/politics/politicsnational_story_158200514.htm] From the Telegraph in England, "But Mr Bush's 'grade point average', a numeric total of the A-D grades awarded during his four-year course, just pipped Mr Kerry's. The president achieved an average of 77, while Mr Kerry's was 76. Both results equate to a C grade. Mr Kerry appears to have performed indifferently in his first year, with four D grades out of 10, although he did far better in his next three years. He told the paper: 'I always told my Dad that 'D' stood for distinction.' The news of Mr Bush's superior performance appears to confound a widely-held belief among America's Democrat-dominated metropolitan classes that the president is dim."[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/10/wbush10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/10/ixworld.html]
And on and on and on. The mainstream media disagrees with you Fuz (not that that makes them right). But, let's stick with the facts. It would be a mischaracterization NOT to include this fact about the 2004 presidential campaign and election. The facts are in: this is not about Kerry, this is about Bush and how critics have handled him (note: all the above sources talk about Bush because he was the ultimate winner, but it would be moot to discuss this criticism of Bush if Kerry was left out. As stated earlier by James, it isn't so much that the criticism is right (or that we even agree), but that we portray the criticism correctly. You've already portrayed the military service (even if not talking about it in the article being a major source of contention because of Kerry, but we all know that that is why) as a major 2004 election issue. Apparently everyone else thinks this is too. Let's give the facts. Why ignore what is accepted by fact in polls and the media and yet pass off that Wiki is neutral yet we won't cover issues we don't like. Anon David (section is below: show the lack of fact if you are able)
The 2004 presidential election was hard fought between [[John Kerry]] and George Bush. The economy, the war in Iraq, and terrorism were hot issues. In the election Kerry portrayed himself as the intellectual in contrast to Bush.[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_re_us/kerry_grades]][http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/.../07/AR2005060700203.htm] This issue of Bush's academic and intellectual levels were publicized during the 2004 campaign.[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/10/wbush10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/10/ixworld.html] Bush's critics often state that Bush is not intellectually up to the job of being president; even his wife satired his intelligence.."[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384&sourceCode=RSS] Yet, Bush received almost identical grades as John Kerry at Yale, while it was widely known that Kerry portrayed himself in contrast to Bush as the intellectual choice. This fact of the Bush-Kerry election remained sealed until after the 2004 campaign was over.[http://kerryonrecord.blogspot.com/][http://cbsnewyork.com/kcbs/politics/politicsnational_story_158200514.htm] Another further issue was that Kerry questioned Bush's war record while citing his own record of service in Vietnam.
:You're really really missing the point. You ask, "if biographical is not acceptable here, then how can we justify giving an entire paragraph to the ambassador to Romania or about the man in Science outed for bias by the New York Times...." No one said that "biographical" is not acceptable here. The article is a biographical article about Bush. Biographical material about Bush (his appointment of a gay ambassador, a dispute about how his administration dealt with scientific advice, etc.) is acceptable. It's biographical material about ''Kerry'' that's not acceptable. If we were to follow your principle, we'd have to give much more space to Kerry's service record than to his grades. I agree with [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado's]] point about a mischaracterization. Look at Kerry's speeches, website, campaign material, etc., and you'll see that Kerry devoted much, much more energy to contrasting their service records than to contrasting their intelligence. To be proportional, the recounting of Kerry's record in Vietnam would have to be about ten times as long as the recounting of his Yale years. If you believe that a biographical article about Bush must include all the pros and cons of the 2004 election, then we'd also have to include Kerry's position on major issues like tax cuts. And, if we go that route, on what basis could we limit this election rehashing to 2004? Wouldn't we have to give Al Gore's military service record, too? Gore was in Vietnam, but, for balance, we'd have to explain that he was in the military as a journalist, and there are conflicting allegations about whether his work ever put him in any danger. Also, speaking of Bush's comparative intelligence, we'd have to note that many people saw Gore as being more intelligent than Bush because Gore had written a book. And then, of course, to refute that, anything negative we can find about Gore's academic career would go in. Oops, wait a minute, I've been thinking only about the major-party candidates. We need some space for how Ralph Nader criticized both of them, right?
:Pity the poor reader who just wants to know something about the President of the United States and finds the information buried amidst all this election rehashing. It's an absolutely absurd path to start down. There's no reason for putting Kerry's college grades in this article except that people who dislike Kerry made such a big deal about the transcript. The information is in the Kerry article. Trying to stick it in here is pure POV. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 01:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
::Pity the reader that wants to read facts and not editorials. As previously stated Mr. Lane, you will not and cannot offer facts to back up your opinion, something you have been criticized repeatedly for in the past. You back me up by stating, "Biographical material about Bush (his appointment of a gay ambassador, a dispute about how his administration dealt with scientific advice, etc.) is acceptable." How about biographical material that states Bush's academic position in relationship to his 2004 campaign as ALL of my sources state, was and is a major issue (where are your sources besides your opinion)? Disputes and appointments are acceptable, but the news is not? Where is that logic. You can talk about the slippery slope, but that is absurd UNLESS you offer valid criticism. I'm not talking about Ralph Nader or minor politics: I discussed how all major media outlets, including those with pro-Kerry slants, thought this was a significant issue. This is biographical material just as the Texans for Truth is. Yet, that is here and this isn't. You think balance is elusive and offer ridiculous arguments to state why there is no way we can't be balanced. Balance can be had. Look at the Kerry article you cite: it has criticisms and scandal (though it woefully downplays the 2004 election), but they are done discreetly and as an aside. Why don't you want a MAJOR issue brought forth? Certainly you don't claim to have a monopoly on deciding major and minor issues and all the news organizations are wrong? Once again, you offer no facts, but instead go on a long tirade why you feel this is about people that dislike Kerry. That is your spin -- I am offering concrete facts offered by ALL major media outlets, includint outside of the US. GIVE EVIDENCE MR. Lane to refute this. One piece.
::As far as including everything, that is not the point. The point is that if you offer criticism and, or an issue, at least have the moral decency to recognize that the other side must be presented UNLESS you are writing an editorial. Just the facts, and you have none except as listed (you own political agenda to subordinate this to "dislike of Kerry). That is your spin. Not mine. Back in until you can give a FACT that makes this a minor issue. Anon David
:::Just because something is factual doesn't mean its appropriate, David. I personally am abstaining from whether or not the information should be included here, but just because something is true, does not mean it fits the scope of the article. James does have a point in saying that this is a biographical article about George W. Bush, not a page comparing John Kerry to George W. Bush. If you must have this information comparing John Kerry to George W. Bush in grades, this opens the floodgates for any comparison at all to John Kerry. I believe that a much greater issue during the campaign was each candidate's military record. Should we preface every mention on this article about Bush's military service with "Unlike Kerry who actually served in combat, Bush pussed out of the war because of his daddy's connections"? That is a much greater issue than the grades each of them got. The issue over gay marriage was also greater than their grades (arguably greater than their military service)... should we preface Bush's stance on gay marriage, if not all issues, with "Unlike Kerry, Bush believes..."? In fact, we can preface each sentence in this article with "Unlike John Kerry, Bush did..." but I don't think that's the road we want to go down.
:::And secondly, I don't think anyone who edits on Wikipedia frequently and knows James has ever criticized him for not offering facts to back up his opinion. He is probably one of the most highly regarded editors on most pages he contributes to. Your style of discussion here despite apologizing earlier is still a highly combative tone towards these editors. While James may disagree with you, I don't find any cause in his response to warrant these aggressive responses from you. Chill out, bro. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 02:41, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your kind words, kizzle. I hope I don't undermine your praise by saying that I'm going to make one more try, and then I'll probably have to stop spending time trying to reason with the anon. I've explained the point. You've explained it. Others have joined in. The anon is just not paying attention.
::::David, I don't understand what kind of "EVIDENCE" you think is missing. My point is that this is not an article about the 2004 election. It's an article about George W. Bush. If you want the evidence, scroll all the way up to the top of this page and look at the title of the talk page. Perhaps you mean you want evidence of my contention that, in the 2004 campaign, comparisons of the two major candidates' records in the Vietnam War played a role. If that's your request, I simply can't take it seriously. "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty" -- does that ring a bell? Kerry's campaign website had a whole page titled [http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/service.html "John Kerry in Vietnam"]. On the other side, anti-Kerry veterans attacked him on his service record by publishing a book that became a best-seller, and with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign (four TV ads). See [[Swift Vets and POWs for Truth]]. How much space do you propose to devote to John Kerry's Vietnam record in the Bush article? I suppose we'd have to at least mention each of Kerry's five medals. The Swift Vets were particularly riled at his Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony, which also received much more attention in the campaign than did anyone's grades at Yale, so do you favor a sentence or two about that? This isn't a slippery slope; it's walking right over the edge of a cliff. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 03:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
::::James, I wish I would have seen this earlier. You've explained your view, others have joined you -- it isn't that I'm not paying attention, but I am not going to be swayed by what some one else says unless they can back it up. First, they say Bush's intelligence in light of the disclosure of Kerry's record isn't even about Bush. Yet, no media agrees, and the pollsters and people in the know (read the articles, don't believe me) disagree with your contention. Secondly, I ask for evidence why it is irrelevant yet other 2004 Election issues are relevant (even the claim that this isn't about the 2004 election is ridiculous: there is a section titled 2004 election that offers more historical facts than even I care to read). I think it is preposterous to pick and choose, and I think this is so obvious is not debatable. Thirdly, and as my sources point out, the Vietnam record does not seem to be an issue right now (though there are apparently daughter sites that are taking care of them), but this was, is, and appears will be because it talks about a well known issue much larger than John Kerry. Finally, I am not contending that there isn't criticism on other pages, but I do believe that it can be balanced. I desperately wanted someone to use logic to say, "Hey, wait a minute. This isn't fair -- in one place it is great to talk about Bush and the 2004 election but in another place we just say look at the title, this isn't John Kerry's site (last I checked, it wasn's Texans for Truth's either), and irrelevant. That certainly isn't balanced, fair, or even neutral to talk about some things and leave key facts out." Alas, I didn't get this, and that is the point. If you bring up the bad, then be willing to hear the good and vice versa. If you do a little of one thing, don't judge what is and isn't acceptable. That's right: walking over the edge is missing things like the SEC, Cooney, the governorship, and many other slants (such as one 2004 election is acceptable but another belongs on another page; NO logic there no matter how long you argue). Either get truthful and offer both sides equitably, or expect this kind of a problem. I will even conclude with what you said about, "Hi, I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for service." If you added one statement like that or anything skewed, then yes, I would quickly add that he didn't even get a scratch from a purple heart. Why? Only the whole truth is the truth; leaving things out that are relevant is unacceptable. I still like such spirited debates, though I am paying attention, my arguments were never answered beyond opinions and quibblings. Anon David
:::::I know I said I wasn’t going to try to explain this again but, frankly, I just cannot understand why you miss this point, and especially why you keep raising the same argument and not responding to what everyone else has told you.
:::::*“First, they say Bush's intelligence in light of the disclosure of Kerry's record isn't even about Bush. Yet, no media agrees, and the pollsters and people in the know (read the articles, don't believe me) disagree with your contention.” False. The media reported this as a fact likely to interest many people. They also reported it when, earlier this year, Kerry authorized release of his military records. I never denied that some people were very interested in these facts, and that’s all your citations prove.
:::::*“Secondly, I ask for evidence why it is irrelevant yet other 2004 Election issues are relevant....” You have been told that over and over and over. This is not an article about the election. It’s an article about Bush. Things that relate to Bush, like his military record, belong in it. Things that don’t relate to Bush, like Kerry’s heroism in Vietnam or Nader’s exclusion from the debates, may be quite relevant to the election and yet not relevant to Bush.
:::::**Incidentally, that fundamental point also explains why your deletion of the jobs information is wrong. Bush supporters wanted to point out that there was not a net loss of jobs during his first term. That's a fact about his presidency -- ''Bush's'' presidency. It's relevant to this article. Whether it's presented with the side comment that it's a point Kerry was attacking on (before the post-election jobs data) isn't all that important, but I think it's helpful to give the context of the fact. Even if Kerry had never mentioned it, though, it would be an appropriate fact for the Bush bio.
:::::*“Thirdly ....” I’m not quoting your third point because I have no idea what you’re trying to say and hence no response.
:::::*“Finally, I am not contending that there isn't criticism on other pages, but I do believe that it can be balanced.” Yes, it’s balanced. The Bush article mentions the charge that Bush ducked service in Vietnam, and links to a daughter article about it. The Kerry article mentions the charge that Kerry didn’t deserve his Vietnam medals, and links to a daughter article about it. The Bush article doesn’t mention Kerry’s medals. The Kerry article doesn’t mention Bush’s National Guard record. Equal treatment!
:::::Although it’s totally irrelevant to this article, I yield to the temptation to note that your charge that Kerry “didn't even get a scratch from a purple heart” is false.
:::::I'm willing to see significant information about Bush, including information about his intelligence, in the article. Comparing his grades to one among millions of other college students is not significant, however. Your argument seems to be that comparing him to Kerry is significant because Kerry raised the issue. Even if Kerry had done so, that wouldn't make this specific comparison particularly illuminating as to Bush. In addition, though, the premise that Kerry emphasized the point is wrong. Here's the passage in the article (which I think is from you or somebody modifying your work, I can't keep track when you edit anonymously and we have so much anonymous vandalism): "This became a source of contention during the 2004 election with his opponents stating that Bush was less intelligent than his Democratic challenger." I've tried to follow all the citations. My results:
:::::*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_re_us/kerry_grades - page not found
:::::*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/.../07/AR2005060700203.htm - “Forbidden. Your client is not allowed to access the requested object.”
:::::*[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/10/wbush10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/10/ixworld.html] - no support for the implication that Kerry stated that Bush was less intelligent; the article refers generally to “Democratic derision for the intellect of President George W Bush” and uses passive voice for most of its other references
:::::*http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384&sourceCode=RSS - passive voice again, “Much was made” about Bush’s grades, no indication that Kerry raised the argument.
:::::*http://cbsnewyork.com/kcbs/politics/politicsnational_story_158200514.htm - “Site Error. An error was encountered while publishing this resource.”
:::::I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry made some offhand comment along these lines, but it wasn't a major theme of his campaign. Hence, your statement on this talk page - “Kerry portrays himself as the intellectual choice compared to Bush...” - is not supported by your citations. Nor would it be relevant even if it were supported. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::I'll get more sources if needed, though widely known. Once again, balance. It is fine to mention Kerry's supporters when talking about the economy, but not fine when talking about Kerry's supporters with Bush's intelligence. What's the difference? When dealing with me, you say this isn't about Kerry and delete. When talking about the economy, you say this is about Kerry and put it back in. Where is the balance there unless you were writing for the Democratic National Convention? Both talk about Kerry's supporters, yet you think one should be included and the other shouldn't? One 2004 election issue can be included about the National Guard, but the other can't 2004 election issue about intellect cannot. The intellect can't because this article isn't about the 2004 election or about Bush (then who are they talking about?), but the other 2004 election material can even though you say it should be on another page. That is not fair: I don't want opinions, I want to know why someone believes they can offer a neutral point of view by claiming that they can talk about some 2004 issues and not others; they can talk about a person at sometimes and not others; and then claim this is fair. PLEASE just be balanced, factual, and parallel.
::::::Just ask: If nothing is to be said about Kerry, does including the unreferenced Kerry piece about the economy violate your own claim? A resounding yes, though I'm sure someone will get on here and tell me the talk about Kerry's supporters isn't about Kerry's supporters, and I'll call them doublespeak.
==Spam?==
::::::Just ask: if nothing is to be said about the 2004 election, does including the National Guard without just raising the allegation violate your own claim? A resounding yes, for it is pure fiction to state that this Kerry is not the subject of the article but Texans for Truth is (both are leveling criticism of Bush before, during, and after the election about Bush's early years). Once again, doublespeak: someone believes they and they alone decide the relevance of what to include and what not. I believe my contribution can be taken out, but then take out the other 2004 issue and Kerry issue OR give a brief synopsis of both and leave it at that. Otherwise, tell me and anyone that reads this that no 2004 material or Kerry material is supposed to be on this site EXCEPT the 2004 material and the Kerry economic material you want. That has to be indefensible, and lastly, a POV because it helterskelter presents arguments.
About the recently added "SYRIA" link pointing to http://www.sptechs.com/ : I don't read Arabic, but I have a strong feeling that it's the home page of a web design company, and - therefore - link-spam. Any Arabic-speaking(+reading) person around? [[User:Tarvin|TroelsArvin]] 13:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
: Yeah, it's spam. removed it and several more links. --[[User:Ayman|Ayman]] 12:04, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::::::Anon David
== External links ==
:::::::What perhaps irks me the most is that I can't resist the temptation to keep trying to explain to you what I think is a very simple point, although, by now, it's admittedly illogical for me to think that I'll get through to you.
:::::::*You say you can get "more sources", but so far you have provided no sources for the assertions/implications (1) that a significant component of Kerry's campaign was the portrayal of Bush as a dimwit and (2) that Kerry's Yale grades played any significant role in the election. Of course, even those aren't really relevant. The key is that you've provided no reason to believe that, of all the many things that could be said about Bush's intelligence, a report of someone else's college grades is an important one. You've shown only that the mass media, which gravitate toward the superficial, thought the post-election information about Kerry's grades would interest the public. Well, they were probably judging their market correctly, but that doesn't resolve our question. It doesn't mean that Kerry's transcript, which tells a serious reader virtually nothing about Bush's intelligence, somehow becomes encyclopedic for this article.
:::::::*You say, "It is fine to mention Kerry's supporters when talking about the economy, but not fine when talking about Kerry's supporters with Bush's intelligence. What's the difference?" There is no blanket prohibition on mentioning Kerry. The test of any point isn't whether Kerry is in it; the test is whether it's an appropriate addition to a biography of George W. Bush. The bio of Bush can reasonably include notable facts and opinions about his performance on economic issues over the last four years, as well as notable facts and opinions about his intelligence. In the area of economics, the overall jobs figure qualifies. That Joe Schmo of South Succotash lost his job during Bush's term, and is still unemployed, might be true, and relevant to the question of economic performance, but it's so marginal and uninformative about Bush's record that it doesn't qualify. In the area of Bush's intelligence, I can go along with including his college grades here, although I personally think that grades are of limited importance and that even Bush's own transcript is only marginally informative. Including someone else's college grades is so peripheral that it's like reporting that Joe lost his job.
:::::::*Several related comments of yours:
:::::::**"One 2004 election issue can be included about the National Guard, but the other can't 2004 election issue about intellect cannot. The intellect can't because this article isn't about the 2004 election or about Bush (then who are they talking about?), but the other 2004 election material can even though you say it should be on another page."
:::::::**"Just ask: if nothing is to be said about the 2004 election, does including the National Guard without just raising the allegation violate your own claim?"
:::::::**"Don't talk about the 2004 election, I'm told." (further below)
:::::::You're completely wrong when you impute to me or anyone else the view that "this article isn't about ... Bush". The whole point is that it ''is'' about Bush. Similarly, no one has ever contended that "nothing is to be said about the 2004 election". Please note what I actually said: "Things that relate to Bush, like his military record, belong in it. Things that don’t relate to Bush, like Kerry’s heroism in Vietnam or Nader’s exclusion from the debates, may be quite relevant to the election and yet not relevant to Bush." Whether a particular topic relates to the 2004 election is, like the question whether it relates to Kerry, irrelevant to determining whether it belongs in this article. The test is whether it relates to Bush. The TANG issue relates to Bush. Kerry's grades and Vietnam medals don't (unless, in the latter case, we were getting into a greater level of detail about, for example, Bush's comments on Kerry's war record, which is about Bush but which is too minor for inclusion).
:::::::Incidentally, for all your commentary on this subject, you still haven't answered points about specifics. If this article should mention Kerry's Yale transcript, should it also mention that he was awarded five medals in Vietnam? Should it also mention that Al Gore served in Vietnam? I say "of course not" to including such points. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 15:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I wonder why syriaonline.com ,syriagate.com are still in the External links .while other several usefull links , is considered spam !! .
:::I like disagreements and different view points. I do not mind taking this out except there should be more than Mr. Lane's claim of this as a dislike for Kerry. You even mention prefacing Bush's war record, which is hotly debated. Mr. Lane will say that this belongs on the daughter page and hence has been taken care of; me personally, I think there are several issues there, just like difficulty with Kerry's actual combat experience (my POV: Bush had political favoritism and Kerry's medals are suspect) and would love to include them. I believe this is less about Kerry and more about the issue that is all over: Bushisms, Bush's intelligence, Bush's lack of understanding, and his poor grades. This is not prefacing a minor issue, but one his critics often raise, including Kerry. We can take Kerry's name out and say, "During the 2004 election his major opponent contended," but it would be ridiculous. As for opening flood gates, that is valid only if a major issue -- the difference is this issue about intelligence is about Bush even viewed independently from the election, while others might not. (Note: the gay marriage issue has been stated in the article.)
: I'm sick of the fight over external links here, and the number of hosting companies links, to end this, we only have 2 links now, SANA and the Syrian Ministry of Tourisim, both are official sites, and can be useful for those interested in more info about Syria. No need for hosting companies links, or local newspapers in Arabic, is everyone happy now? -[[User:Ayman|Ayman]] 01:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:::Still, please attack me and my editing: I actually like such spirited debates when accompanied by factual claims and the end result is balance. I feel that it has to be combative because it is difficult to counter someone's opinion and easy to hide behind facts and the truth. Sure, I don't believe Bush is smarter. I at least can admit that I can't prove it. It is okay to discredit his military service because hopefully the reader will examine the daughter page (would never pass in a professional setting because it is an assumption that people will take the time to critically view the slant on the page). It is okay to talk about Bush's grades, even make it a centerpiece on the Laura Bush site when discussing her satirical speech, but it is not okay here. I don't get it. There are not floodgates to be opened: they are open and over-running us already. Why would we want to cite the 1876 and 1888 election but not a major issue still spoken of in all major media outlets (God, how I love the [[Saturday Night Live]] parody of Bush being asked to give a word that describes him and he states, "strategery"). Don't make this about Kerry (who unwittingly is the foil because he played off of this issue), but about something the media and people question: Bush's intelligence. Until then, let's not say "ridiculous" and "pity" and "absurd" (the mud slinged first from Mr. Lane) and decide: are Bushisms and his intelligence really a major issue? If not, refute. If so, I guess it stays. Either way, the article wins. Anon David
== Iskenderun is disputed ==
:::::I assert a point of personal privilege to cut in ahead of kizzle's response. David, you charge me with mudslinging.
:::::* "ridiculous": The word appears in one post of mine on this page, where I said that the article should quote verbatim Bush's use of it. It appears in five posts of yours (at least I think they're yours), including "It is ridiculous to pass it off as fact"; "Now that is RIDICULOUS to not post!"; and "You think balance is elusive and offer ridiculous arguments".
:::::* "pity": I expressed pity for a reader who has difficulty finding desired information; no mudslinging there.
:::::* "absurd": I said that a particular way of writing the article (going off on Kerry and Gore tangents) would be absurd. By [[Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 24#St. Augustine's take on edit wars|my lights]] that's about the article, not about you, so it's not a personal attack or mudslinging.
:::::OK, now back to the discussion about what should be in the article. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 06:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm restoring the border dispute with Turkey over [[Iskenderun]] to the opening paragraph (it was previously removed by an anon user). See e.g. this [http://www.syriatourism.org/new/modules.php?op=modload&name=Subjects&file=index&req=viewpage&pageid=834&newlang=eng map] at the official site of the Syrian Ministry of Tourism, which clearly shows Iskenderun as part of Syria. [[User:Uriber|-- uriber]] 12:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::''You even mention prefacing Bush's war record, which is hotly debated. Mr. Lane will say that this belongs on the daughter page and hence has been taken care of''
:::No, I think both of us would say that Bush's daughter article should be a study on what we know about Bush, not how Bush's record differs from Kerry's.
::::''We can take Kerry's name out and say, "During the 2004 election his major opponent contended," but it would be ridiculous.''
:::This is irrelevant, the point is that this article ''is not a comparison piece but a biographical piece.
::::''(Note: the gay marriage issue has been stated in the article.)''
:::Yes, but note that it doesn't compare it to Kerry's stance on civil unions, and that was an extremely major issue between the two. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 03:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::''Still, please attack me and my editing: I actually like such spirited debates when accompanied by factual claims and the end result is balance.''
:::I am not attacking you, I am saying be a little less aggressive in disagreeing with people. Stick your advice, state the facts and keep the rest of the fluff out.--[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 03:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::I'm not making a comparison piece; I'm talking about the 2004 election and a major issue. To my knowledge, both candidates war records' have daughter sites and, or major sections. To my knowledge, civil unions are fully portrayed on each persons' site and, or on a separate article. That takes care of the prefacing. I don't want a comparison, I want to point out that Bush's intelligence (well, really lack of) is the major point that needs to be addressed. Only Kerry has to be brought up here. I still think it is appropriate because to not do so ignores much of the entire claim. What I do believe would be healthier and more balanced (though currently I'm working on another Bush section) would be to reduce the amount of info about the issue (e.g., one to two sentences maximum on the issue). I think, as you state that this is a biographical piece, that it would not be neutral and as thorough as possible if not included. Besides asking for refutation, it comes down to: would a biography print this? The answer most assuredly has to be a resounding yes. Also, this article is not a comparison piece, but it does talk about hundreds of peoples and events. No one is saying give in-depth concern to Michael Guest or Bill Graham BECAUSE it just so happens that neither are at the center of a major controversy surrounding President Bush. If they were, it would be highly opinionated to gloss over the issue (e.g., just state Bush's academic record without criticism, something not down with gay marriages or his war record), ignore it and hope it goes away, or give a brief discussion. Let's take Monica Lewinsky out of the Clinton article, after all, it isn't a comparison piece . . . I'm being facetious in pointing out that when someone or something is at the center of a major debate that is difficult if impossible to discuss without the someone or something, then they must be drawn in (hence, Bush's military record and position on gay marriages most certainly can be discussed without Clinton's, Reagan's, Gore's, or Kerry's viewpoint). Why should this be any different? Remember, just the facts, just the facts. This is an important issue, let's treat it as such UNLESS it can be done differently (though why not give one paragraph about the campaign; if people disagree, follow the links or do an Internet search, but at least leave with the impression that the article is balanced and factural). Anon David
:If you look at the [[Hatay Province]] article you'll see that it states that Syria does no longer lay claim to the province. I don't have any sources and no time right now, so perhaps somebody can verify this?
This is just silly. If you want to make an article about the 2004 campaign, by all means do it. We really could use an article like that. Here's a model: [[George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000]]. Stick in GPA's, service records, penile measurements, and maybe ''even'' something about positions on the issues. But, it's absurd to write about John Kerry's GPA in the main article about Bush. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 04:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:::hmm, apparently one already exists [[[George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2004]], though i didn't notice a link in the main article. anyway, put campaign trivia somewhere like that. i hear kerry is better at checkers. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 04:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:Fine, this is silly. But the Texans for Truth is not silly to be mentioned. Why one thing explicitly about the 2004 election acceptable but another isn't? By what standard. Then follow your own model: remove both or leave both in. That is the floodgate that has been opened: selective use of 2004 election material (where ever it might be placed). Can you please explain why one thing is aburd but another isn't (e.g., Texans for Truth is acceptable but Kerry isn't; examine the facts: more people are familiar with this widespread issue than the Texans for Truth). Just be balanced. Anon David
::because Texans for Truth is '''about BUSH'''. Kerry's GPA is not. how's that? [[User:Derex|Derex]] 04:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Texans for Truth is "about Bush," Kerry portrays himself as the intellectual choice compared to Bush as does much of the media. NOTE: Bush was compared by KERRY and made a target of the campaign. That means it is also about Bush. How's that? Please see citations in main article also stating this is about Bush (hence every major media outlet thinks this is about Bush). (Still, I think the Texans for Truth are about politics, and Bush just happened to be the presidential candidate.) Anon David
::::true, most people do think bush is intellectually mediocre. however, that's probably based more on his actions rather than his gpa, which is merely symbolic. moreover, this view was widespread ''long'' before the 2004 campaign. kerry's grades are entirely tangential to this widespread & longstanding belief that the president is a tad dim. (which, btw i don't actually agree with. he's actually just closed-minded, insular, & arrogant.) [[User:Derex|Derex]] 04:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::You say tangential because the anon just hasn't joined in. I do want to agree, and proposed an edit that is fair and balanced. I just can't joing in absent fact, I can't make the media go away that believes much of this issue centers around Kerry and reports it as such even if you don't, and it can't be balanced to talk about criticism on page of National Guard but no Academics (for one you use Texans for Truth to support criticism, while the other criticism you clain can't be brought up). I can't join in that. It just wouldn't be fair. If you had said that the Texans for Truth wouldn't be brought up either because it is on a different site, that would be one thing. But, alas, you didn't, which sends the direct message that point A on the 2004 election is relevant and point B on the 2004 election is irrelevant, though both are factual and both were originally offered in the same section (though that is obvious terrible editing to include the 2004 election in Bush's early years). That is why my edit tried to bring about parallelism on how the subject is treated. It is a shame that there isn't a separate heading for criticism, as in the Kerry article. Indeed, there are criticisms on everything, but a right time and place. I just don't know how anyone can claim it is fair to provide criticism with links on the 2004 election in one instance but not another. Whether we like it or not, just as Arthur Blessit, Laura Bush, and Billy Graham are not the focus of the article, they have to be presented if you want balance (though I am assuming Blessit is legitimate). Please stop making a dismissal out of hand about this is about Bush and not Kerry . . . that argument fails because that would mean everyone else could be dropped too (believe it or not, all have dealings with Bush and are treated as such). Anon David
:::::::''I can't make the media go away that believes much of this issue centers around Kerry and reports it as such even if you don't''
::::::Why does this issue merit comparison with Kerry but gay marriage does not? What other issues on this page need comparison with Kerry, specifically, in your mind? Does Kerry's grades on his page need to be compared to Bush's record? Do we need to go previous to Bill Clinton, H.W. Bush, and Reagan to compare them to their opponents on major issues and include these comparison phrases not only in these president's pages, but their opponent's pages as well? Since a candidate's stances on issues is all important to differing themselves to the rest of the field, do we need to compare all of Bush's, Clinton's, Reagan's issues with the stances of their opponents, and conversely include them in their opponents pages as well? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 05:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::::Well, I don't hear much about gay marriages now that the election is over (not that it has by any means gone away), though I wouldn't have any problem ith well written, balanced facts to give the reader more on the current president. Still, you say this is a comparison with Kerry, when it is like responding to the criticism of the Texans for Truth. Still, that issue does not plague Bush like his intelligence and still constant barage about his use of the English languae. So yes, Bush's grades are put down on this site and then you move on. Bush's National Guard record is put down on this site and then you move on . . . no, you don't you offer 2004 election information. That is why issues like this should be brought up (though I have edited the article to make this moot to me because both are now treated the same way, which is my contention all along and what should be discussed now).
::::::Concerning everyone else's viewpoint, if the issue is raised or some issues are raised but not others (especially one that is currently reported frequently like Bush's lack of intellect), then yes, that would be only fair (or else you could remove the other criticism and relegate it to another page). As stated laboriously on this page, if criticisms are offered in part, then it would only be fair to give responses to other sections . . . otherwise it is totally slanted. I didn't bring this issue up as a comparison to Kerry; please read the citations that make the case for the intellect of the president compared to his detractors (of course, that is what an editor wanted down with the Texans for Truth point). So, it is really that simple for me: be fair, factual, and corroborate. If point A (Texans) can be mentioned in connection with the 2004 election, then it is slant to exclude point B (Bush's intellect, which of course can stand independently of the election) in connection with the 2004 election. Why one and not the other? Maybe one is negative. Maybe one doesn't want to hear it. Maybe one is concerned about "opening the floodgates." Well, let's be concerned about getting it right.
:In any case, I would have to say that the border at Bab al-Hawa looks very permanent.
:::::::::''If point A (Texans) can be mentioned in connection with the 2004 election, then it is slant to exclude point B (Bush's intellect, which of course can stand independently of the election) in connection with the 2004 election. Why one and not the other?''
::::::::Point A must be understand directly to Bush, as Texans entire purpose of existence is because of Bush. Point B must be mentioned, of course, but it does not necessarily need to be mentioned in the context of what John Kerry's intellect. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 05:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:--Stefan [[User:63.243.163.194|63.243.163.194]] 17:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Kizzle, let me redirect exactly the contention of the artcile. Here are a few more facts to spruce it up: Point A must be understood directly to Bust, as Texans in the 2004 election entire purpose of existence is because of Bush. Point B must be mentioned, of course, but it does not necessarily need to be mentioned in the contex of John Kerry's intellect in the 2004 election. Yet, both exist in the media and the polls for the same reason, and I think that is obvious. If Kerry & supporters hadn't made it an issue or Kerry wasn't the nominee, it would never have been an issue now. So, it has everything to do with Kerry because he made it about him. Still, I have changed them to be parallel. Since you do not want this to be about Kerry, I removed the following paragraph as well, "After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry supporters continued to criticize Bush as the first American president since [[Herbert Hoover]] to preside over a net loss of jobs during his term. With the subsequent November and December numbers, however, Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs during his first term," under the Economic Section. Believe it or not, this is much easier: remove all this spin instead of countering it -- which is what I fully intended to do to balance this article. If you want, add this paragraph in the 2004 Election page, not section. Anon David
::::::::PLease sign your posts after you get a user page...it is very difficult for others to see your work...thanks.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 07:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
== Syria was not always an Arab country. ==
:::::::this is simply incorrect. everyone already thought bush was a retard the first time around (2000). do you ''really'' need that documented, or were you not paying attention? it was ''hardly'' a new criticism in the 2004 campaign. that's why kerry is tangential. if anything, gore's grades are more relevant (and they're not either). [[User:Derex|Derex]] 06:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Syria and Lebanon, just like many other countries in the Middle East, were invaded by the Arab's and Muslims who forced the natives to convert to Islam or suffer. The real native people are not Arabs, they are of mixed Syriac (Aramaic), Greek, Roman, and Crusader blood. CHRISTIANS WHO ARE SYRIANS AND LEBANESE ARE NOT ARABS!
==Science: Phillip A. Cooney and the Art of the Spin==
:Thank you for your comment: it has been noted. [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 11:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Come on guys, let's try to be balanced. I wish others that are worried about biographies would have pointed this out, but hey, I'd love to: ". . . and is due to start work for ExxonMobil in the fall of 2005. Prior to working for the Bush Administration, Cooney was a lawyer and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, an industry lobbying organization which has, since 1997, opposed emissions limits by claiming that there was too much uncertainty in climate science" is currently in the article and has nothing to do with Bush except to discredit Cooney. Hardly necessary in this paper.
::What an ignorant comment. I really take offense when people try to tell me what or who i am or where i belong. Syrians are a mix of all those people, yes, but there is an ARAB component in them too. Check out the [[Ghassanids]], the [[Nabataeans]]. Please don't try to tell us what we are, and whether we want to be associated as arabs or not. There is no such thing as "real native people" of a land when so much mixing occurs. And i hope i have proven you wrong that there are christian arabs, yes, RACIAL ARABS. Your bigoted comments about islam are stupid.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 05:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I have never made a bad or bigoted statement on Islam. I only said that the Arabs forced the Byzantine Christians to convert to Islam, in addition, the invading Arabs gave the non-Arab Christians another choice to pay a 10% tax which is reffered to as the Jizyah. Syria and other countries in the Levant were under the Byzantine Empire, the Arabs invaded the non-Arab Syrians and Lebanese during the Arab Conquest of the 7th Century. You say that there are Christians that are racially Arab, show me one. Don't tell me about the Christians in Syria and Lebanon, they are not Arabs, were never Arabs, and will never be Arabs. I'm talking about countries like Saudi Arabia (who are the real Arabs). Not one Saudi is a Christian. By the way, many Muslims in Syria and Lebanon are non-Arabs as well. There are "real native people (Even if they're mixed)." For example, in the United States, many American Indians, who are the natives of America are mixed with the whites, but that doesn't take them out of the Native American category. Whether you consider yourself an Arab or not is entirely up to you, but I know for sure that the Syrians and Lebanese are not Arabs. I'm so sorry to say that you did not prove anything. No effence, the only thing you were doing was just ranting. Before you dispute anybody or anything, check your references and most importantly check your history. Let's not be hostile, call each other names, and accuse one another of being ignorant, bigoted or stupid. [[Byzantine Empire]], and the [[History of Greece]] will show you where I'm at.--[[User:66.81.173.40|66.81.173.40]] 08:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yet, the author used a source no one vetted. Guess where this quote came from: "Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy." You guessed it, source 43 in the article.[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?ei=5090&en=22149dc70c0731d8&ex=1275883200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1121129905-7fK4w9nYOdSfnrNNy7tbjQ] Why then left out? I promised Kizzle not to speculate, though to be fair it also said, "But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions." (Note: GREAT! This does exactly what I've been crying for all along -- it prefaces its remarks with the word CRITICS instead of facts.) Even the other source says, "Last week, the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that helps whistle blowers(my insert: Rick Pilt), made available documents showing that Cooney was closely involved in final editing of two administration climate reports. He made changes that critics said consistently played down the certainty of the science surrounding climate change."[http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/15/cooney.exxon.ap/] The same site quotes Mr. Piltz, the whistle blower, as saying, ""Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."
:::Arab culture and history is more than just Islam. The people of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq etc are clearly Arabs (whether they are christians, muslims or do not follow a religion): They use the Arabic language, they share the same history and destiny and they see themselves as Arab etc etc.
We need to stop sounding like editorials and more like disinterested editors trying to portray the truth (and everyone loves the salacious and the sexual). There is no "proved" to "undermine consensus" (see the [[Oregon Petition]] and [[Fred Singer]] to dispel the ludicrous notion of scientific consensus on the greenhouse theory). But we can't just insert facts where ever we want. It is also disturbing that I repeatedly have to justify myself (based on the truth) while many just wave their wand, throw salt over their shoulders, or make a brief opinion why they are justified and I am not. Just the facts, please, just the facts. Bye bye Cooney UNTIL some sad soul can resurrect the story with actual facts. Anon David
:::This is not to say people may also have other identities. As for your allegations of forced conversion, you need to provide sources before making such a statement. The process of change in the religious makeup in the region took place over many centuries and involved many different groups (Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols etc). Most likely a complicated picture emerges. The tax referred to is of course a fact, part of history. Many of the leading figures of Arab Nationalism like for instance Michel Aflaq are from 'Christian' families. Aflaq was Syrian by the way. You might want to read some of the books on Arab history: The books by Albert Hourani and Philip Hitti are the introductions most widely read.. [[User:Tiller1|Tiller1]] 11:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::66.81.173.40, i have already shown you that there were arabs in the area that is syria over 800 years before the coming of Islam. The [[Ghassanids]] were Yemenis who arrived in southern syria and adopted christianity. The [[Nabataeans]] arabic people who moved north to Syria and settled down and built a great civilization. Therefore there were racial Arab christians, and i don't really care about your claim that not one Saudi is christian because that has nothing to do with the topic. Also, to your claim that i was just ranting, it seems that you did the same. At least i provided sources.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 14:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not denying that there were real Arabs who were at the time Christians, but that was many centuries ago. It's kind of interesting to see that the Ghassanids and the Nabataeans settled in Horan. You forgot to mention Busra, which happened to be a great Christian Byzantine city that was the first to fall to the Arab invasion, and the Christians of that city ran away far to the mountians which is known as Wada Nassara, and what were these Christians, for sure they were not Arabs, they were Byzantine Greco-Roman-Aramaic Christians. Michel Aflaq, who was a famous Arab Nationalist was Greek Orthodox which happens to indicate that he was ethnically Greek. Arab today defines people who just mostly speak Arabic, nothing else. Just because somebody speaks English does not mak him English, just because somebody speaks French does not make him French, and most importantly just because somebody speaks Arabic does not make him an Arab. Please wake up! There my have been real Arab Christians in the past, such as the Ghassanids and the Nabataeans, just like you pointed out Yuber, but eventually these real Arab Christians converted to Islam and there decendants are no longer Christians.--[[User:66.81.174.130|66.81.173.40]] 21:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Someone mentioned later on that I removed the Cooney paragraph because it does not have a NPOV, and to accomplish this, you have to add to it. That is what I wanted done concerning Bush's academic history, just as was done with his military record, but it wasn't acceptable to provide info on that POV -- please see lengthy discussions elsewhere. No where up above do I mention I had a problem with the POV or that it needed balanced. I simply did not wish to research the issue after checking the sources offered. Indeed, the original paragraph said "proved." If that was the issue, then case closed. The only problem is, which others would have picked up on if they had read and comprehended what I wrote, is that there is no "proved" or "consensus" from reading the citations. Both articles give much leeway to Mr. Cooney and point out the possible bias with his detractor, working with a liberal think tank. It would have been ethically and morally dishonest to leave in the paragraph that is not supported by the sources it quotes, and then present the other side by the same articles that do challenge different arguments (the articles do have pros and cons, something we see time and time again every where else because they have to be balanced if they expect to be believed). So, I don't have proof for the POV originally presented (which means either sloppy editing or ??), and certainly don't want to present how great Mr. Cooney is for that isn't very much newsworthy for a biography. Also, even if someone goes out and finds a decent testimonial or source about this and presents something factual, then yes, I will use the same sources that the person originally used because they bolster Cooney's argument, not the side that he lied. Still, the information about Cooney's job searches and history belongs elsewhere UNLESS it relates to Bush (which, you never know, it could, but just source it first). Just the facts, please, just the facts. Anon David
:Your argument has degenerated from "There are no racial arabs in syria and lebanon", to "There are no racial arab christians in Syria and Lebanon", to "There might have been racial arab christians but all their descendants converted to Islam". And i'm sorry to say that your last claim is in fact false as well. There are still christian communities in southern syria parts of lebanon whose inhabitants are clear racial arabs that speak arabic and wear traditional arab clothing. This argument is moot, trying to group a certain race with a certain religion and divide the middle east never works out, especially when you don't have your facts straight.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 21:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Spin, spin, spin. This passage is in the Bush article:
:Yuber, the only false claims around here are the comments you have made. I don't know whether at this point and time if there are still real Arab Christian communities in Syria and Lebanon, if there are they are a minority in the Christian community. The main Christians throughout Syria and Lebanon are non-Arabs. When the day comes that you stop being stubborn and hard headed and start to have an open heart in who the real people of Syria and Lebanon are, I'll start to respect your comments. Until then, just check your history correctly from the right sources, then you will discover that you are the one who is false and wrong.
::"While Bush was governor of Texas, he undertook significant legislative changes in the areas of criminal justice, tort law, and school financing. Bush took a hard line on capital punishment, and received much criticism for it. More convicts were executed under his terms than any other Texas governor, although the rate of executions was not unusual for Texas. Although there is much consensus that Bush effected significant changes, there is little consensus as to whether these changes were detrimental or positive in nature. If nothing else, Bush's transformative agenda, in combination with his political and family pedigree, catapulted him onto the national political radar. As the campaigns to succeed Bill Clinton as president began in earnest, Bush emerged as a key figure."
Regards, .--[[User:66.81.173.40|66.81.173.40]]
Just because you speak Arabic, it does not mean you are an Arab! The people of Brazil speak Portugese, does that mean that they are not Brazilians? The people of Argentine speak Spanish, does this mean they have the same culture as those from Spain? Australians speak English, does this make them American? NO. Therefore, Lebanese people who speak Arabic, are right in believing and claiming that they are Lebanese, with a distinct voice and culture.
::It also appears in Answers.com[http://www.answers.com/topic/george-w-bush], Greensky[http://www.greensky.biz/articles/George_W._Bush], All Science Fairs [http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/George_W._Bush], XClimbing [http://www.xclimbing.net/articles/George_W_Bush?mySession=24fb29b938e32c897d24487bb0ddcde4], and many, many more. Why do I point this out? It is another case of material repeated over and over without being properly referenced or even examined.
I am not sure it is the right way to get my posting on the matter. There are several Arabic tribes that are Christians in Syria and Jordan. Even Koweit has a couple of Christian Koweiti families. One of the family members was actually the Koweiti Ambassador in Japan. HE
::The problem? Unsubstantiated statements (that's right, if unsubstantiated, then it must go, though I also believe that minor issues don't have a place either). It is unfortunate that I have to question this when there are several other notable editors that could critically examine everything on here. Here are the problems:
:::1. Says "received much criticism from it." Presumably this should read "received much criticism from death penalty opponents." NOTE: This is neutral and states who is doing the criticism (again, unknown criticism is an opinion). Probably does not have to be referenced, but if not, then cite so we know who.
:::2. The "More convicts . . . although" sentence needs to be viewed in light of him serving two terms (unusual in Texas) and followed by the disclaimer prefaced with although. If true, then state neutrally: if caused by Texas and less by Bush, then probably antecdotal to the Bush article; if caused by Bush, then very much necessry. Point: more/although statements are self-contradictory without hard evidence and taking into consideration the facts. Find a source! (Can't really find the mainstream media offering up such a statement, unless you read some opinion pieces.)
:::3. "Although . . . much consensus . . . little consensus" is a blog UNLESS someone can offer the polls and thoughts of the people out there. Now, I'm not saying that there always need to be polls, but who said this? An empty shell of a statement that offers an unsupported opinion. Personally, being an Illinoisan, I can't rate Bush beyond I know he won with a solid majority in 1994 in Texas and a landslide in 1998 (which still doesn't shed light on his performance as governor). Find a source! (Once again, I can't really find mainstream media sources or polls that would make such an ambiguous statement; indeed, this statement could just about be said about anyone.)
:::4. "If nothing else" begs to make a conclusion of suppositions before it that are not credible. Please by all means undo my edits if and when you can find the facts. Anon David
This is totally fucked up. Why must it be controversial every time ethnicity is being questioned.--[[User:140.144.175.147|140.144.175.147]] 20:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Some quick numbers on Bush's executions ==
As Gareth Hughes has stated in the discussion below, "Syria has been such a historical crossroads for nations of east and west that anything more detailed becomes increadibly complicated and controversial." By the way 140.144.175.147, whoever you are, I would suggest that you don't use any profanity in the talk page. Talk pages here in Wikipedia are for educated discussions, not street talk.--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 23:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is just to give some context and meaning to the assertion that "Bush had more executions than any other Texas governor." Bush was governor from January 17, 1995 to December 21, 2000. During that time, there were 154 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individuals_executed_in_Texas executions in Texas]. Texas has had 344 executions since 1976 (The first one occurring in 1982), so 44.7% of them occurred while Bush was governor.
== Vaccinations? ==
Texas has had 6 governors since 1982 (William Clement's ending in '83), so one might expect the average number of executions to be around (344/6=57.33). Bush's term being about 1.5 times as long as most (re-elected in '98 but left office in 2000) means we should increase our expectations for him to 114.66, and the 154 executions while Bush was governor is about 34.3% higher than average.
I was wondering, if I was to travel to Syria (Damascus in particular), do I need any vaccinations. Many friends of mine said they did not get sick when they went to Syria, and of course many of them did get sick. So what kind of vaccinations should I take if I were to travel to Syria?--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 05:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know where to find total figures for all executions in the state of Texas, but there's at least a few quick numbers. If my math is off anywhere, tell me. [[User:Mr. Billion|Mr. Billion]] 07:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:Proof of vaccinations is not required to enter Syria. As a general rule, it is always best to make sure that your boosters for things like tetanus and hepatitis are all up to date before going travelling. If you are travelling a long way from home, you will be exposed to various bugs that your body isn't familiar with. When in Damascus, eat locally made live yoghurt (not pasteurised): not only is it delicious, but it is a safe way to expose your system to small amounts of the local bacteria. Fruit and vegetables sold in Syria, especially those sold in street markets, often are sprayed with a light disinfectant: it's best to wash fruit and veg before eating or cooking. Otherwise, don't worry too much about it: if you get sick, you get sick. -- [[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 14:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::I fell off of my chair, Mr. Billion. EVERYONE: please take note: Mr. Billion is coming back at me with facts, not conjecture, not judgments, but the hard, cold facts. GREAT! This is what everyone needs to do. By all means, lets put this back into the article, though it would be nice if you did have a citation. I don't believe we need all the numbers beyond Bush had a record setting number of execuations as Texas governor (NOTE: I never contested this statement, I just contested how it could be proven. Anon David
::Make sure your meningococcal booster is up to date as well. Last time i went, all my boosters were up to date, i only drank bottled water, and i still got sick. It's hard to avoid sometimes, but it was only a stomach sickness that lasted about a day.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 16:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::I am not opposed to giving facts, David, I think its unfair that you classify the disagreements on this page as a reluctance on our part to source our opinions. There are more things to consider on Wikipedia than purely whether or not something is factual, like relevancy within scope, significance, and redundancy. This is primarily where at least I differ with your contentions, not whether certain information is true or not. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 14:46, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::Kizzle: I agree with scope and sequence, but in my job I am paid to observe people and report on what they do. Very difficult at first, because it is easy to give your opinion without even realizing it. I am interested in facts, but Kizzle, I want balance, and I think if an issue is treated by presenting the criticism, great, but present the other side (it would be just as wrong to present the supporting conclusions). I think the point that Kerry's supporters' view on the economy is relevant smacks of hypocrisy: worse yet, as I am about to present, a source was never presented. Still, either make the article parallel (if some 2004 material, don't tell me someone else can judge what bbut I can't; if some Kerry, don't take out the part you don't like). IF you notice, that is why I believe my editing meets this criteria because it presents each issue the same way: neutral, just presents the problem, gives a source, and moves on. Someone, please present a compromise (I did: others, like James, are still in either/or more; I'll compromise) Anon David
:::::No offense, and not saying you aren't neutral, but you're about the fifty billionth person to believe that their edits are neutral while everyone else's edits are biased. --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 15:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
== Demographics ==
[[User:63.232.33.176|"Anon David"]], I am not "coming back" at you. I am providing needed context. Your confrontational approach is unnecessary and counterproductive. [[User:Mr. Billion|Mr. Billion]] 18:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to be more specific about the demographics section in the article. When people read that Syria's people are a mix of Semitic and Indo-European peoples, I think we should include what kind of Semitic and Indo-European people. For example, the Semites would be the Arabs, Aramaic people such as Syriac and Assyrian, many Semites in Syria are of Hebrew ancestry. For the Indo-Europeans, we should say that we have Greeks, Romans, etc. Just a thought.--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 09:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==What's relevant and what isn't==
:As evidenced in the discussion above, ethnicity is a tough political question in the Syrian Arab Republic. Being ''Souri'' is considered being Arab, at least by the powers that be. I think it would be better to make the section on Syrian demography a little less specific. Syrian citizenry is mainly a mixture of Arab and Aramaean ancestries, but Syria has been such a historical crossroads for nations of east and west that anything more detailed becomes increadibly complicated and controversial. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 13:51, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've made these edits:
* remove Kerry grades, not relevant to ''this'' article, see prior discussion.
* restore long-standing summary of TANG daughter article, as per Wikipedia policy for spinning off a particular controversy into a daughter article: "In most cases, it is a violation of the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] to specifically break out a ‘controversial’ section without leaving an adequate summary." ([[Wikipedia:Article size#Restructuring and splitting articles]]).
* restore report of pro-Bush POV re jobs report, as discussed above.
There's more yet to be done. For example, the anon denounced the paragraph about Philip A. Cooney on the ground that it presented only one side of the story. On that basis, the anon removed it entirely. This isn't the correct way to achieve NPOV: "Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it." (from [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance]]) I'm just too tired now to deal with this and several other ways in which this article has become much worse than it was a few weeks ago. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 08:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
::This is the first time I see anyone refer to ethnicity in Syria as 'tough', it is an Arab country. May I ask why you have this focus? Is there a political point you are trying to make? 'At least by the powers that be', are you implying people do not really identify as Arab in Syria? Thanks. [[User:Tiller1|Tiller1]] 22:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Whoa, I didn't denounce the Cooney article. First, you think because even if it presented one side, it is ok. No way: that is a POV (why doesn't people realize that you have to be balanced and factual). Secondly, I didn't add to the Cooney article (though by some standards this is Bush's bio, and nothing tangential should be put in). I'm just using the author's own sources to prove that either he or she didn't read them or didn't understand them. This is editorializing (or lying). So, yes, in the face of their own citations, it it indefensible. Instead of talking about how to achieve NPOV or spiralling out of control, someone needs to first source the Cooney viewpoint presented (since there is no credible evidence to back it up) and then present the opposite side. Stop quibbling and complaining and start fact checking and referencing. Anon David
:::It's not so much that ethnicity is "tough", almost all Syrians identify as Arabs (except for obviously Kurds, Armenians, and Circassians). The discussion above was heated because of a claim that there were no racial arabs in Syria. I disproved this claim very easily with links on Wikipedia itself. As for what Syrians themselves think, there is no question that they feel they are different from your average Saudi, Yemeni, or Algerian. Indeed, there is some racism among Syrians against other arabs such as Khalijiay (Gulf Arabs), as there is racism against Palestinians that inhabit many of the refugee camps. So the question is not so much "do Syrians identify as Arab", but rather it is the pre-islamic history of Syria that is a tough question. For example, queen Zenobia of Palmyra (featured on some Syrian currency) is referred to as an "Arab Queen" in Syria. However, it is obvious to anyone who has read the history of Palmyra, that she was a Roman woman who had nothing to do with Arabs.Yuber 23:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not mentioning Kerry's grades; I'm just pointing out a 2004 election issue, like is pointed out in the National Guard summary. One 2004 issue is relevant (and out of the news) and one isn't? That is my argument, and it is not logical or fair. You go on to state that longstanding Wiki policy to leave an "adequate summary." I don't see that (to me, adequate would be to either mention a problem and redirect OR casually mention both sides and redirect. I could have committed the same error by listing the positives of the "lies" of Bush's detractors (being facetious) and redirected. Obvious fairness issue.
::This is where the icing is on the cake . . . this also smacks of not being parallel or balanced. Don't talk about the 2004 election, I'm told. Don't talk about Kerry, this isn't his site. YET do mention what Kerry thought about Bush's economics during the 2004 campaign that even proved to be wrong YET compares to [[Herbert Hoover]]. This violates both arguments which you have presented (you seem to be speaking out both sides of your mouth: don't talk about Kerry with grades in the 2004 election but do talk about Kerry in the econony in the 2004 election). Use the following questions for parallelism, balance, and fact:
:::1. Either we mention Kerry in all major areas or at least achieve balance, both positive and negative, or we don't. If the grades go to a foot note because this is Bush's biography, then the Kerry economic claims go too (which incidentally does not pass my litmus test because not balanced; and I don't know if I would say this is pro-Bush, but even if it is, then present the job reports without the editorializing and present Kerry's supporters' claims on a Democratic Party website). To say otherwise is that some Kerry stuff when negative is appropriate but when positive/neutral it is "not Kerry's biography." If that's the case, what Kerry thought about the economy belongs on his site. Question: Are we removing all direct writing about Kerry? Are we relegating all Kerry materials to footnotes?
:::2. Either we mention all major 2004 issues or achieve balance, both positive and negative, or we don't. If the Texans for Truth is necessary to discuss a 2004 election issue, then Kerry is necessary to discuss another 2004 election issue. Come one: that isn't balanced, but explicitly states that one controversy from the 2004 election is acceptable but another isn't relevant because I say it isn't. This article isn't about Kerry. This article isn't about Texans for Truth. Yet, it would not be honest to discuss certain subjects without discussing the other. Question: Are we removing all direct writings about the 2004 election? Are we relegating all 2004 materials to footnotes and other Wiki pages?
:::3. You say leave an adequate summary. Adequate would be to balance out the minutae of the issue to either just the issue or briefly mention both sies. Are you saying it is adequate to summarize by just presenting one side and not the other? Hardly defensible.
Syrians are a mix of a variety of diffent people, nobody is pure blooded. Most people in Syria, identify as Arabs (even a quite number of Kurds, Armenians, and Circassians identify as Arabs). Yuber, the anon you had the heated debate with, I'm afraid there are many more people who think the exact same way as the person you argued with. I found a webstite called "We Are Not Arabs" which is a website that collects signatures from many ethnic Maronites, Syriacs, Assyrians, Chaldeans, etc. signing to make the petition to the Arab American Institute that they're not Arabs. You guys can visit this website [http://www.petitiononline.com/NotArab/petition.html if any of you wish].--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 00:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::Anon David
I'm not saying that there aren't people (especially the Maronites, though they are in Lebanon) who deny the Arab label. However, these people are a minority among residents of Arab countries. Also, the person I had the debate with didn't sound like a Syrian at all, and they made ridiculous claims about there being no Arabs in the region that is Syria today. Are you Syrian, by the way?Yuber 00:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::"* restore report of pro-Bush POV re jobs report, as discussed above," says Mr. Lance in reference to the following paragraph:
Just for the record, many Syrians and Lebanese, don't identify themselves as Arabs. Many of them say that they're Neo-Byzantine, and refer to themselves as non-Arabs who are Arabic speaking White people.[[User:66.81.185.13|66.81.185.13]] 03:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry supporters continued to criticize Bush as the first American president since [[Herbert Hoover]] to preside over a net loss of jobs during his term. With the subsequent November and December numbers, however, Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs during his first term.
:The overwhelming majority of Syrians and Lebanese do identify themselves as Arab (regardless of religion), the term 'Neo-Byzantine' is not even widely known. [[User:Tiller1|Tiller1]] 19:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::Problem: This is NOT Kerry's biography, but Bush's, so remove the Kerry comment (or let's add a ton of Kerry comments; note: I've compromised to produce parallelism, so why don't others follow). Secondly, it would be nice to know the specifics, but hey, even that belongs on a 2004 election page, not here. Then the point is not about job growths overall, but about Kerry, the 2004 election, and the election year, even with a comparison willy-nilly with Herbert Hoover. The only neutral point is that, "Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs during his first term (the other points are relevant, but everyone on this discussion page wants you to realize that this is NOT (I repeat NOT) Kerry's autobiography and that there is a 2004 election page for this). We can't have it both ways if we want to claim to be fair.
:::You leave that one sentence in, and it appears pro-Bush. Not balanced, but if someone wants to leave it in, then at least source it and start looking for two points of view (though that one statement could be added and let some other editor work on it). Someone could add from Fox News, "Leave aside the fact that jobs are only one of the measures of economic performance. The rapid growth rate in GDP, stable inflation, a housing boom, and world-beating productivity growth are all just as important and are clearly successes for Bush. But even if jobs are the sole measure, Bush’s first term is still one of the best ever. First off, the Bush years ended with more Americans working than ever before. The answer is clouded, however, by a lingering controversy over which of the two Labor Department surveys mentioned above is the best measure of job creation. The payroll survey, which polls employers, indicates a razor-thin gain of 120,000 jobs between January 2001 and January 2005. The household survey, which contacts workers directly, indicates a net increase of roughly 2.5 million employed. Which is correct?"[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158745,00.html] Wow, this sounds like a sound bit from the Republican National Committee at the beginning, though the last part brings up issues not seen by examining the Democrats.[http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/ber_talkingpoints.pdf] There are a lot of other sources out there. This also speaks the larger issue: instead of relying wholly on Fox News or the Senate Democrats, it would be inherently better to fist cite the actual Department of Labor statistics for the facts, then add the commentary from supporters and detractors alike. It is very important that this be done to achieve a NPOV becaues there is a tight job market right now; all of this would be interesting to dig into. Anon David
::::It's called population growth, man. Just as one would argue there was the highest number of winning votes ever in the most recent election...this is due to population growth and a higher turnout due to the mysterious 2000 election. Just because there was a net gain in jobs in the first term, doesn't mean solely that there are still enough jobs to go around...there aren't. In a lot of cases, peoples unemployment benefits simply ran out so they no longer show up on the unemployment roles. Please try to limit your responses to a paragraph or two, be concise please...I recognize you are a new contributor, and have valid points to make, but it is becoming extremely hard to follow these points.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::::Mongo, I'm not going to speculate on how or why there were a net gain in jobs during the first Bush term, if indeed there was a net gain. The net gain or or loss is generally not viewed as a population growth issue; the media and government sources seem to use two statistical methods about how jobs are reported. Still, I think if this is to be balanced, your criticism needs to be cited: there is a general feeling of a loss of jobs and high unemployment. I agree exactly, and hopefully a rewrite will focus on: the pros/cons of job gains (the issue of the impact and other events that effected it) and the Dept. of Labor statistics (there are two major statistics that are somewhat at odds with one another and must be read with caution, though apparently they were not during other presidencies, which must also be listed to give the reader pause when examining trending data). PLEASE give facts to the brave soul who attempts the rewrite.
::Most Syrians do identify themselves as Arab; however, there are many Syrians who don't. Demographic terminology is influenced by the politics of the day, and being or not being Arab is as much a political statement as an ethnic one. Kurds, Aramaic-speaking Christians, Armenians and Druze are thus often in a difficult political situation: if they emphasize non-Arabic character, they can be seen as being non-patriotic. --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 19:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::Also, higher population is not the only cause of the most votes. Someone, I can't remember who, said early that by this same token Gore would have had the most votes of any presidential candidate in history and that it changes with every election. This just isn't factual and can be checked by reading any history book. Rondald Reagan's 1984 tally was the most votes of any candidate until the 2004 election. The anomaly is Reagan's landslide and the unheralded 1992/1996/2000 elections that never resulted in a majority vote. On average, the highest vote total ever survives up to two elections before being broken. Just wanted to set the record straight on this. ([[User:Dcokeman|Dcokeman]] 00:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
:::::Higher population, more registered voters, more voters (overall) one elction to the next...so even if you have a smaller percentage of voters based on the size of the population there is still going to be an overall increase in the number of votes cast for the winner...it does say that in history books..and in encyclopedias. I thought I said that...oh well, this novel we're writing should be publishable in about a week...almost time to archive this mess.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:You've got a point Gareth, but Druze? If I'm not mistaken, are'nt the Druze ethnically Arabs, I mean did'nt their ancestors come from the Arabian Peninsula?--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 22:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I'm a Syrian, and I'm 100% non-Arab (but I don't hate Muslims or Arabs). I also describe myself as Neo-Byzantine. The person who was declaring in the discussion above that the Syrians and Lebanese are non-Arabs is very correct. So the users who disputed this person, the only thing I have to say is don't let your hatred towards Christians blind you. Isn't enough Christians have suffered in the Middle East by the hands of Muslims!?
:I agree...it is spiralling out of control...when you get the chance (tomorrow), draw up the lead in sentence(s) to the drugs and alcohol daughter article and lets put that mess to bed...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::How do you say "Neo-Byzantine" in Arabic ;)?[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 12:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Shall I trisect a few angles while I'm at it? I still don't know how we're going to put that mess to bed. No one else has agreed with my suggestion that we try to craft a new version. We may have to request mediation. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 09:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:::I have faith in you...it's gotten really old...what will mediation bring us? I'm out of ideas and locked in place so think it over and decide in a day what you think it should say...if there is a way to keep it short and sweet and make it so others (since I'm resolved to simple vandalism reversion) don't come along and try to qualify everything with a counterpoint then go for it. I'll look at it tomorrow...go the mediation route if you think that is a way to resolve what ultimately is becoming a rather trivial thing for both of us to bicker over so much.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 09:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
== Homs ==
:::Why don't we try a not so novel idea: present everything through facts and sourcing; be parallel in presentaion (if some of an event is mentioned, then all major points are relevant); be balanced (present both sides. Anon David
'''"Major cities include the capital Damascus in the southwest, Aleppo in the north, and Homs."'''
::::Can you get an account already? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 15:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
As everyone can see, we all know that Damascus is located in the southwest of Syria, and Aleppo is in the north. Yet, this statement does not say were the city of Homs is located. I used to think that Homs was located in central Syria, after looking at the Syrian map, it seems that Homs is near the Lebanese border. So does anyone know how to classify the region of where Homs is located?--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 06:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::Ok then David, let's be consistent and push your position to its logical conclusion. Virtually ''everything'' about Bush mentioned in this article has probably come up in one campaign or another: House, Governor, President (2). To be truly consistent & balanced, we would have to discuss how each & every facet of Bush's life & policies compares to each of his 4 competitors and what role that played in his campaigns. Sure that would be balanced, it would also be plainly absurd. This is an ''encyclopedia'' article about Bush, not a comparison of whose dick is biggest. Does that mean that ''no'' issues that were mentioned in campaigns can be mentioned here? Of course not. The point is that we have to use judgement. Bush's service record, his policies, the economy, his personal background & qualifications are all major news stories & campaign themes that stand alone. They are about Bush. We do not need to compare and contrast Kerry or Gore or Richards positions on economic development, social security, education, employment -- or their comparative personal histories, wealth, education, atheleticism, or gpa's -- to have a 'fair and balanced' article about Bush. We are not trying to help the reader decide who was the better man, or who had the better policies, or whether campaign charges were fair. We are reporting on facts and issues pertaining to Bush himself. Many/most of these issues (such as his gpa), stand quite alone '''without any''' reference to politics or campaigns at all. However, in the case of a highly visible & centralized attack on Bush such as TFT, that can't help but be mentioned in a campaign context. Likewise, the economy was perhaps the major campaign issue, so that deserves a mention in context. Judgement and common sense do have a role in writing this; you can't just say "here's the rule, let's apply it consistently" because if you ''really'' do that you end up with an absurd article. Your judgement on what is appropriate conflicts with others, so you pretend that no judgement is involved -- you are merely being consistent and balanced. Baloney. There is surely a place on Wikipedia for a detailed analysis of campaign trivia. This article is not that place. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 15:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
:I think ''central Syria'' is best avoided; I know what you mean by it, but it equally mean the middle of the Syrian Desert. It is about halfway between Damascus and Halab, at the foot of the northern end of the Anti-Lebanon mountains. Perhaps it would be POV to say "This is the least interesting city in Syria". --[[User:Garzo|Gareth Hughes]] 11:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not interested in pushing to what might happen if. You mention better than anyone why this needs to be included: you state that his "background and qualifications" are significant issues; this is how the media has framed his background and qualifications, just as the Texans for Truth framed his service record (and so did Dan Rather temporarily). I'm not indiscriminately comparing and it is not true that any where have I asked for a value judgment to be made about who the better candidate or person is -- that is your language and your take. Let's use judgment: if we are going to bring up the bad, then also bring up the good. If we bring up criticism, then bring up the other side. I can go back and rephrase the sentence I added, leaving in the citations, as, "Many detractors have used Bush's grades to fuel the debate that he is not qualified and academically up to being president." Of course, the result is the same. There is not some harbinger argument, but a significant one (heck, you say so yourself.) This stands alone when cited, just like the questions of service stand alone when cited. At least this would be parallel to adding other 2004 info, such as about the National Guard. I do believe that a rule can be applied consistently, and unlike you, to have no standard is what leads to absurdity. Of course, this merely parrots all major media outlets' goal: the truth. Anon David
== Souria.com ==
:You can't simply not be "interested in pushing to what might happen if..." you need to understand the necessary logical ramifications of your argument. Of course we bring up the good, as well as the bad. For the 50th time, this isn't the issue. ''What we are debating about is whether or not his grades, or any other aspect of his biography, needs to be compared to Kerry's.'' --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 16:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I added the English version home page for Souria.com in the External links section. There is an Arabic version for this website, but my reading in Arabic is not that good. Since this is an English encyclopedia, I think it's best just to have the English version. Anyway, if any of you fluent Arabic readers want to see the [http://www.souria.com/ar/home.asp Arabic version] of Souria.com, go ahead.--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 06:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Whoa, the necessary ramifications are that no one disputes that Bush's qualifications were a major issue in the 2004 campaign brough up by Kerry (hence, the debate about academics and National Guard Record). Let's bring up the issue and not half of it. Even Kerry himself questioned Bush's qualifications. But, alas, that is not the point. For the 100th time, I compromised and moved-on: I changed it to about Bush's qualifications, which of course was mentioned and I give outside sources; I also believe that if you are to be fair, then the National Guard "summary" must be presented the same way. It would be nice if the media gave IQ scores and adjustment scales; we do have some SAT scores out there that are presented on other sites as relevant. So, either this is about the 2004 election major issues (and it is entirely factual that Kerry mentioned his war record and intellect to set him apart from Bush): either presented or not. PLEASE notice: I edited this piece we are still "debating" to be parallel with the NG piece and removed any mention of the election (just as the Kerry supporter's view of the economy does not have more weight than the serious allegation that Bush was unfit for command in what was commonly known to be a ploy to get a change in presidency during a time of war). Tell me how my sentence, which adds relevance to qualifications, just like the NG piece, has to go?
:Yeah, that's a good site. However, the discussion forums tend to get pretty heated, right now on the english forums there's a lebanese invasion and topics full of profanity.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]] 06:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What exact sentence? --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 18:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
== Politics of Syria ==
:Bush’s intellect is a legitimate subject for the article, but I don’t think we should overemphasize grades. The correlation between college grades and the demands of the Presidency isn’t high. Even the basic information about Bush’s transcript strikes me as borderline in terms of including it. Still, if we assume it’s to be analyzed, let’s look at (what I assume is) your language:
::Bush's academic record, like his National Guard record, has been highly disputed. [[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050607/ap_on_re_us/kerry_grades]][http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/.../07/AR2005060700203.htm]][http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/10/wbush10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/06/10/ixworld.html] [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4684384&sourceCode=RSS][http://cbsnewyork.com/kcbs/politics/politicsnational_story_158200514.htm]
:First, I don’t understand "highly disputed". Whether he showed up for Guard duty in Alabama is disputed. Whether he showed up at Yale and got his C’s is not disputed. More important is that these citations (at least the two that I could access) aren’t primarily about Bush’s grades. They’re about Kerry’s grades, mentioning Bush’s only by way of comparison. I ran a Yahoo! search for Bush grades Yale -Kerry -Wikipedia, and just on the first page I found several superior citations: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25229,00.html] recounts Bush’s self-deprecating humor about his college years; [http://slate.msn.com/?id=111513] discusses Bush’s grades in the context of how the Ivies work, with “legacy” admissions along with the brightest applicants; [http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064] is the most detailed of this trio, discussing his college years along with many other points to set forth that Bush as often governed "the way any airhead might" but also describing his "non-verbal acumen". Any of these links would be more informative about Bush, and therefore better for the Bush article, than the ones emphasizing Kerry. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi,
::James, you are right in that "highly disputed" is not exact. Thanks for doing some fact checking and offering this side to an issue that was and is highly contentious. By all means edit with a NPOV to change to these links. Please keep it parallel with the NG assertions or expand both (so as to keep the balance). I will probably try to find a link to the 2004 election contention just so a reader can go and investigate it if he or she wants to or you could leave the best of the bunch. ([[User:Dcokeman|Dcokeman]] 23:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC))
I just came wandering through looking for information on the politics of Syria today. The section here is very good (better than the Encyclopedia Britannica, in fact) but when I followed the link to [[Politics of Syria]] I discovered that it's basically identical; in fact it's probably a [[bit rot]]ted version, with a few CIA Worldbook facts stuck on the end.
== Science/GW ==
This isn't necessarily a problem, but it does mean people's edits are going to get divided between the two pages (and probably most will edit this page).
I've edited the science section to be a bit closer to reality on global warming, and some other bits. In particular ''pointing to the [[Oregon Petition]] where 19,600 scientists disagreed on whether global warming even exists[http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/pdf/singer000718.pdf],'' has to come out, since Bush himself accepts the warming - see inline ref to speech. The OP, of course, wasn't signed by 19k scientists, as a read of the OP page will tell you. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 22:35:54, 2005-07-12 (UTC).
Something similar happened at [[Nuclear weapon]] and [[Nuclear explosion]], and the solution taken there (still in progress) is to strip down the section in [[Nuclear weapon]] until it's really a summary, so that it's obvious one should go to the effects page to make improvements.
:William, Thanks for the clarification of the issue. I changed negative to indifferent to be neutral. Let me know if this is a mischaracterization. I do like that your edit stands on its merits, as I see some others are now doing. I never claimed to have a monopoly on the truth. ([[User:Dcokeman|Dcokeman]] 23:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC))
The other possibility is to get rid of [[Politics of Syria]] by folding its information in here.
==Farhenheit 911 or Farenhype 911==
Anyway, the pieces I've read of the article are great. --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 15:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Let me make it clear, as many have contended: I think confrontation and conflict are healthy and good for this site when done when facts and arguments (whether we like them or not). I'm not some one that wants anyone to just go along with me or be nicey-nice. Please by all means express your opinions and attack my facts or contentions with your own facts and contention. That is what makes this fun, but it also points out that if there were no conflicts or contentions on here, then there would be no editing and we all would have to be mindless, lifeless entities. I believe many of the debates have been worthwhile, especially many that do come to compromise or bring new facts (or check old ones) to analyze events. Hey, that is how we learn -- take off the kid gloves and strike to get at the truth. That doesn't mean a plethora of attacks, but hey, by now anyone can see that I too have a certain issue with this article. Keep up the great work!
Oops, fixed links
:Hmm, I really have no idea what to do with that article. Perhaps a summary can just be included here.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 16:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
Now, the real issue. One editor wants Farenhype 911 included in to balance Farenheit 911. One is highly critical, while the other is highly supportitve and critical of the other. I for one consider both to be nothing more than out and out politicking and would never waste my time, money, or effort to watch either one. But, that is besides the point. Balance would dictate that either both are removed or both are included. For example, to leave one in leaves out a serious side. Which one would you leave in? Might depend on your viewpoints, might be that Farhenheit 911 is bigger, but bigger doesn't necessarily mean more important. From my standpoint, this is said to be the "real issue," but it is very minor. Just add both, might be preferable to have on same line with such talk as: Farhenheit 911. For criticism of this film, see Farhenhype 911. No harm done, doesn't unduly lengthen the article, and adds the original poster's one-sided view. Debate over.
::That seems to be the right solution (well, I suppose that article could go away and this article could be the only one); [[Montreal]] and [[History of Montreal]] had the same problem and it has been more or less fixed by drastically summarizing the section in [[Montreal]] (and making sure that any facts removed from [[Montreal]] were in [[History of Montreal]]). It would be easier if [[Politics of Syria]] were longer. I could try to write a sumary, but I don't know very much about the current political situation (just about what's in the article now), so any summary I wrote would necessarily be extremely brief and probably not fair or neutral. --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 20:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Debate not over. That's ridiculous to assert. 'Heit' is a film lambasting Bush (and others) for incompetence regarding the events of 9/11. Winner of the Cannes 'Best Documentary' award, it is noteworthy. 'Hype' is an attempted refutation of 'heit', and is not about Bush nor equally noteworthy - in neither it's exposure nor social impact. Inclusion of both is itself unbalancing, in an effort to 'balance' POV. A link, by itself, of a source with the relevance of 'heit', does not constitute POV. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 00:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
In fact, [[Economy of Syria]] and [[History of Syria]]have the same problem - they have sen almost no edits this year, while [[Syria]] has seen far more. I would be tempted to drastically summarize those sections of [[Syria]]; the laborious part is merging the current texts of [[Syria]] and its subarticles. --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 21:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
::And keep in mind, Farenhype is linked from Farenheit 9/11. And yeah, David, a little premature to simply cry "debate over." --[[User:Kizzle|kizzle]] 00:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:It seems that those articles were created when this article was being expanded and people were trying to bring this article up to the standards of other countries. I think a summary would be good, I'll see what I can do. I disagree about the History of Syria article, however, as there is much more information in that than in this. I also intend to add a lot more about Syria's history in the future.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 23:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Inclusion of both is unbalancing and POV? Yet one side is not. "Don't let the truth frighten you." Great, Heit won the Cannes Film Festival -- they mention it on that site. Also, Fahrnehype also links Fahrenheit. So, as I see it, you say it is acceptable to point out film lambasting Bush and that this is balanced, but it is unbalanced to bring up a film that, while not receiving the Cannes Film Festival award for Best Picture (no surprise there), connects with this and was watched by countless numbers. You then you say Hype refutes Heit but is not about Bush, yet Heit is about Bush. Then what is it refuting? (Hint, hint: not which donut Bush likes or if he can pronounce strategy, but that Heit got it wrong and discounts that BUSH is incompetent). Since you say that a link by itself does not mean POV, then why not hype? Come on, what are we afraid of?
::I have summarized the section on politics after looking at the two separate versions. There's still some work to be done on wiki'ing both versions and adding more info.[[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Why don't we add [[Ann Coulter]] [http://www.anncoulter.org/] as a See Also site. She is noteworthy and relevant. She talks about Bush all the time and is all over the media. Why not? Remember, a link by itself is not and does not constitute a POV.
::::This would be ridiculous! But, by the same standard Heit gets inserted, it would pass the standard. Personally, I don't see a film with a political agenda (as Hype and Heit/look at Michael Moore's quotes, he is truthful about it even if he believes he is true). Let's have the same standard. ([[User:Dcokeman|Dcokeman]] 00:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
:::That's great - a big improvement. I think the key idea is to make the section here obviously only a summary so that people who want to add information add it to the full article. I think your changes do that very well.
::::Asserting the two films had equal relevance and impact on Bush, his presidency, his campaign, and America is simply wrong. There is a massive disparity between the two, for that reason - not POV! It is that disparity that justifies the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:::I think that country articles are usually divided up into subarticles according to some Wikiproject, and perhaps based on the CIA world factbook, so the people who did it may not have put the care and attention that we would like. In any case, I think this article is good and getting better. My only concern is to avoid duplicated effort (improving this version and the full articles). --[[User:Aarchiba|Andrew]] 21:48, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
== Links ==
'was watched by countless numbers' - the operative word there is 'countless'. F9/11 and it's impact was the subject of major news stories throughout the campaign (relating to it's eligibility for the award, the assertions of Moore vis-a-vis 'Bin Laden Airways', the threat that it would be broadcast free, investigating Moore's political views, etc.). It was and is relevant to a biographical article of President Bush. Hype attempts to refute Heit - it is about Heit, not about Bush. It's refutations do not center around the President, they center around Moore and the assertions within 9/11. It is nowhere near as relevant to President Bush as 'heit' was/is, was seen by nowhere near as many people, had nowhere near the impact on Bush's campaign, and had nowhere near the impact on the American popular culture as 'Heit'. It's not about fear, or about misreading POV policy to satisfy a need for politically-based 'neutralizing' of fact. It's about informing the reader. Do you understand? -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 00:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
In the "External links" section, we have some sites that are linked to Looksmart, and Yahoo. Those sites are search engines, which means that anybody can go to these sites and search for articles that's related to Syria. I personally think, that we need to eliminate the Yahoo and Looksmart sites. What does everyone think?--[[User:Gramaic|Gramaic]] 04:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
:Ann Coulter? Why does she deserve a mention in this article, unlike any other commentator? Because you wanted to return 'hype' to the article. Please observe the 3RR, please stop regurgitating this back into the article, and please stop parroting other authors without making a clear point yourself. It's disrespectful to those who are interested in informing the reader above political squabbling. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 01:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
== Syrian ethnicity ==
::::Fahrenheit had huge impact on campaign, you say (without a source). Then put in on the 2004 election wiki page (most editors on this site prefer that). Relevant according to you, but not relevant is the documentary that says this has 59 lies (don't know if it is right, don't care, but hey, that is relevant). You even say Hype is about the assertions of 9/11 and not Bush, yet the documentary is about the 9/11 assertions of Bush's incompetence and trickery (ultimately, this is about Bush). You then say since it was not seen by as many people, then irrelevant . . . total popularity is not the only judge (but if you want it to be, then replace it with Bush's 2nd Inauguration Speech which had a much larger audience and press coverage). Then you talk about the impact on the American people . . . it did, but that is for Heit's site since that is about Heit's image, not Bush's and belongs on Heit's site. You then conclude that you want to inform the reader, but yet you want this taken out? I think I understand that you want to inform the reader about what you believe to be relevant, even though several politicians and political groups think Hype is relevant and Heit is fiction. I don't even want to enter into that debate. Ok, Heit is relevant. Hype is too, even if on a smaller scale. What is so wrong about including Hype? Please see my comments about Coulter as well. ([[User:Dcokeman|Dcokeman]] 01:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
This line doesn't make sense: "Ethnic Syrians are a mix of Semitic and Indo-European peoples that have occupied the region over time."
:::::It's Miss Freisling (I'm female). Please refrain from your snarkiness and stick to the point. To be honest, your comments above are nearly illegible, but they do not refute my points in any way. Bush's inauguration is not at issue, F9/11 and the Hype film are. The factual accuracy of F9/11 is also not at issue - it's role in his life/Presidency are. Despite your spin, you agree to my premise re: import, but then claim that including both is more informative. It's not. It's artificially placing a source in to neutralize another, without regard to their relative import. That's bad editing, it's against the Wikipedia way, and it's not informative. I'm not in opposition to you politically, I'm in opposition to your apparent misunderstanding of this basic rule of editing. Balance does not trump fact. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 01:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Semitic and Indo-European aren't ethnicities but language groups, so what does it have to do with anything?
"Ethnic Syrians" are just Arabised Phoenicians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and so on, not non-existing Semitic and Indo-European ethnicities.
:::::Illegible? Then your screen must be out of whack. You mean unintelligible. You say spin, yet you are the one MAKING the claim that it has an important role in the life of the presidency? FACT CHECK: you can give no polls, statistics, or political commentary by Bush to support your opinion to support your allegations. Please source and then I'll go away. You conclude that balance does not trump fact: the fact that something garnered a wider audience? The fact is that Hype and Heit both attempted to make a mark on the 9/11 attacks; how this is artificial is beyond me. And as for snarkiness, you are the one that started with a flurry of talk and ended with an abrupt comment. I do not believe this neutralizes Heit, because I think they are so opposed that it would be nearly impossible to believe both. Still, that does not belong here. Why is one more important than the other? Popularity? Then why don't we find the number of articles and sales records for each and then rank See Also accordingly. This makes no sense. "It's about informing the reader." Well, then inform the reader (which shouldn't be done through censoring). Please move to 2004 election coverage page and, or the 9/11 page or the Cannes Film Festival. Or get over it and realize that both can be put on here or neither. Just the facts, please, just the facts.([[User:Dcokeman|Dcokeman]] 01:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
- Habibo
::::::Yes, illegible. Your grammar is broken, your sentences malformed, your points obscured and difficult to track. I'm sorry, that's just a fact. Another fact - F9/11 had an impact on the campaign and Bush that is a matter of public record. Statistics are not required from me to justify this point. The film was contested and argued, just as now, by the parties and players throughout the election. 'Hype', quite simply, was not. That's all. It's not a matter of popularity, it's notoreity and noteworthiness. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 01:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, I've said the same in Lebanese demograpy article. Fist of all there's no 'ethnic Syrian'. You have a big Arab group, and smaller Armenian/Kurdish/Jewish/Syriac group. Syrian identity is not/racial it's an ethnic§ one, it's a cultural one. This is typically an American bias to try to classify group according to 'ethnic difference'. In middle East, identity is related to other things: language, and/or religion.
--[[User:Equitor|equitor]] 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
==Introduction==
::::::illegible - Illegible means difficult to decipher due to poor handwriting, printing, or damage. The illegible note had been retrieved from a puddle..[http://www.tameri.com/edit/usage.html] or [[Merriam-Wesbter Dictionary]] Main Entry: il·leg·i·ble Pronunciation: (")i(l)-'le-j&-b&l Function: adjective: not legible : INDECIPHERABLE (illegible writing)[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=illegible] When you insult me, please get it right (I really don't mind ad hominen attacks, for they can be quite amusing, but avoid word confusion so that you are easily understood by the reader).
Given;
*Hafez al-Assad had been grooming his son, Basil al-Assad to be the country's next president
*Basil al-Assad died in an accident
*Bashar al-Assad, his younger son, ('''with no previous political experience''') then became the ''heir apparent'' & ultimately the President,
is it true to say that the office is a Presidency? Isn't a hereditary presidency, a monarchy? [[User:Avalon|Avalon]] 04:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::Merriam-Wesbter Dictionary of Law Main Entry: public record Function: noun: a record required by law to be made and kept: a : a record made by a public officer or a government agency in the course of the performance of a duty b : a record filed in a public office. NOTE: Public records are subject to inspection, examination, and copying by any member of the public.[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=66&q=public%20record]
'''Well, no.''' It's a corrupted Presidency, an institution subjected to the one-man (or one-family) dictatorship which presently rules Syria. I think this is clear from the article. In theory, and constitutionally, and in official Syrian propaganda especially, no bloodline is necessary to become President, whereas this is the basis of Monarchy. It is also not clear that Bishar would be followed by a family member (especially since he has no grown-up son :-), in the event of his death, although that is of course a possibility. [[User:Arre|Arre]] 23:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::Ok, ok. Just a fact you say, and then go on to cite another fact as a "matter of public record." Well, it isn't and never has been a public record (though this is probably an obvious word confusion, darling). Just being in the movies does not make something public record. This is a nice way for you to say that you are right without having to give facts or the TRUTH to back up your claim. Not an intelligible argument. Then you go on to say that Hype wasn't contested . . . not factual (examine source work for sales, dialogue, and websites spurned from it). You even claim that Fahrenheit is even discussed now, yet no media searches support this contention. So, once again, you cannot offer statistical or media proof of the value of the film on the 2004 election (which, incidentally, belongs on the 2004 web page if you can). Just the facts, please, just the facts. ([[User:Dcokeman|Dcokeman]] 02:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
::::I can't see any compelling reason at all to include 'hype here. It seems to be a criticism of a criticism; that is, it's not about Bush ''per se''. That said, 'heit seems to me more appropriately placed down in the 'Further reading' section, though maybe it should be 'futher reading & media' or some such. We don't link to book reviews of items in 'further reading', so why would we link to 'hype? [[User:Derex|Derex]] 01:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:Yes I appreciate that the system claims to be a republic, but so did the Roman Empire for some time. Bishar al-Assad is still young. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck ...... [[User:Avalon|Avalon]] 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Not exactly a fair comparison. Hype was and is about Bush by proxy of Heit. Also, I don't know about further reading since it isn't a book. As for it being a criticism of a criticism, fair enough. To say book review is also incorrect. Hype is not a book review or just a critique, it is a separate documentary (like when an author writes a book in response to another book). Generally, by this route, both are acceptable if done on the national stage even if one is not as highly regarded. The Wiki way is to try to present a fair and honest rendition of the facts. Fair means that important criticism, whether good or bad, should be included. ([[User:Dcokeman|Dcokeman]] 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC))
::I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the system has been hijacked by the Assads, but there is an important difference between a monarchy and a republic, technically and also in how the regime presents itself (there's kind of a conflict line between "progressive" republics and monarchies in the Arab world, for example). Also, the Assads didn't create this institution. They inherited it from previous governments and constitutions, and Syria once had a very different way of filling the presidential post (mainly by military coup :-). It'll change again.
::::::well, I've never heard of 'hype before, so I don't personally know what's in it. but the cover posted in the 'hype article has a picture of moore & it says "uncovering the truth about fahrenheit 9/11 & michael moore". if you believe the cover art, it sounds like 'hype is about moore and his movie, not about bush ''per se''. have you seen the 'hype? what evidence can you provide as to it's contents being a documentary about bush & not a critique of moore & his movie? And no, it's not a book, but it has the same standing -- so we can just adjust the section name. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 01:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
::[[User:Arre|Arre]] 02:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
::::::also, you can quit preaching about the wiki way & what fair means. i don't think anyone in this debate is a newbie. i do see where you're coming from. however, we have honest disagreements, and not because we're not trying to be neutral or fair. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 02:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I say neither should be linked from this article. One is a big bash on Bush and the other is a big bash on Moore...but if we have to pick either, then heit stays due to it's popularity. The "hype" movie anon david keeps bringing up can be rented at Hollywood or Blockbuster but I don't think it ever made it to the theaters so it's hardly noteworthy and adding a pro for every con and vice versa is what got us into the mess in the drug and alcohol section. Also, lets get anaon david to stick to one point at a time, sign his posts and chill out...the volume of the message makes it hard to wade through to find the point!--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
==Syrian workers==
Heit is anti-Bush. Hype is pro-Bush. Including links to both is balance. Not including one is obvious bias.
I hope the compromise I've suggested is acceptable. However: I don't think there was ever 1,5 million Syrians in Lebanon. More probably somewhere around half a million, rising to 1 million during the summer season. Although there has of course been at least a couple of millions in Lebanon over the years, but I guess the text refers to a given point in time. Is it okay to change this? [[User:Arre|Arre]] 02:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Attempting to silence points of view that you do not agree with is dirty and wrong (not to mention borderline illegal in America). What are you afraid of? Include links to both and let the readers make up their own minds.
:I changed a few things on your version. First off, there is no single Syrian or Lebanese view. Second, it is not a "view" that Syrian workers helped with reconstruction, because they DID help with reconstruction. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
::* '''I don't agree''' that the Syrian presence was supported by the US and the Arab League. It was briefly accepted and supported by both of them at various points in time, but since then, and before that, there was controversy within the AL and outright opposition by the US. I assume you are referring to the Arab Deterrent Force and US acceptance of the ousting of Aoun, and I do agree these things must be mentioned. But when it's written like this, it gives a faulty impression of continuous support for the Syrian presence, and that was certainly not the case.
::* '''True about''' Syrian/Lebanese views; not so about the motivation for the Syrian workers going there. They went there simply to get a job, not as part of a humanitarian crusade (I don't blame them, I would have too). Now, the Syrian government claims it accepted/encouraged this to help Lebanon's reconstruction, and this should be pointed out (as should the opposite view). But the workers themselves didn't go there "to help Lebanon", just as Mexicans don't cross the border "to help USA", even though their hard work for crap wages has been very beneficial to America. Do you see my point, and would you agree to a change here? ''Salaam'', [[User:Arre|Arre]] 04:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
::::I think what I had meant to say was they went to get jobs in the reconstruction of the country, not that they went into the country solely to reconstruct it because they felt pity for the Lebanese. Hopefully my latest change emphasizes this.
:::::This is fine with me, the part about the workers is very well formulated. Thank you. I still think the US/Arab support for Syria in Lebanon is - well, not wrong, but overemphasized. However, since there's so little on the subject, I'll just leave it until we can add more overall on Lebanon, instead of deleting what little we have. [[User:Arre|Arre]] 05:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
while you guys guess about what exactly happened in Lebanon and how many workers are there, Yuber keeps deleting sourced information and the link it comes from! now hes got a buddy Parmilo! read this information, it all comes from this source: Lebanese scholar Habib C. Malik has called the influx of Syrian workers into Lebanon "nothing short of a movement toward Syrian colonization of Lebanon." (Between Damascus and Jerusalem: Lebanon and Middle East Peace (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1997), p. 42). In 1994, under pressure from Syria, the Lebanese government granted citizenship to over 200,000 Syrians resident in the country. Syrian nationals make up at least one-third of Lebanon's resident population. http://www.meib.org/articles/0102_l1.htm
© 2005, Pioneer-12
::I thought for a second I was being contacted by a spacecraft...whats with the Pioneer-12 stuff...wasn't it the pioneer spacecrafts that flew out of the solar system...wait, I'll look it up.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
::Well, there's no pioneer 12 but heres pioneer 11...pretty neat stuff [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_11]]...but I agree to an extent that if one gets mentioned so should the other...the problem is, aside from a select few that venture into Hollwood video et al with absolutely nothing else to pick from they probably wouldn't rent Farenhype 911 because it they've never heard of it...--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 02:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Quotes from right-wing authors are not needed in a general history section. And your POV terms such as "flooded" are not needed either. That source is wrong, by the way. There is no way 30 % of Lebanon's population is Syrian. Please find a better source. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 00:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:look, quit impugning people's motives. no one here is trying to silence anyone, although i did think that had become the true patriotic way the last few years. 'hype is not even ''about'' bush. it's about moore & his movie, which is why it gets linked there. i'm personally no friend of bush, but i (and everyone else here that i know) am trying to write a neutral article regardless of personal opinion. dissenting opinions, such as yours, can be helpful in pointing out hidden biases. but just because people disagree with you does not make them "dirty and wrong". calling people names does, however, make people (at least me) tend to pay attention to the messenger rather than the message. it works against you. [[User:Derex|Derex]] 02:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
::Or you could just continue reverting on 5 different articles. Please do mind the [[3RR]]. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
why do you get to decide which authors are "right-wing" and which sources are "wrong"? the article doesn't say "flooded" any more, if that was your real reason you could have changed that word. I'm not the reverter, I brought properly sourced information, all you do is revert. [[User:John McW|John McW]] 01:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
:Look at any good wikipedia article about a country. Take the [[USA]] one for example. There are no quotes let alone POV quotes in the general history section of the article. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 01:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Look, I've seen both movies. Hype is as relevant as Heit. But frankly, it doesn't matter what your opinions of the movies are. The point is they are two sides of the same coin. If you try to silence one or the other, then that is blatant bais, wheather you realize it or not. (Just step back for a minute and look at the names of the two movies... and hopefully you'll see what I mean.) And though you may be honestly confused about the nature and relevance of the movies, I can assure you that at least some of the people trying to remove the link are doing so for less then honorable motives.
oh, now a new excuse. is it really true that Wikipedia does not allow quotes in history articles with links and references, instead it only allows whatever you have made up and decide fits? I don't believe that, prove it, show me where Wikipedia says that. [[User:John McW|John McW]] 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
© 2005, Pioneer-12
:I don't have to prove anything. As long as there are 3 editors who are in agreement about this on this page, your protests don't mean anything. Please try to accept the compromise instead of pushing your version. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 11:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I will ignore your pointless and unsubstantiated ascriptions of motive and reiterate that they are not equal in their importance or relevance to the article. It is not a political motive, nor fear of an idea... it's a desire to educate. The value of 'Heit' to a reader of the GWB article is far greater than 'hype', unless you see the goal of the article as providing as much 'pro' as 'con' - rather than to educate as to ''facts'' of this President's life and 2 terms. 'Hype' was a blip. 'Heit' was huge. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 03:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
you have to prove you didn't lie about that. who agrees with you? have them name themselves. [[User:John McW|John McW]] 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
'''Quote & numbers'''
* I agree about the quote, it doesn't fit the article. I do think, however, that the viewpoint that the influx of workers had political implications (and motives) should be better represented. Now the article says that their presence in Lebanon is "controversial", but it doesn't say why or to whom.
==Include Fahrenheit 9/11 in the article?==
* Regardless of that, I have changed the "1,5 million workers" into "about one million workers", which is what the CIA factbook and some other sources say. I still think that is on the high side. [[User:Arre|Arre]] 18:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Independently of the existence of the contested 'Fahrenhype 9/11' link, the GWB article suffers without the inclusion of 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. The latter film, the highest-grossing documentary in American history, was released during the presidential campaign and quickly became a topic of national debate. Also, in light of the role of 9/11 in the Bush presidency, a reference to this film criticizing Bush in the context of 9/11 is informative. As a rough indication, the majority of the paragraphs in [[Fahrenheit 9/11]] contain the name 'Bush'.
:i gave a link to someone who says it, but yuber keeps reverting it. how can you guys take out information that comes directly from a source, and just make up other stuff and put it in instead? does Wikipedia really allow this? [[User:John McW|John McW]] 11:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
An excerpt from that article: ''The film has since been released in 42 more countries and holds the record for highest box office receipts by a general release documentary. As of January, 2005, the film has grossed nearly US$120 million in U.S. box office, and over US$220 million worldwide; an unprecedented amount for a political documentary; Sony reported first-day DVD sales of two million copies, again a new record for the film genre. The film has grossed a further $99 million overseas. ''
:John McW, consensus has been reached. Please respect it. [[User:Yuber|Yuber]]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">[[User_talk:Yuber|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 11:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
The only Cannes-award-winning and People's Choice Award-winning documentary about a sitting U.S. president in time of war, it deserves a link, or more descriptive reference here. Including it is not political, it is informative. In my view, excluding it is not informative, it is political. I invite everyone to comment (and you don't need my invitation to do so!) -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 02:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
::you don't know what "consensus" means. "consensus" is not whatever Yuber says. [[User:John McW|John McW]] 03:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
| 