Wikipedia

Talk:George W. Bush

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 21 July 2005 (New lead photo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 20 years ago by JamesMLane in topic Here's a sentence I don't understand
Learn more about this page

{{Controversial}} should not be used on pages subject to the contentious topic procedure. Please remove this template.

This article is the Biweekly Special Article for the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject. Please add references for this article as you see fit.

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 (Abuse RfC)



Kizzle's Computed Poll

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please see Archive 26 for full text of RfC

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.

V1.5

  1. --MONGO 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I think you're for v1.5 now, Mongo, let me know if i'm wrong --kizzle 17:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC))
  2. --kizzle 20:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Tverbeek 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) "Though obviously a link to the daughter article should be added."
  4. PPGMD 17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : "With a link to the daugher article of course."
  5. maltmomma 19:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) "I agree about adding a link to the daughter article."
  6. --Steve block 09:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) "If so, yes to a daughter article link..."
  7. Junes 09:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) "I'd support version 1 with a link to the daughter article."
  8. Sandpiper 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) "Version 1 with a link to the longer article."
  9. --Keairaphoenix 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) "I'm voting for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article."
  10. Eisnel 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC) - "I vote for #1 with a link to the daughter article"
  11. NoSeptemberT (since no one joined me in Version 2, I will support Version 1.5)
  12. that works for me, or modified #3 as discussed under my 'none' comments Derex 20:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

V1 (probably will favor v1.5 (Tysto won't))

  1. --Nobs01 17:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. --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? --kizzle 16:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC))
  3. --Tysto 2005 July 9 00:56 (UTC) "No daughter article. No dry-drunk pseudopsychoanalysis."

Supporting Version 3

  1. Xaliqen 02:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. ~~~~ 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. The demiurge 20:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ampracific 30 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)
  5. khaosworks July 2, 2005 00:02 (UTC)
  6. RichardMathews July 6, 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Supporting Version 4

  1. Neutralitytalk 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  2. JamesMLane 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).
  3. Harro5 07:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. albamuth 13:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. jamesgibbon 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. --kizzle 16:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • I added my name to V 1.5 NoSeptemberT 18:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • 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.--MONGO 19:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
The computation is helpful, but it should include another nuance: the comments about inclusion of Hatfield. 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, 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. JamesMLane 20:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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. --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. JamesMLane 11:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

my comment

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. --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...--MONGO 18:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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 - Myself 172.131.142.45 09:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

The question of the "largest number of votes ever" has come up before. As population increases, the total vote increases. Therefore, it's not worth noting that Bush received more popular votes than any previous candidate. See the extensive prior discussion of the point here. No one thinks that Bush is more popular than George Washington was. JamesMLane 23:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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? --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 :) --kizzle 17:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Science

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 [1]

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."[2] 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.[3] 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: [4] 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 [5]. William M. Connolley 22:26:57, 2005-07-10 (UTC).
Then say "there is almost universal consensus" or "most scientists suggest," but don't make a blanketed, unsupported statement. I don't want to fight a war, but if a claim is made that is still questionable and, or not exactly understood, then express that contention if only to be honest. Let the GW site fight it out on whether it is correct or not. Give a reference, not an article critical of Bush. Note: author of quote is listed in article.
Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement, so "there is almost universal consensus" is pointless. William M. Connolley 23:35:32, 2005-07-10 (UTC).
Here is the definition for consensus: Main Entry: con·sen·sus

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


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

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

Just don't pass off consensus that doesn't exist as fact. Here are some examples that need to change consensus to either "many scientists" or "the IPCC": Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology offered an explanation of the phenomenon during a recent National Press Club briefing "Climate Alarm — Where does it come from?": "With respect to science, consensus is often simply a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have to bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics."[6] 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."[7] "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." [8] 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."[9] And on, and on, and on. The real reason: Bush might have ignored what many (heck, possibly most) scientists believe. That is a discussion for the GW page. It is valid here to state that scientific consenus is a misnomer at best, at worst an attempt to impugn the article. Either way, we need balanced facts, not speculation. REMOVE IT!
You can't disprove a consensus by quoting a few counter-examples: its simply a logical fallacy. http://www.co2andclimate.org/ is industry funded disinformation, not science. Go look at the scientific opinion on climate change article. c 23:35:32, 2005-07-10 (UTC).
Although I agree with William M. Connolley about the scientific consensus, these comments ignore a more fundamental point: The article doesn't make any assertions about the scientific consensus. In context, what the article says is: "Scientists have repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for . . . ignoring scientific consensus on global warming . . . ." As with any other instance of criticism of a controversial figure, our goal is that our report of the criticism be accurate, regardless of whether the criticism itself is accurate. In this case, there are certainly many, many scientists who consider that there is a consensus. Whether the counterexamples adduced by the anon disprove that point or are simply the industry's efforts to spin the issue is not an issue that needs to be addressed in this article. (If we were to address it, I would favor the conclusions stated by William M. Connolley. I, too, have a great deal of trouble understanding what the anon is talking about.) This page isn't a place to re-fight the GW wars; we're busy enough with the GWB wars. JamesMLane 23:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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).[10] 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

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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."[11][12]

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

Sorry, i missed where the SEC "fully exonerated" Bush. The report you link does note that Bush's attorneys claim the stock sale was pre-arranged. It also notes that Bush was likely unaware of the full extent of projected Harken losses. Exonerate, I do not see. Am I missing something? Derex 02:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
A man after my own heart! Someone that reads the evidence . . . they do peruse this site! Exonerate, according to Merriam-Webster means "to clear from accusation or blame," as you are well aware of. It is my word, and I think it is fully backed up by the SEC memos; nevertheless, it is quite strong and might be better suited with "cleared of any wrong doing" instead of "exonerate" (which he clearly was). Just my own two cents (not supported by facts): Bush's dad was president at the time, so in my opinion, I think there is a good chance of insider trading. Yet, no facts. Anon, David
Instead of deciding how to interpret the SEC's words, I think we do better to quote the words (to the extent feasible), and leave the speculation to the reader. I see no indication that the file memo about Bush's "preexisting plan" was an official SEC conclusion; what the SEC communicated to Bush's lawyer is more authoritative. JamesMLane 06:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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."[13] (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.'"[14] 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.[15] Now that is RIDICULOUS to not post! Please research thoroughly before changing back out of hand. (Still have not located the actual letter given to Bush dated Oct. 18, 1993. This is what is needed.) Also, type in the quote "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff's investigation of that particular matter" into a Yahoo search engine and you will find that it very much is stock language.

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


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

Kizzle, point well taken. I know from dealing with the Clinton side that very little was changed without lengthy citings and politicking. For that, I apologize. I am very diligent at editing and sourcing (indeed, that is also a mainstay of my profession). While I am an obvious Bush supporter, I do not and never have supported the war in Iraq (at least not how it has come about). I also do not believe that NCLB, as currently written, is in the best interest of children. It just is that someone dismisses my Harken comments out of hand as ridiculous without offering any new information. I don't mind being wrong (I know on the Clinton page I do not believe a statistic, but I can't corroborate what I believe to be true, so my edit is out). So, I do apologize if I have come off as a bully. I just want balance, the truth, and corroboration. Hey, there are lots of juicy stories out there, but I want the facts to be right and I believe that it is never acceptable to make blanketed statements (believe me, the Clinton article had some much more horrendous than would ever appear on here, such as one statement several editors wanted to keep in: "Clinton is a man of the people"). So, keep me in line, but I hope at least people will respond with you: valid criticism based off of a fair assessmnt of all the facts and open to examining primary sources as well as common ones. Anon, David
Good start. I was the original author of much of the insider trading allegations section (but not the subsequent memos clearing Bush of charges)... do you have any interesting sources to post that would broaden my knowledge of what is already there, or maybe supply any missing context? I don't doubt that the SEC fully exhonerated Bush, however it is a bit fishy both that his own lawyer advised him not to sell and that the makeup of the SEC at the time consisted of friends of the Bush family. --kizzle 22:32, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle: start with [16]. 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!

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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." [17] JamesMLane 00:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

National Guard and 2004 Election

Latest comment: 20 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

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

i'd like to see a comparison between SAT scores or aptitude tests rather than simply a comparison of grades, as I think an argument that Bush is smarter than Kerry is a hard one to win. Grades characterize one's ability to do hard work on time, not one's mental capacity for logical thought. --kizzle 22:38, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think Bush is smarter, by any means. It would be nice to have more info. I am just making an point of how one thing is judged relevant/partisan and another thing is judged irrelevant/factual; this all leads to an earlier criticism, namely my bit about Kerry and the National Guard stuff being in Bush's early life and not in the election or scandal stuff. It would be nice if a good editor would say they were a source of contention or something and then move them to the appropriate section (but leave the DUI and drug allegations). Anon David
David, this comparison is misguided. You're ignoring a fundamental point. This article isn't "Information to help you decide whether Bush or Kerry would've made a better President". This article is about Bush. Information about his military service or lack thereof is part of his biography. Information about someone else's college transcript 40 years ago is not part of Bush's biography. If we were to compare their grades, per your insert, then, to treat the subjects equally, we'd have to supplement the Texans for Truth paragraph with a mention that, while Bush was somehow mysteriously getting into the National Guard, and not performing even the minimal obligations of that position, Kerry was fighting in Vietnam and receiving several medals. If Kerry's grades are relevant here, so is his service record. In fact, however, neither of those subjects is relevant here. Also, I don't understand your last comment about the military service issues being a source of contention so they should be moved. The history is that the Bush article mentioned the TANG issues, then more information was added about the subject, then still more, until it got to the point that it was so detailed that it was overwhelming the article. Accordingly, it was spun off into a daughter article, leaving only a summary here. What's wrong with that approach? JamesMLane 23:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Addendum: I see you've now restored this minor point about Kerry's life (his college grades) while still not putting in anything about Kerry's decorated military service in Vietnam -- which was much more important in his life and was much more important in the 2004 election. Also more important in the 2004 election was that, although Bush and Kerry both came from the upper class, Bush defended his policy of ladling out huge tax breaks to his rich cronies, while Kerry called for rescinding the tax breaks given to the most wealthy. Should we include all these things in this article? No, we should not. This article is about George W. Bush. This article is not about John Kerry. The people who think that Kerry's Yale transcript was the most significant news event of the last several months have already inserted it in John Kerry. It doesn't belong here. JamesMLane 23:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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." [18]][19] 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."[20] CBS in New York said, "Kerry's Yale Grades Similar To Bush's. Jun 7, 2005."[21] 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."[22]

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.[23]][24] This issue of Bush's academic and intellectual levels were publicized during the 2004 campaign.[25] Bush's critics often state that Bush is not intellectually up to the job of being president; even his wife satired his intelligence.."[26] 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.[27][28] Another further issue was that Kerry questioned Bush's war record while citing his own record of service in Vietnam.

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

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

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

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

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

Yet, the author used a source no one vetted. Guess where this quote came from: "Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy." You guessed it, source 43 in the article.[30] 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."[31] The same site quotes Mr. Piltz, the whistle blower, as saying, ""Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

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

Someone mentioned later on that I removed the Cooney paragraph because it does not have a NPOV, and to accomplish this, you have to add to it. That is what I wanted done concerning Bush's academic history, just as was done with his military record, but it wasn't acceptable to provide info on that POV -- please see lengthy discussions elsewhere. No where up above do I mention I had a problem with the POV or that it needed balanced. I simply did not wish to research the issue after checking the sources offered. Indeed, the original paragraph said "proved." If that was the issue, then case closed. The only problem is, which others would have picked up on if they had read and comprehended what I wrote, is that there is no "proved" or "consensus" from reading the citations. Both articles give much leeway to Mr. Cooney and point out the possible bias with his detractor, working with a liberal think tank. It would have been ethically and morally dishonest to leave in the paragraph that is not supported by the sources it quotes, and then present the other side by the same articles that do challenge different arguments (the articles do have pros and cons, something we see time and time again every where else because they have to be balanced if they expect to be believed). So, I don't have proof for the POV originally presented (which means either sloppy editing or ??), and certainly don't want to present how great Mr. Cooney is for that isn't very much newsworthy for a biography. Also, even if someone goes out and finds a decent testimonial or source about this and presents something factual, then yes, I will use the same sources that the person originally used because they bolster Cooney's argument, not the side that he lied. Still, the information about Cooney's job searches and history belongs elsewhere UNLESS it relates to Bush (which, you never know, it could, but just source it first). Just the facts, please, just the facts. Anon David
Spin, spin, spin. This passage is in the Bush article:
"While Bush was governor of Texas, he undertook significant legislative changes in the areas of criminal justice, tort law, and school financing. Bush took a hard line on capital punishment, and received much criticism for it. More convicts were executed under his terms than any other Texas governor, although the rate of executions was not unusual for Texas. Although there is much consensus that Bush effected significant changes, there is little consensus as to whether these changes were detrimental or positive in nature. If nothing else, Bush's transformative agenda, in combination with his political and family pedigree, catapulted him onto the national political radar. As the campaigns to succeed Bill Clinton as president began in earnest, Bush emerged as a key figure."
It also appears in Answers.com[32], Greensky[33], All Science Fairs [34], XClimbing [35], and many, many more. Why do I point this out? It is another case of material repeated over and over without being properly referenced or even examined.
The problem? Unsubstantiated statements (that's right, if unsubstantiated, then it must go, though I also believe that minor issues don't have a place either). It is unfortunate that I have to question this when there are several other notable editors that could critically examine everything on here. Here are the problems:
1. Says "received much criticism from it." Presumably this should read "received much criticism from death penalty opponents." NOTE: This is neutral and states who is doing the criticism (again, unknown criticism is an opinion). Probably does not have to be referenced, but if not, then cite so we know who.
2. The "More convicts . . . although" sentence needs to be viewed in light of him serving two terms (unusual in Texas) and followed by the disclaimer prefaced with although. If true, then state neutrally: if caused by Texas and less by Bush, then probably antecdotal to the Bush article; if caused by Bush, then very much necessry. Point: more/although statements are self-contradictory without hard evidence and taking into consideration the facts. Find a source! (Can't really find the mainstream media offering up such a statement, unless you read some opinion pieces.)
3. "Although . . . much consensus . . . little consensus" is a blog UNLESS someone can offer the polls and thoughts of the people out there. Now, I'm not saying that there always need to be polls, but who said this? An empty shell of a statement that offers an unsupported opinion. Personally, being an Illinoisan, I can't rate Bush beyond I know he won with a solid majority in 1994 in Texas and a landslide in 1998 (which still doesn't shed light on his performance as governor). Find a source! (Once again, I can't really find mainstream media sources or polls that would make such an ambiguous statement; indeed, this statement could just about be said about anyone.)
4. "If nothing else" begs to make a conclusion of suppositions before it that are not credible. Please by all means undo my edits if and when you can find the facts. Anon David

Some quick numbers on Bush's executions

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

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

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

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

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

What's relevant and what isn't

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've made these edits:

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

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

Whoa, I didn't denounce the Cooney article. First, you think because even if it presented one side, it is ok. No way: that is a POV (why doesn't people realize that you have to be balanced and factual). Secondly, I didn't add to the Cooney article (though by some standards this is Bush's bio, and nothing tangential should be put in). I'm just using the author's own sources to prove that either he or she didn't read them or didn't understand them. This is editorializing (or lying). So, yes, in the face of their own citations, it it indefensible. Instead of talking about how to achieve NPOV or spiralling out of control, someone needs to first source the Cooney viewpoint presented (since there is no credible evidence to back it up) and then present the opposite side. Stop quibbling and complaining and start fact checking and referencing. Anon David
I'm not mentioning Kerry's grades; I'm just pointing out a 2004 election issue, like is pointed out in the National Guard summary. One 2004 issue is relevant (and out of the news) and one isn't? That is my argument, and it is not logical or fair. You go on to state that longstanding Wiki policy to leave an "adequate summary." I don't see that (to me, adequate would be to either mention a problem and redirect OR casually mention both sides and redirect. I could have committed the same error by listing the positives of the "lies" of Bush's detractors (being facetious) and redirected. Obvious fairness issue.
This is where the icing is on the cake . . . this also smacks of not being parallel or balanced. Don't talk about the 2004 election, I'm told. Don't talk about Kerry, this isn't his site. YET do mention what Kerry thought about Bush's economics during the 2004 campaign that even proved to be wrong YET compares to Herbert Hoover. This violates both arguments which you have presented (you seem to be speaking out both sides of your mouth: don't talk about Kerry with grades in the 2004 election but do talk about Kerry in the econony in the 2004 election). Use the following questions for parallelism, balance, and fact:
1. Either we mention Kerry in all major areas or at least achieve balance, both positive and negative, or we don't. If the grades go to a foot note because this is Bush's biography, then the Kerry economic claims go too (which incidentally does not pass my litmus test because not balanced; and I don't know if I would say this is pro-Bush, but even if it is, then present the job reports without the editorializing and present Kerry's supporters' claims on a Democratic Party website). To say otherwise is that some Kerry stuff when negative is appropriate but when positive/neutral it is "not Kerry's biography." If that's the case, what Kerry thought about the economy belongs on his site. Question: Are we removing all direct writing about Kerry? Are we relegating all Kerry materials to footnotes?
2. Either we mention all major 2004 issues or achieve balance, both positive and negative, or we don't. If the Texans for Truth is necessary to discuss a 2004 election issue, then Kerry is necessary to discuss another 2004 election issue. Come one: that isn't balanced, but explicitly states that one controversy from the 2004 election is acceptable but another isn't relevant because I say it isn't. This article isn't about Kerry. This article isn't about Texans for Truth. Yet, it would not be honest to discuss certain subjects without discussing the other. Question: Are we removing all direct writings about the 2004 election? Are we relegating all 2004 materials to footnotes and other Wiki pages?
3. You say leave an adequate summary. Adequate would be to balance out the minutae of the issue to either just the issue or briefly mention both sies. Are you saying it is adequate to summarize by just presenting one side and not the other? Hardly defensible.
Anon David
"* restore report of pro-Bush POV re jobs report, as discussed above," says Mr. Lance in reference to the following paragraph:
After the last jobs report before the 2004 election was released, Kerry supporters continued to criticize Bush as the first American president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs during his term. With the subsequent November and December numbers, however, Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs during his first term.
Problem: This is NOT Kerry's biography, but Bush's, so remove the Kerry comment (or let's add a ton of Kerry comments; note: I've compromised to produce parallelism, so why don't others follow). Secondly, it would be nice to know the specifics, but hey, even that belongs on a 2004 election page, not here. Then the point is not about job growths overall, but about Kerry, the 2004 election, and the election year, even with a comparison willy-nilly with Herbert Hoover. The only neutral point is that, "Bush ended up with a net gain of jobs during his first term (the other points are relevant, but everyone on this discussion page wants you to realize that this is NOT (I repeat NOT) Kerry's autobiography and that there is a 2004 election page for this). We can't have it both ways if we want to claim to be fair.
You leave that one sentence in, and it appears pro-Bush. Not balanced, but if someone wants to leave it in, then at least source it and start looking for two points of view (though that one statement could be added and let some other editor work on it). Someone could add from Fox News, "Leave aside the fact that jobs are only one of the measures of economic performance. The rapid growth rate in GDP, stable inflation, a housing boom, and world-beating productivity growth are all just as important and are clearly successes for Bush. But even if jobs are the sole measure, Bush’s first term is still one of the best ever. First off, the Bush years ended with more Americans working than ever before. The answer is clouded, however, by a lingering controversy over which of the two Labor Department surveys mentioned above is the best measure of job creation. The payroll survey, which polls employers, indicates a razor-thin gain of 120,000 jobs between January 2001 and January 2005. The household survey, which contacts workers directly, indicates a net increase of roughly 2.5 million employed. Which is correct?"[36] 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.[37] There are a lot of other sources out there. This also speaks the larger issue: instead of relying wholly on Fox News or the Senate Democrats, it would be inherently better to fist cite the actual Department of Labor statistics for the facts, then add the commentary from supporters and detractors alike. It is very important that this be done to achieve a NPOV becaues there is a tight job market right now; all of this would be interesting to dig into. Anon David
It's called population growth, man. Just as one would argue there was the highest number of winning votes ever in the most recent election...this is due to population growth and a higher turnout due to the mysterious 2000 election. Just because there was a net gain in jobs in the first term, doesn't mean solely that there are still enough jobs to go around...there aren't. In a lot of cases, peoples unemployment benefits simply ran out so they no longer show up on the unemployment roles. Please try to limit your responses to a paragraph or two, be concise please...I recognize you are a new contributor, and have valid points to make, but it is becoming extremely hard to follow these points.--MONGO 18:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Mongo, I'm not going to speculate on how or why there were a net gain in jobs during the first Bush term, if indeed there was a net gain. The net gain or or loss is generally not viewed as a population growth issue; the media and government sources seem to use two statistical methods about how jobs are reported. Still, I think if this is to be balanced, your criticism needs to be cited: there is a general feeling of a loss of jobs and high unemployment. I agree exactly, and hopefully a rewrite will focus on: the pros/cons of job gains (the issue of the impact and other events that effected it) and the Dept. of Labor statistics (there are two major statistics that are somewhat at odds with one another and must be read with caution, though apparently they were not during other presidencies, which must also be listed to give the reader pause when examining trending data). PLEASE give facts to the brave soul who attempts the rewrite.
Also, higher population is not the only cause of the most votes. Someone, I can't remember who, said early that by this same token Gore would have had the most votes of any presidential candidate in history and that it changes with every election. This just isn't factual and can be checked by reading any history book. Rondald Reagan's 1984 tally was the most votes of any candidate until the 2004 election. The anomaly is Reagan's landslide and the unheralded 1992/1996/2000 elections that never resulted in a majority vote. On average, the highest vote total ever survives up to two elections before being broken. Just wanted to set the record straight on this. (Dcokeman 00:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
Higher population, more registered voters, more voters (overall) one elction to the next...so even if you have a smaller percentage of voters based on the size of the population there is still going to be an overall increase in the number of votes cast for the winner...it does say that in history books..and in encyclopedias. I thought I said that...oh well, this novel we're writing should be publishable in about a week...almost time to archive this mess.--MONGO 02:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Bush’s intellect is a legitimate subject for the article, but I don’t think we should overemphasize grades. The correlation between college grades and the demands of the Presidency isn’t high. Even the basic information about Bush’s transcript strikes me as borderline in terms of including it. Still, if we assume it’s to be analyzed, let’s look at (what I assume is) your language:
Bush's academic record, like his National Guard record, has been highly disputed. [[38]][39]][40] [41][42]
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: [43] recounts Bush’s self-deprecating humor about his college years; [44] discusses Bush’s grades in the context of how the Ivies work, with “legacy” admissions along with the brightest applicants; [45] is the most detailed of this trio, discussing his college years along with many other points to set forth that Bush as often governed "the way any airhead might" but also describing his "non-verbal acumen". Any of these links would be more informative about Bush, and therefore better for the Bush article, than the ones emphasizing Kerry. JamesMLane 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
James, you are right in that "highly disputed" is not exact. Thanks for doing some fact checking and offering this side to an issue that was and is highly contentious. By all means edit with a NPOV to change to these links. Please keep it parallel with the NG assertions or expand both (so as to keep the balance). I will probably try to find a link to the 2004 election contention just so a reader can go and investigate it if he or she wants to or you could leave the best of the bunch. (Dcokeman 23:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC))Reply

Science/GW

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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[46], has to come out, since Bush himself accepts the warming - see inline ref to speech. The OP, of course, wasn't signed by 19k scientists, as a read of the OP page will tell you. William M. Connolley 22:35:54, 2005-07-12 (UTC).

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

Farhenheit 911 or Farenhype 911

Latest comment: 20 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

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

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

Debate not over. That's ridiculous to assert. 'Heit' is a film lambasting Bush (and others) for incompetence regarding the events of 9/11. Winner of the Cannes 'Best Documentary' award, it is noteworthy. 'Hype' is an attempted refutation of 'heit', and is not about Bush nor equally noteworthy - in neither it's exposure nor social impact. Inclusion of both is itself unbalancing, in an effort to 'balance' POV. A link, by itself, of a source with the relevance of 'heit', does not constitute POV. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
And keep in mind, Farenhype is linked from Farenheit 9/11. And yeah, David, a little premature to simply cry "debate over." --kizzle 00:20, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Inclusion of both is unbalancing and POV? Yet one side is not. "Don't let the truth frighten you." Great, Heit won the Cannes Film Festival -- they mention it on that site. Also, Fahrnehype also links Fahrenheit. So, as I see it, you say it is acceptable to point out film lambasting Bush and that this is balanced, but it is unbalanced to bring up a film that, while not receiving the Cannes Film Festival award for Best Picture (no surprise there), connects with this and was watched by countless numbers. You then you say Hype refutes Heit but is not about Bush, yet Heit is about Bush. Then what is it refuting? (Hint, hint: not which donut Bush likes or if he can pronounce strategy, but that Heit got it wrong and discounts that BUSH is incompetent). Since you say that a link by itself does not mean POV, then why not hype? Come on, what are we afraid of?
Why don't we add Ann Coulter [47] as a See Also site. She is noteworthy and relevant. She talks about Bush all the time and is all over the media. Why not? Remember, a link by itself is not and does not constitute a POV.
This would be ridiculous! But, by the same standard Heit gets inserted, it would pass the standard. Personally, I don't see a film with a political agenda (as Hype and Heit/look at Michael Moore's quotes, he is truthful about it even if he believes he is true). Let's have the same standard. (Dcokeman 00:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
Asserting the two films had equal relevance and impact on Bush, his presidency, his campaign, and America is simply wrong. There is a massive disparity between the two, for that reason - not POV! It is that disparity that justifies the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

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

Ann Coulter? Why does she deserve a mention in this article, unlike any other commentator? Because you wanted to return 'hype' to the article. Please observe the 3RR, please stop regurgitating this back into the article, and please stop parroting other authors without making a clear point yourself. It's disrespectful to those who are interested in informing the reader above political squabbling. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Fahrenheit had huge impact on campaign, you say (without a source). Then put in on the 2004 election wiki page (most editors on this site prefer that). Relevant according to you, but not relevant is the documentary that says this has 59 lies (don't know if it is right, don't care, but hey, that is relevant). You even say Hype is about the assertions of 9/11 and not Bush, yet the documentary is about the 9/11 assertions of Bush's incompetence and trickery (ultimately, this is about Bush). You then say since it was not seen by as many people, then irrelevant . . . total popularity is not the only judge (but if you want it to be, then replace it with Bush's 2nd Inauguration Speech which had a much larger audience and press coverage). Then you talk about the impact on the American people . . . it did, but that is for Heit's site since that is about Heit's image, not Bush's and belongs on Heit's site. You then conclude that you want to inform the reader, but yet you want this taken out? I think I understand that you want to inform the reader about what you believe to be relevant, even though several politicians and political groups think Hype is relevant and Heit is fiction. I don't even want to enter into that debate. Ok, Heit is relevant. Hype is too, even if on a smaller scale. What is so wrong about including Hype? Please see my comments about Coulter as well. (Dcokeman 01:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
It's Miss Freisling (I'm female). Please refrain from your snarkiness and stick to the point. To be honest, your comments above are nearly illegible, but they do not refute my points in any way. Bush's inauguration is not at issue, F9/11 and the Hype film are. The factual accuracy of F9/11 is also not at issue - it's role in his life/Presidency are. Despite your spin, you agree to my premise re: import, but then claim that including both is more informative. It's not. It's artificially placing a source in to neutralize another, without regard to their relative import. That's bad editing, it's against the Wikipedia way, and it's not informative. I'm not in opposition to you politically, I'm in opposition to your apparent misunderstanding of this basic rule of editing. Balance does not trump fact. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Illegible? Then your screen must be out of whack. You mean unintelligible. You say spin, yet you are the one MAKING the claim that it has an important role in the life of the presidency? FACT CHECK: you can give no polls, statistics, or political commentary by Bush to support your opinion to support your allegations. Please source and then I'll go away. You conclude that balance does not trump fact: the fact that something garnered a wider audience? The fact is that Hype and Heit both attempted to make a mark on the 9/11 attacks; how this is artificial is beyond me. And as for snarkiness, you are the one that started with a flurry of talk and ended with an abrupt comment. I do not believe this neutralizes Heit, because I think they are so opposed that it would be nearly impossible to believe both. Still, that does not belong here. Why is one more important than the other? Popularity? Then why don't we find the number of articles and sales records for each and then rank See Also accordingly. This makes no sense. "It's about informing the reader." Well, then inform the reader (which shouldn't be done through censoring). Please move to 2004 election coverage page and, or the 9/11 page or the Cannes Film Festival. Or get over it and realize that both can be put on here or neither. Just the facts, please, just the facts.(Dcokeman 01:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
Yes, illegible. Your grammar is broken, your sentences malformed, your points obscured and difficult to track. I'm sorry, that's just a fact. Another fact - F9/11 had an impact on the campaign and Bush that is a matter of public record. Statistics are not required from me to justify this point. The film was contested and argued, just as now, by the parties and players throughout the election. 'Hype', quite simply, was not. That's all. It's not a matter of popularity, it's notoreity and noteworthiness. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
illegible - Illegible means difficult to decipher due to poor handwriting, printing, or damage. The illegible note had been retrieved from a puddle..[48] or Merriam-Wesbter Dictionary Main Entry: il·leg·i·ble Pronunciation: (")i(l)-'le-j&-b&l Function: adjective: not legible : INDECIPHERABLE (illegible writing)[49] When you insult me, please get it right (I really don't mind ad hominen attacks, for they can be quite amusing, but avoid word confusion so that you are easily understood by the reader).
Merriam-Wesbter Dictionary of Law Main Entry: public record Function: noun: a record required by law to be made and kept: a : a record made by a public officer or a government agency in the course of the performance of a duty b : a record filed in a public office. NOTE: Public records are subject to inspection, examination, and copying by any member of the public.[50]
Ok, ok. Just a fact you say, and then go on to cite another fact as a "matter of public record." Well, it isn't and never has been a public record (though this is probably an obvious word confusion, darling). Just being in the movies does not make something public record. This is a nice way for you to say that you are right without having to give facts or the TRUTH to back up your claim. Not an intelligible argument. Then you go on to say that Hype wasn't contested . . . not factual (examine source work for sales, dialogue, and websites spurned from it). You even claim that Fahrenheit is even discussed now, yet no media searches support this contention. So, once again, you cannot offer statistical or media proof of the value of the film on the 2004 election (which, incidentally, belongs on the 2004 web page if you can). Just the facts, please, just the facts. (Dcokeman 02:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
I can't see any compelling reason at all to include 'hype here. It seems to be a criticism of a criticism; that is, it's not about Bush per se. That said, 'heit seems to me more appropriately placed down in the 'Further reading' section, though maybe it should be 'futher reading & media' or some such. We don't link to book reviews of items in 'further reading', so why would we link to 'hype? Derex 01:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Not exactly a fair comparison. Hype was and is about Bush by proxy of Heit. Also, I don't know about further reading since it isn't a book. As for it being a criticism of a criticism, fair enough. To say book review is also incorrect. Hype is not a book review or just a critique, it is a separate documentary (like when an author writes a book in response to another book). Generally, by this route, both are acceptable if done on the national stage even if one is not as highly regarded. The Wiki way is to try to present a fair and honest rendition of the facts. Fair means that important criticism, whether good or bad, should be included. (Dcokeman 01:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
well, I've never heard of 'hype before, so I don't personally know what's in it. but the cover posted in the 'hype article has a picture of moore & it says "uncovering the truth about fahrenheit 9/11 & michael moore". if you believe the cover art, it sounds like 'hype is about moore and his movie, not about bush per se. have you seen the 'hype? what evidence can you provide as to it's contents being a documentary about bush & not a critique of moore & his movie? And no, it's not a book, but it has the same standing -- so we can just adjust the section name. Derex 01:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
also, you can quit preaching about the wiki way & what fair means. i don't think anyone in this debate is a newbie. i do see where you're coming from. however, we have honest disagreements, and not because we're not trying to be neutral or fair. Derex 02:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I say neither should be linked from this article. One is a big bash on Bush and the other is a big bash on Moore...but if we have to pick either, then heit stays due to it's popularity. The "hype" movie anon david keeps bringing up can be rented at Hollywood or Blockbuster but I don't think it ever made it to the theaters so it's hardly noteworthy and adding a pro for every con and vice versa is what got us into the mess in the drug and alcohol section. Also, lets get anaon david to stick to one point at a time, sign his posts and chill out...the volume of the message makes it hard to wade through to find the point!--MONGO 02:23, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Both sides, please

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

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

© 2005, Pioneer-12

I thought for a second I was being contacted by a spacecraft...whats with the Pioneer-12 stuff...wasn't it the pioneer spacecrafts that flew out of the solar system...wait, I'll look it up.--MONGO 02:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's no pioneer 12 but heres pioneer 11...pretty neat stuff [[51]]...but I agree to an extent that if one gets mentioned so should the other...the problem is, aside from a select few that venture into Hollwood video et al with absolutely nothing else to pick from they probably wouldn't rent Farenhype 911 because it they've never heard of it...--MONGO 02:53, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
look, quit impugning people's motives. no one here is trying to silence anyone, although i did think that had become the true patriotic way the last few years. 'hype is not even about bush. it's about moore & his movie, which is why it gets linked there. i'm personally no friend of bush, but i (and everyone else here that i know) am trying to write a neutral article regardless of personal opinion. dissenting opinions, such as yours, can be helpful in pointing out hidden biases. but just because people disagree with you does not make them "dirty and wrong". calling people names does, however, make people (at least me) tend to pay attention to the messenger rather than the message. it works against you. Derex 02:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply


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

© 2005, Pioneer-12

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

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

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

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

Solutions

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

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

QED.

© 2005, Pioneer-12

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

Include Fahrenheit 9/11 in the article?

Latest comment: 20 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

Agree, just as "Unfit for Command" is (& should be) included as a reference for Kerry. But even more so, given the prominence of the movie. As to 'hype, I don't really care that much. But, I don't agree it belongs unless I hear that it's about Bush instead of Moore. Derex 03:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Wow, the only Cannes winning argument. It made a lot of money. That in no way diminishes Fahrenhype 9/11 as valid, either. Wow, it did well overseas, so well, that Al Jazeera invited Michael Moore to receive an award (maybe it should be listed under Al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, too. The point is that you think it is valid: great. Let's get Bob Woodard's book too, since the vast majority is about Bush even if it is not political commentary. Let's get at Hype, since it tells 59 lies about Bush told by Moore (or it claims). I still can't believe you when you legitimately say that Hype might or might not be about Bush when Hype talks exclusively about Heit, which you claim is exclusively about Bush (though a lot is said about the Bush administration). Hype is about Bush. So, since you don't care, then let's put both in here. Seriously, though, I don't think readers will leave the GWB article outraged that this isn't in here. As another poster said after watching both movies, " If you try to silence one or the other, then that is blatant bais, wheather you realize it or not. (Just step back for a minute and look at the names of the two movies... and hopefully you'll see what I mean.]" Repeated here because I agree, how can this be anything else except a basic fairness issue?(Dcokeman 03:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
(a) see my response above to pioneer 12. (b) both woodward books are referenced, as of course they should be. (c) i know what the names of the movies are & i know what the cover says. it says the movie is about moore & his movie. (d) i don't actually care a whit about the link. i suspect you don't care much either. what i care about is principle. and that principle is that this article should be about bush. it's an encyclopedia article, not a political debate. (e) no one is trying to bury 'hype. if you give a damn about 'heit, you'll go read the article about it. and there you will see the link to 'hype. and then you will go read that if you care about it. Derex 04:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
'fairness' to political balance is not an editorial necessity. A relevance and reliance on fact is. And the facts have already been laid out as to the importance of 'Heit'. There is little to similarly validate the importance of 'hype' to this biographical article, except as a 'balancer' to 'Heit' - and without relevance, that does not help the article - it obscures. A discussion of 'Heit' does NOT require a discussion of 'Hype' to be accurate, or representative of fact. And this post is not an attempt to censor, to silence, to hide, to fear, to promote bias. It's editorial accuracy.Please respect the intentions of the authors here. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, fairness to political balance is a necessity if you want a neutral point of view. I know to you that Heit is important. Great. What is the problem with adding another important fact? This isn't even a discussion, it is a link. You claim editorial accuracy: how is it accurate? That has little to do with this present argument. This is relevant. This is factual. You laid out facts about box office receipts and the Cannes Film Festival. Editorial accuracy would be trying to include as much about Bush as reasonably possible and in a balanced, factual, and parallel manner. Listing Hype fulfills this requirement. Even if you claim to not censor, silence, or hide, that is what you are doing. You're right, I don't care much. I don't know why we would spend so much time on such a minor issue. Put both down and be done, since it a.) doesn't hurt the article, b.) does offer balance, and c.) still keeps the article manageable. Let's move on to something more constructive (like needing someone to write about Bush and jobs).(Dcokeman 04:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
If your so concerned about Fact then Heit wouldn't be included in an article about Bush to begin with. Fact requires research not unfounded allegations. In a court of law this would never hold up because the counter argument would be allowed to be heard which is Hype, not censored. You have only two options when attempting to include Heit, either allow for the inclusion of Hype or remove both. NPOV has everything to do with something so controversial as Heit. Allowing one sided controversy in a factual article is bias and with the blatant attempt to push one side's POV on the reader. Editorial accuracy requires getting your FACTS straight, Heit is so disputed in terms of it's alleged facts that its appearance on this page makes me truely question the motives of the "editors". The motives are more then clear when a counter link to Hype is censored. NPOV means nothing only YOUR POV matters. - DebateMaster
That's not the case - you do not need fairness to political balance to establish an NPOV. And you do not need to list every counter (no matter how prominent or relevant to the article) in order to establish an NPOV. You establish an NPOV by ruthless adherence to fact, not by elevating some facts to greater prominence to create a perceived 'balance' - because that itself is POV. THAT is editing. And I will repeat - it is disingenuous to say that I am censoring, hiding or silencing, and I have asked you repeatedly to refrain from personal attacks. The link was in the article before 'Hype' was inserted, and it belongs back in the article. The insistence that 'hype' belongs if 'heit' does is equally repellent and questionable, but I would not question the motives of the editor adding it - I will concentrate on the issue at hand. Again I will state that questioning the motives of the 'editors' is unwarranted, and is certainly not assuming good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
On any questionable or alleged topics or issues, you sure as hell need Fairness. Heit doesn't ruthelessly adhere to ANY facts thus the inclusion of Hype. You are censoring by including one not the other, get over it, that is a FACT. NPOV requires both or neither. - DebateMaster
Patently false. As mentioned ad nauseam, a source does not have to be neutral to be relevant, and despite repeated requests, your post represents a repeated personal attack. I ask you again to Please refrain. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
A source does have to be factual based to be relevant. If the source is disputed as having factual relevancy, it either needs to be removed or an opposing POV allowed to establish a NPOV. Heit is linked for it's POV not it's relevancy in ticket sales. I believe constantly claiming a personal attack is slander, so please refrain. - DebateMaster
Funny - you parrot my words just as Dcokeman did. Heit is linked for it's relevancy to Bush, not ticket sales. Your intimation of slander is erroneous, and laughable. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
So, Ryan, what is your motive for attempting to suppress the link to FahrenHype? Because you are just so determined to keep a "somewhat less important" link off of the page? Riiiiight.
© 2005, Pioneer-12
I have stated my motive. It is accuracy. It is not 'somewhat less important', it is irrelevant to the article. I say so perhaps a dozen times above. In addition, nowhere do I impune the motives of either of the three recently-added posters. I will not stoop to your level. -- RyanFreisling @ 12:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ah, first it was that Fahrenhype isn't famous enough, now it's that Fahrenhype is "irrelevant". Mmmm hmmmm.
Both excuses are easily disproven, and in fact have already been disproven multiple times. Why don't you come up with a new excuse tomorrow?
If your motive was accuracy, then you wouldn't be linking to Fahrenheit 911 in the first place. Why? Because Fahrenheit 911 probably contains more misinformation than information.
Observe: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
That link by the way, appears to be an honest analysis of Moore's film. It's goal appears to be non-partisan and honorable: the truth.
© 2005, Pioneer-12
Debate Master, for four hours some people have claimed that including Fahrenhype is a bias while just Fahrenheit is not. I think this is so obviously wrong, I thought literally it would be debate over to say just what you have said. And this is just to include the link! Wow! Educate everyone by only presenting one viewpoint. That is called indoctrination. Once again, let's move on to something real. And I'll pretend that I didn't hear "you do not need fairness to political balance to establish" a NEUTRAL point of view. I guess we should just always add one side from now on (the side I want, of course) to achieve neutrality. We don't want to list every counter, just one (though if ever criticism is leveled, then yes, every counter). Elevating facts: naw, just post them and let the reader decide (wait, that is what we did without commentary and still unacceptable). This is not a personal attack, for you have repeatedly said don't include Hype in here because its earnings are less than Heit which means you do not want it to be seen here, you want it taken out (READS: hidden, silenced, censored). Well, just the facts: list one highly contentious item, then balance. So, add the two darn links and move on!(Dcokeman 05:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
I agree 100% Dcokeman. On any questionable or alleged topics or issues, you sure as hell need Fairness. Heit doesn't ruthelessly adhere to ANY facts thus the inclusion of Hype. You are censoring by including one not the other, get over it, that is a FACT. NPOV requires both or neither. - DebateMaster
just curious, have you two met before? Derex 05:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
You can speak in the name of fact, but your simplistic and self-selected criteria of 'fairness' is simply incorrect. You're welcome to your opinion, but this is an encyclopedia, and should be based on fact, not political correctness. NPOV does not equal political correctness. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
If it should be about facts then you need to get YOUR facts straight. Heit attempts to discredit Bush with Alleged "facts". Hype includes "facts" that attempt to show otherwise. If you were so concerned about facts you would include both or neither. PC has nothing to do with this. NPOV = Neutral Point of View. Heit is the farthest thing from this solar system as a "NPOV". If you want it included fine, then include Hype otherwise remove both. - DebateMaster
And again, you misattribute NPOV and so prove my point. A source does not have to be neutral to be informative. Both or neither is not the only axis of choice. Heit is noteworthy. Hype, much as you might not want to believe it, is far less noteworthy, and is not about Bush, but about Heit. Here, in this article, a mention of Heit does not require Hype. Simple. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
A source does have to be factual based to be relevant. If the source is disputed as having factual relevancy, it either needs to be removed or an opposing POV allowed to establish a NPOV. Heit is linked for it's POV not it's relevancy in ticket sales. Hype is as noteworthy as Heit. This is a perfect example of why more people have heard of Heit but not Hype. Censorship on this level is not what Wikipedia is about. What is simple is a mention of Heit requires a mention of Hype or neither. - DebateMaster
'Hype is as noteworthy as Heit' is blatantly absurd. See response above to 'censorship' personal attack. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
sigh. masterdbater, it does not matter if 'heit is factually correct. the point is that it was an extemely well known and commercially successful documentary about bush. we do not link critical reviews of 'unfit for command' in the kerry article. why? because those go in the unfit (sbvt) article. same principle here. good night, all. Derex 05:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Debate Master, you are too simplistic and using self-selected criteria (who picked her criteria as opposed to you using your own brain or why it is too simple to say that it is bias to present one side of an issue when that is what the whole world believes and then dismiss it out of hand with the wacky statement "politically correct"). It is simple: Hype is noteworthy according to Mrs. Fresiling, but not as noteworthy as Heit. A source does not have to be neutral to be informative . . . it has to have huge sales or win a Cannes Film award? No, be factual. No, agree with ?? Mrs. Freisling said the real issue, "You establish an NPOV by ruthless adherence to fact." Wait a minute . . . she means because Heit and Hype both happened, they are actual documentaries that we can verify. Oh, read close: "not by elevating some facts to greater prominence" . . . oh, it is not too ruthless, but if one has a greater "prominence" or not . . . judged by only her or the facts . . . well, she did say ruthless, so "to create a perceived 'balance' - because that itself is POV," now I get it, to attempt to present both sides creates a point of view as opposed to presenting one side, even if hotly debated and many believe it is a total fabrication. Well, get ruthless: both Hype and Heit happened; both are about Bush; both are just links. It is not the editor's job to decide if two facts are equal, but as Mr. Lane stated previously, that the criticisms themselves are presented correctly. (And Debate Master, if you live in the same town as Mrs. Freisling, don't drink the water.) Move on. (Dcokeman 05:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
Well, it looks like Debatemaster is a sock of ? Edit history: [[52]]...this place is getting weird. Dcokeman, the issue is relevence...Farenheit 911 is a big hit, right or wrong, good or bad...Farenhype is a knee jerk reaction to Farenheit...and is a refutation of Moore's movie...I have no problem with seeing them both gone as links or both here as links, but hype isn't anything other than a refutation of heit...lets all take another poll! Consensus is what we're all about here...--MONGO 07:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I am my own Master thankyou. Popularity has nothing to do with Facts. Rush Limbaugh is extremely popular, he constantly talks about bush and was extremely influential in the campaign. Should a link to him be included? This isn't even the point. Farenheit 911 is a biased negative POV about Bush, that is widely disputed as being unfactual. FarenHYPE 911 is a biased positive POV about Bush. Just because it talks about Michael Moore does not make it any less relevant to the issue of NPOV. Discussing Moore is essential for HYPE to provide a factual basis for the allegations Moore makes with Heit. This is a cut and dry issue, in order for this article to maintain a NPOV include both or neither. - DebateMaster 13 July 2005

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

My point exactly. Unless your opinion subsequently diverges from mine, MONGO, you have recapped my oft-made point exactly. Thank you. It is unconscionable that the link to 'Heit' should be 'held hostage' by those seeking to neutralize it's presence with 'Hype'. It's disrupting the article to prove (an incorrect) point. -- RyanFreisling @ 12:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
United on this one for sure. I just can't understand where these three new users came from all of a sudden...such similar edits, such a similar message, nice compliments from one to the other...noticed the copywrite with the one and figured since this was an arguement worth fighting for, why not create two socks and forego copywrite concerns...and then try to dominate the article and the talk page....hope I don't get sued...actually, I hope I do!--MONGO 12:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
You may have noticed that 'DebateMaster' (sic) only appeared after Dcokeman received a 3RR warning from Carbonite... could he be a sock to avoid the 3RR prohibition, and to shore up Dcokeman's continued reverting of the doc? -- RyanFreisling @ 12:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ah, you've done well grasshopper...!--MONGO 12:51, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
How about this...[[53]] & [[54]]--MONGO 13:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
You've once again proven that if you can't beat the attack, then at least attack the contributor. I believe, and history will bear me out, that Ms. Freisling is really Mongo in a leotard . . . or maybe, just maybe, we can focus on the issue at hand. Since you are united, I believe this is Mongo's attempt to create different names so he can get his point down . . . or maybe, just maybe, people do not see this as fair. Maybe there are others out there that also have a brain in their head. Also, darling, another word confusion muddies the waters: the Latin "sic" is woefully misplaced unless you don't know how to spell Debate and Master. Now, that is besides the point. You say you want the facts on Rush Limbaugh, yet you can't give the facts on Heit (I agree, it is uncorroborated if Limbaugh influenced the campaign because he does NOT give any facts; take note with this criticism, but NEITHER do you). Ms. Freisling says editors don't have to be balanced: well, they do if they want to be fair. It is not a hostage situation, it is an assassination attempt on your part to dictate that you must judge the prominenece of the facts and when it comes down to it, we cannot trust the reader to pick which link he or she might want to read but YOU can. That is censoring! Here are some facts:
1. Fahrenheit was popular and made a lot of money. Michael Moore even hoped the documentary would overturn the 2004 election in favor of Kerry.
2. Fahrnehype is a documentary that was orchestrated by Dick Miller and included several key players in last years election, including Zell Miller. Many groups hoped that it would point out the fallacies of Moore.
3. Each of the above are diametrically opposed to one another.
4. Prominence: Rush Limbaugh was the most listened man in radio during the a.m.[55] and published several best selling books.
5. Prominence: Ann Coulter appears on CourtTV, Fox, and other channels regularly. Coulter is the author of several best sellers. She has a widely syndicated column.
The point? Popularity cannot be a judge of what to insert or not to insert. Hype is an independent documentary. Heit wanted to send a political message to Bush. We don't need to evaluate their veracitiy, but look to a NPOV with balance, fairness, and facts. One or the other is not going to "neutralize" the other -- doubtful people of different political persuasions will pick the one they don't believe in and be swayed (unless they are easily led). First, no one is really going to care if they see either in here. Secondly, Freisling and others claim they want to educate and not censor. Then, put both in (hey, its just a link, even if you don't like it: divergent view points breed neutrality). Finally, the facts are that both are documentaries, one realized nationally, the other through DVD's, and both treat the same issue. I don't know why we would want to include political commentary into the article of George W. Bush -- this is sending the message that if you are popular and you talk about Bush, we'll put you in. Fairness is a basic principle that must be achieved. When editing Wiki articles often people only know one view point; their ignorance should not be an excuse to prevent other editors from presenting both. Add both. Add neither. You add Heit, I'll add Hype. Maybe then the reader, if they have nothing better to do on this earth, can then figure it out for themselves. At least give them the chance to figure it out if you must include these commentaries that have not been taken seriously by Bush (well, at least through the evidence, we can only contend that Bush never mentioned or responded to either one). Move on. (Now I need to use my 87 other log-ins to say what I believe.)(Dcokeman 14:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
I understand what you are trying to say...I don't think you understand what we are saying...in conclusion: heit is notible, hype isn't...get it? As far as I am concerned, the only reason hype came out was in reaction to heit...jekyll/hyde?--MONGO 19:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

George Bush Kills Science

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

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

Let's Not Delude Ourselves: Fair, factual, and balanced

Latest comment: 20 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I've heard commentators on this site say that we don't have to be fair. Not everything has to be balanced. Use only facts. There was a lengthy debate over two meaningless links. Some people claimed it is neutral to only present one side; to only present the more prominent one; to present the one that made more $$$. Then we hear about educating the reader; about the necessity for accuracy by leaving on out and including another. Unfortunately, then there is a huge debate on the veracity or validity of each movie. Ms. Freisling only saw Fahrenheit, and based off of that and sale records, she claims it had a significant influence on the presidential election. Pioneer 12 saw both and claims they are both propagandistic. Who is right? Well, just apply rules of basic editing to a controversial topic: is it balanced. NO if you only include one -- it just isn't and to call it educating really means educating about how to find the source you want them to find. Is it factual? Well, both documentaries were released, publicized, and debated. It is not here to decide if each portrays the subject correctly. Is it fair? Hmm, present one controversial link and claim it is accurate. Accuracy derives from presenting all the facts in an open, honest, and logical point. So, NO, it would not be accurate to randomly pick the one you want (and some say you can see Hype off of Heit's site; well, you can see Heit off of Hype's site -- now that is a circular argument for those of you who don't understand the meaning of circular arguments and should be acceptable to do the latter because it is the same premise as the first).

Hardly will this site suffer if people can't find Fahrenheit 9/11. It isn't like it was proven to be a deciding issue (if at all) last year, and it is out of the news this year. Let's stop making those kinds of claims (because they are indefensible) and focus on the issue that it was a mass marketed movie about Bush. Fahrenhype 9/11 is a documentary that was made and also mass marketed (albeit on a smaller scale). It is relevant to the Bush article in the context of presenting a refutation of Fahrenheit 9/11 and a balance to what the Bush presidency was during the 9/11 attacks.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking one link is better than another because of one's popularity, Let's not delude ourselves that fairness can be had by presenting one propaganda piece and not another. Let's not delude ourselves that there is only one side to a criticism. Let's not delude ourselves that we can claim neutral with only our opinions and claims. I previously had a hotly contested debate with William Connely on this site, and in the end he refuted some of my statements with cold, hard REFERENCED facts. He came to the conclusion, nonetheless, that I did balance it out more and he revised. I then revised because I thought a word selection was unfair. The point --> stop throwing opinions around (I'm guilty as charged, because it is easy for me to use your same baseless arguments to make a just as illogical baseless argument that is certainly just as valid) and give references with facts. 1. THERE ARE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT HOW EITHER DOCUMENTARY EFFECTED THE ELECTION OR THE CANDIDATES. 2. THERE IS THE FACT THAT BOTH ARE HEAVILY LADEN WITH HIGHLY POLITICAL VIEWPOINTS, AND BOTH ARE DIAMETRICALLY. 3. THERE IS THE FACT THAT FAHRENHEIT 9/11 DID QUITE WELL AT THE BOX OFFICE AND FAHRENHYPE 9/11 WAS RELEASED ON DVD BY DICK MORRIS AND ZELL MILLER. 4. THERE ARE NO FACTS TO CONTEND THAT BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM WARMLY EMBRACED EITHER FILM AS FACTUAL, HONEST, OR FAIR. 4. NEITHER FILM IS EVER MENTIONED WHEN TALKING ABOUT BUSH TODAY OR SEEMS TO PROVIDE AN INDEPTH VIEW OF BUSH THAT IS UNIQUE, HONEST, AND NEWSWORTHY. 5. BOTH MOVIES DEAL WITH BUSH AND THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE. Until an editor can prove significant facts of why both are extremely important, I'd leave them out. Furthermore, I don't see either link adding anything to my understanding of Bush because who has time to read the million and one wiki and external links on here. Not me.

I'm sorry, but I must define fair and neutral, even if you don't think you need to be fair to be neutral (I can't argue that and if the poster edited that ridiculous statement that is a paradox, I certainly won't say anything):

fair: marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism[56]

neutral: not engaged on either side; specifically : not aligned with a political or ideological grouping (a neutral nation)

So, don't believe me, believe the meanings of the words everyone uses but then doesn't abide by. If an editor is to be fair and neutral, he or she must be impartial, present information free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism, and not engaged on either side. This simply can't happen by presenting just one movie or the other -- that is not impartial, and by definition, not fair. Neutral means you present both sides equally by remaining unaligned. Presenting one side appears that that is the valued, relevant criticism, and no debate is needed. But, if you must put heit/hype on here, what are we so afaid might happen if the reader sees Fahrenhype 9/11? Might they freak out? Might they decide to click on it? Might they decide to check it before they check Fahrenheit? Might they decide there are two opposing documentaries and skip over them? They might do all of that if they are reading it critically . . . how will that hurt Fahrenheit 9/11? How will that hurt this article? It won't! (Dcokeman 15:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply

Hear hear! Banes 18:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Propaganda or no, if it played an important role in the life of the President (as Heit clearly did, and Hype clearly did not), some mention of it belongs. The difference between the noteworthiness of the two films is not a matter of degree. One was the topic of extensive argument and debate, as here - and one was not. On that basis, it is not necessary to include 'Hype' to contextualize 'Heit' in this article. Diatribes like yours, long and without actual conclusion, don't change that. Heit had demonstrable impact on the campaign and on American popular culture, in a hay that 'hype' did not. That's not censorship, nor ridiculous, nor paradoxical. 'Fair and balanced' is for Fox News. Here, it's 'factual and relevant'. We are not attempting to placate the readership - we are attempting to educate them. -- RyanFreisling @ 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Ryan, I think heit should be mentioned as a link only...I don't think it deserves mentioning in the text of the article on Bush...but that is up to you. I absolutely don't think HYPE deserves anything...just to clarify my POV on all this.--MONGO 19:54, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I have probably missed an earlier discussion, but how exactly did Fahrenheit 9/11 "clearly" have an effect on the president's life? It seems to have been a much bigger deal to Michael Moore and his supporters than it was to the president. Even if it had some effect on his presidential campaign, that seems like something more suited for an article on the 2004 election. —Charles O'Rourke 20:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Just to throw out a little example about how it affected Bush (they are manifold), here's an excerpt from a conservative blog [57].
"Mostly the comments are absolute shock at the close connections Moore makes between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia. "Bush looks really really REALLY corrupt in this film. I just don't know what to think anymore," is a common comment to hear. Some of these soldiers are darn right ashamed tonight to be American soldiers, to have been apart of this whole mission in Iraq, and are angry over all that Moore has presented in his film." {...} "I wonder how damaging and shocking a Moore project would have been in the 1940s making such a video of Franklin Roosevelt. All the corruption and decadence in that administration would have fed such a project well. Or how damaging and shocking would such a Moore project have been to Lincoln, who wavered and shifted often in finding the right mediums and balances in pursuing the great causes of the Civil War. ...Need I even suggest the impact such would have had on Kennedy or Johnson and all their hypocrisies?"
This is just a single perspective of the impact of the film, in this case centering around it's impact on soldiers acting under the Commander in Chief's leadership. Here's another, an excerpt from an article [58] titled 'The Politics of Film', detailing its impact on the political arena during the election:
"{...} history shows that only rarely do such cultural touchstones become political. It has been 30 years since a documentary had a significant impact on the political front, said Bebitch Jeffe, who cited the 1974 film "Hearts and Minds," which detailed opposition to the Vietnam War, as "a turning point in public opinion. It changed opinions on the war. In 2004, the political tornado now forming around Moore's film, she said, is due as much to an unusual conflux of timing and marketing as to content. The controversy began when Disney head Michael Eisner refused to distribute the film.
"We've never had the head of a major entertainment conglomerate create this kind of debate. ... It all played into a dynamic I don't think we've seen, " Bebitch Jeffe said.
{...} "GOP operatives and organizations, including a California-based group, Move America Forward, have begun lobbying efforts against Moore's work. A key organizer, former GOP Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, calls the film "propaganda" and campaign material disguised as a documentary -- and has posted e-mail addresses of theater owners to urge supporters to demand they not air the film."
-- RyanFreisling @ 20:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how either of those excerpts show an actual effect on the Bush presidency. Regarding the first one, no one has shown that Bush's authority as commander-in-chief has been compromised. Conservative hand-wringing over the movie doesn't demonstrate that it had an effect. Regarding the second one, the president won his re-election bid and public opinion about the war didn't go south until after the election; so what effect did the movie have on the presidency? —Charles O'Rourke 20:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
If you ignore everything else - "It has been 30 years since a documentary had a significant impact on the political front". That is an accurate assessment of it's importance, in specific here to Bush's campaign for his 2nd term. There are countless others, and both examples are clearly answers to your question. Do you discount the film had a substantial impact on the campaign, and as the first example's quotations of actual soldiers asserts, their perception of the President's role as Commander-in-Chief? If so, you're entitled... but that doesn't negate the opinion of the original poster, and doesn't invalidate the examples. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm simply saying that what some soldiers thought about the movie (I haven't seen anything indicating it was many, or most) doesn't make it a defining part of the Bush presidency, and how did you determine that "It was been 30 years since a documentary had a significant impact on the political front" was an accurate assessment? Michael Moore's stated goal was to derail the Bush re-election campaign, it didn't work, and at election time, no one (in my knowledge) was suggesting that the race was so close because of the documentary. So where was its notable impact that warrants a mention in a Bush biographical article? I would definitely agree that it should be placed in an article about the 2004 presidential election — but I still wouldn't place too much importance on it. —Charles O'Rourke 21:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with the closeness of the race,or the election itself, but the role of the film in popular culture's experience of the Bush presidency (and his experience as President) - and the fact that this film, the highest-grossing documentary of all time, was a direct critique of Bush, during his campaign. Never before has a documentary had such visibility or impact during a political season, centered around a sitting president, in time of war, and so impugned his motives and character to such a global audience. It's unique, it's noteworthy, and it belongs. Perhaps more mention belongs than a simple link, to clarify the relationship and it's impact, as you seem unconvinced by these two simple examples. Perhaps a determined editorial process in the article itself to that effect is called for. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Certainly it should have a mention in the Documentaries article, since it truly is notable among documentaries. But I still am unconvinced that because it 1) directly criticized Bush during time of war and 2) was a box office hit, that makes it notable from the perspective of Bush's presidency. What did Bush do differently as a result of the movie? —Charles O'Rourke 21:44, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
A fair amount, to be sure - from his party's (GOP) funding of 'Hype' to the attempts listed above to censor it [59], [60]. A change in Bush's personal actions is not required to substantiate it's import to Bush's presidency and public perception. For another example -
"In a direct reference to Michael Moore’s Bush hit piece "Fahrenheit 9/11" Kerry makes the claim that he would be more decisive and quick to react. Kerry told the reporters, "Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered in my ear that America is under attack, I would have told those kids very nicely and politely that the president of the United States has something that he needs to attend to...and I would have attended to it." [61]. Does this substantiate it's importance as a 'talking point' about Bush, used during the campaign to attack him for incompetence? Yes. Does it mean Bush's feelings or personal actions changed? No. But it still belongs, for all the same reasons as the other examples. Revisionism cannot minimize the impact of the documentary on Bush, his public perception, and the 2004 campaign (NOT the '04 Election). -- RyanFreisling @ 22:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)'Reply
I think we are talking past each other. I am saying that over-reaction by conservatives in general doesn't prove or disprove any sort of effect on the president or his presidency. That's why I think a discussion of Fahrenheit 9/11 is more appropriate in an article on the 2004 presidential campaign, not Bush's presidency; because as far as I can see, and none of the articles you've cited have said otherwise, neither George W. Bush nor his presidency did anything differently or were notably affected by the documentary. It certainly riled up conservatives, and gave Kerry a few extra talking points, but did either end up mattering, from a historical, encyclopedic perspective? It surely explains some of the twists and turns of the 2004 campaign, but I still can't see how it says anything noteworthy about his presidency. I'm not trying to be revisionist, just balanced. (For what it's worth, I don't think Fahrenhype has any place here regardless of what else is mentioned.) —Charles O'Rourke 04:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've made the elements of my case elsewhere (as have numerous others, helping to establish consensus) - for the first time, a global best-selling award-winning documentary ruthlessly critiques a sitting president in time of war, it's prominence inspiring not only political outrage on the left and the right in political and 'public' arenas, as epitomized (not necessarily substantiated) by the interviewees in my prior examples', causing 'twists and turns' in the campaign, etc., as you mention yourself. If we disagree by the 'extent' to which this film affected the President, at least in the ways I mentioned, that's one thing. But it's most certainly a noteworthy occurrence of his Presidency, with unique effects. Again, the 'balance' issue - I have to ask, are the factors you seek to balance Left wing POV vs. Right wing POV, or obscurity vs. noteworthiness? -- RyanFreisling @ 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying to balance relevance vs., not quite irrelevance, but very limited relevance. Obviously George W. Bush should be linked from the Fahrenheit 9/11 article, because George W. Bush is the main theme of the movie. But I think we agree that the presidency and the man have not changed one way or the other as a result of the movie, so I don't think that the movie is a noteworthy part of the presidency, just noteworthy among documentaries. Also, on a different note, at the moment Fahrenheit 9/11 is under the "further reading" section. Since its factual accuracy and fairness is highly disputed, does it belong in a "further reading" category of an article which is supposed to be a reference? I would hope most of our articles only reference materials that, while perhaps not being neutral, at least are factually accurate. —Charles O'Rourke 01:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
We don't agree that 'the presidency and the man have not changed one way or the other as a result of the movie'. - I just made the opposite point. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think Mr. O'Rourke makes some valid criticisms. First, don't pass off blogs as facts: they do not belong in something considered reputable and they most certainly are an opinion, just like your opinion. They are fine, but add them into the Fahrenheit piece for they mean nothing here. Secondly, you say a fair amount and then quote blogs and information from politically biased sources. Your sources have to be neutral and balanced if you expect them to be taken seriously. You call it Revisionism, but the American history books I've seen don't place this importance on Fahrenheit like you do (and can't back up with facts).
I'm charged with throwing out lame definitions, but hey, when words are misunderstood, someone has to correct them. It is not neutral to use a biased site to back up a biased piece and then claim you have support. Why not just produce reports from the Bush White House about their performance after 9/11 to view Moore's piece? Naturally, because it a.) isn't factual and b.) is obviously biased. Even your last quote about Kerry is not truthful -- you make a charge by picking a small piece out of an article because someone speculates that he might be comparing himself to Michael Moore, though Kerry NEVER mentioned Moore, only a political commentator before Hype came out. Here is the rest of the article: "Where were you [on 9/11]? John Kerry: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation. Here’s the 9/11 timeline pre CNN… 8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire. 9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning. (Kerry sees this horrible event live on TV) 9:17 a.m.: The Federal Aviation Administration shuts down all New York City area airports. 9:21 a.m.: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey orders all bridges and tunnels in the New York area closed. 9:30 a.m.: President Bush, speaking in Sarasota, Florida, says the country has suffered an "apparent terrorist attack." 9:40 a.m.: The FAA halts all flight operations at U.S. airports, the first time in U.S. history that air traffic nationwide has been halted. 9:43 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately. 9:45 a.m.: The White House evacuates. (Kerry and his colleagues leave shortly thereafter.) Hindsight is 20/20 but so are transcripts and timelines. John Kerry wants to complain about 7 minutes? He sat stunned after the attacks-- in his own words ‘unable to think’ for at least 42 minutes until he was ‘told to evacuate."[62]
Believe it or not, this article does not mention how Moore influenced Kerry or Bush. There is some speculation, but recognize that for what it is. This article is about Kerry, and by matter of the subject, the support of the Bush White House. Add it to the Kerry article, because as several editors have made clear, this site is Bush's biography and not Kerry's. And, next time, use sources to oppose Mr. O'Rourke's contentions that are factual and balanced to bolster your argument.(Dcokeman 23:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply

One might expect John Kerry should retract his petty criticism of the president from Thursday’s meeting.

Once again, your long-winded diatribe is misdirected. A political review of the timeline is not relevant, nor is a refutation of Kerry's POV. I included those examples to demonstrate the role of 9/11 in the Bush presidency and campaign, and much as you might wish to blanket deny, it's simply not true that "No one can give info into importance of Heit to Bush or the American people." -- RyanFreisling @ 23:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dcokeman, while you preach to us from up high on what neutrality means, you need to take a lesson in civility.

  • Stop throwing out lame definitions from webster's dictionary to prove your point, maybe assume we know a little bit about the english language.
  • Stop preaching to us what neutrality means like a father talks to a child, just make your point about why something is neutral or not without defining neutrality for us everytime. Assume we're maybe quite possibly smarter than monkeys.
  • Don't shout, there's no reason why you need to shove your opinion down our throats.--kizzle 16:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not preaching from high up, but only asking for balance. You say stop throwing out lame definitions, but you ignore that many of my posts are discounted because others claim I don't know what consensus is, that I'm illegibile, or that it is part of the public record. I sometimes misuse words, such as when I added that Bush's grades are disputed . . . simply not accurate. But, consensus was a focus of the topic presented and I was told I didn't know what it means. I've taught for a long time and I simply go to the dictionary to point out the problem (and the topic dropped). I'm insulted as illegible; that is about as funny as Jesse Jackson calling Bush unliterate. Still, my question is dismissed out of hand because of "the public record." Once again, the editor didn't know what a public record is -- and I doubt they'd believe me, so of course, I just use a citation that is absolutely the end of the story.
As far as neutrality, when some editors think fairness concerning political matters does not matter to receive balance (not my talk here, but others and apparently no one vehemently disagreed), then either we don't know what neutral means or we are just make it up as we go. This is more than semantics: it means not taking sides, which means you have to be fair. Other people apparently do not share this definition. I make no assumptions about anyone, but I will listen AND give in if they are factual and fair. I simply don't think we have it here.(Dcokeman 22:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
Neutrality is like enlightenment, it is something we all strive for but never fully achieve. All I ask is that you recognize that none of us, including you, are completely neutral. Like I said before, you're about the 50 billionth person to come onto Wikipedia believing their point of view is neutral while everyone else's is biased. --kizzle 05:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

-->Let me say how much I agree with kizzle here. Well said. We do not need to be neutral, but we have an obligation to attempt to make the article neutral and accurate. --Noitall 05:44, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dcokeman: to me, the primary question is whether 'hype is primarily about g.w. bush? i have looked around, including the fahrenhype website. everything i can find says this is primarily about michael moore, his movie, & his motives. btw, the movie is available "exclusively at overstock.com"; doesn't sound like a hugely successful or important film to me. so no, i don't think it's obvious it deserves a link. and no, i don't think i am being biased by holding that position. i have drawn the analogy with a book review not being linked, and i stand by that. or i could be "deluding" myself; i do have an awful hard time thinking for myself. Derex 16:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't think you're deluded :)... it's, as you say, a criticism of a critism. --kizzle 16:59, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Much of the foregoing discussion of the two films misses the context in which the question actually arises. We’re not talking about the text of the article; we’re talking about a "See also" link to another Wikipedia article. The issue is not whether the films are accurate, or fair, or widely distributed. No one is talking about linking to either film’s official website. The issue is whether the Wikipedia articles would add to a reader’s understanding of the subject of this article (George W. Bush).

The best way to answer that question is to look at the articles in question. The Wikipedia article on Fahrenheit 9/11 contains information about Bush that isn’t in the main article. Therefore, it merits a "See also" link. The Wikipedia article on FahrenHYPE 9/11 contains no such information. In fact, the word "Bush" doesn’t even appear in that article. Linking it to doesn’t help the reader find out anything new about Bush.

NPOV means that, on a controversial subject, the article must present differing opinions fairly. If there’s material in the film FahrenHYPE 9/11 that isn’t in this article, it could be considered for inclusion. There’s quite obviously no shortage of editors devoting great energy to presenting the pro-Bush POV. The mere link to an article that’s not about Bush doesn’t improve the balance of our presentation about Bush.

Dcokeman says, "Ok, Heit is relevant. Hype is too, even if on a smaller scale." I think the relevance of the films to this subject is different – Fahrenheit 9/11 is to a great extent about Bush, while FahrenHYPE 9/11 is about Fahrenheit 9/11. If we were to try to list subjects that are relevant "even if on a smaller scale" to the President of the United States, we’d have quite a list, starting with more than 100 country articles, the 535 members of the U.S. Congress, and any U.S. state not already linked in the text. Then there’s Al Franken, whose article does give some information about Bush, namely that he was the inspiration for the creation of Air America Radio. We have to make some judgments. Judging the films, I’d say that Moore’s film qualifies but the attack on Moore’s film doesn’t. Judging the wikilinks, I'd say that the article on FahrenHYPE 9/11 has no information about Bush. The article on Al Franken has a little information about Bush, but not enough to justify a link. The article on Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good amount of information about Bush, so that link is appropriate.

Finally, let’s remember that there’s no mathematical formula for NPOV. In discussing these film links, some editors seem to think that we have to keep a scorecard, and the number of favorable links must precisely equal the number of unfavorable links. There is no such requirement. If you think there is, I invite your attention to the "External links" section. The favorable links greatly outnumber the unfavorable links – an easy calculation to make, given that there are zero unfavorable links. Somehow, the people insisting that a link to Moore’s film must be balanced by a link to its criticism don’t seem upset about the much greater imbalance in external links. Should every link to a Bush speech be balanced by a link to a Counterpunch or Common Dreams article criticizing that speech? I don’t think so. (At one time the "External links" section did include some anti-Bush links, but they were all purged. I don’t think we need a numerical balance, but I think we should include a few notable sites where the reader could get a different viewpoint. In particular, an anti-Bush site that’s regularly updated, as the pro-Bush White House site is, could be valuable for providing information that’s not in the Wikipedia article. The test for including such links should be usefulness to the reader, not a numerical balance.) JamesMLane 17:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Please add negative links! That is great if they are factual and balanced (it appears else where things could use some links to Bush detractors: please go find them and add them if they are legitimate like Fahrenheit). I think it would be wonderful if some major speeches had links for his detractors: that indeed would receive balance. This can be a call to wake them up. Still, an uneasiness seeps into me with Fahrenheit: it is an obvious criticism and provides many assertions (they might be facts, but I haven't checked them) that are largely disputed by Fahrenhype. I believe standing alone Hype is meritorious to giving insight to the major challenge of the Bush administration: the response to the terrorists attacks and the ensuing war. With putting Fahrenhype back in, I also ask James or anyone else to find the purged links and lets reinstate them. If you want to read a homage and nothing but greatness, rely on Bush's White House press releases. If you want to read a balanced truth, it should be on Wiki. James rightly so calls this for what it is: a mistake. Let's not call that a mistake to justify this here. While things don't have to be numerically even (though there should at minimum be striving for balance), if two points are diametrically opposed and as closely related as Hype/Heit, then please list it. Has anyone listed the book by the former director of counter-terrorism? While I don't agree with it at all, it still received widespread media attention and comes from an influential source. Maybe that can be a start in the right direction.(Dcokeman 22:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC))Reply
I'm afraid you're missing my point when you suggest adding negative links "if they are factual and balanced". There's no requirement of "balance" in an external site we link to. For example, the manifestly unbalanced FahrenHYPE website is included in the "External links" section of Michael Moore and of Fahrenheit 9/11. The point is serving the interests of the reader. The FahrenHYPE website has information that's relevant to the subjects of those two articles, so linking to it is defensible (though it doesn't have much information, being primarily devoted to selling the product). You could argue that there's a relationship (of some sort) between Bush and the HYPE film, website, and Wikipedia article, but if you applied that standard consistently, you could find so many relationships with Bush that the "See also" section would be so long as to be useless. Also, it seems you agree with me that we shouldn't add external links just to satisfy some numerical balance. The same should apply to internal links. I just noticed there's a "See also" link to Compassionate conservatism but none to Liberalism -- is that balanced? No, it's not balanced, but by the standard of helping the reader, the article on "Liberalism" isn't worth linking to here because it doesn't say much about George W. Bush. The same is true of the article on FahrenHYPE 9/11. JamesMLane 00:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
That's the best cross examination I have seen yet and as far as I'm concerned, you settled it concisely and NPOV...let's hope that ends the discussion on the links--MONGO 06:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think James has it exactly right on what the standard should be: does the wikilinked article add value to the reader. Having just skimmed Fahrenheit 9/11, I'm not sure that the article itself does add a lot of value to someone interested in GWB. However, the film itself clearly does. Once again, I think this ought to be included down in a 'Further Reading & Media' section. If it were a book, I think it would clearly go there. Why should a movie be different? And no, 'hype still doesn't belong even there (but I would object somewhat less to it there). Derex 04:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Deficit will be halved early and unemployment is down 5 percent

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Deficit will be cut in half earlier then 2009 and unemployment is down 5 percent. Bush states that this is because of his Tax cuts and 'Pro Growth policies.'

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15925549%255E1702,00.html

Maybe we can all get rid of the deficit entirly and that with clean fuels like Hydrogen and Cold Fusion power the next decade is looking really ausome.

I will believe it when I see it, especially considering the effect of rising gas prices on the economy. Who knows what gas will be at that point. Alternative energy sources is going to take a little while longer than a decade to integrate into American society. --kizzle 17:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
'Ausome' (sic) would have been not spending the surplus away in an unprecedented strip-mining effort to privatize our public treasury and social security in the first place. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Cold fusion is psuedoscience. The fusion technique announced in April is not related to Stanley Pom's experiments in the 1980s, and none of the researchers claim that the technique found at the University of LA produces any important amount of energy. The anonymous user's excitement about Bush claiming to be able to halve the amount by which the federal government exceeds its income is irrational, since it's like getting excited about a store offering a 50% discount after the price has been quadrupled. Bush took a budget surplus upon entering office and multiplied it by negative one. --Mr. Billion 17:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

stop deleting my additions

Latest comment: 20 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

i have repeatedly added factual info to this article and vandals keep removing it. please help me keep it in the article. it is true, and appropriate to the article/section -steve

"Moreover, the nicknaming transaction is unilateral, thereby maintaining hierarchical order. Despite the ubiquity of his own countrified nickname in the media, Dubya has never been commonly used in Bush's presence." [63] -- BMIComp (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

wow you people over reacted. first you removed his contribution with no comment as to why, and then biatch when he puts it back and doesnt use the talk page. He was adding a pretty valid statement, since in the last 6 years "dubya" has become a derogatory term for him. I really don't see how this addition was POV in 90% of the tries i looked at, and it is much less so than the original article. just because it is not pro-bush doenst make it POV. you folks should be ashamed. Quite the edit war over what appears to be valid info. steve, i would like to see some sources, though. just because something is true isnt good enough for wikipedia, it needs to be provable, and proven. IreverentReverend 21:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

it's not at all clear that W is derogatory. there was a story in the Wash. Post last week about hats from the local baseall team. hats with a W were selling like crazy to Republicans, who often wore them to political events. back in the election, i noticed a bunch of "W is for women" signs on the convention floor (weird sign). it's hardly surprising folks don't call the governor/president by a nickname to his face. but clearly, it's often not derogatory but affectionate.Derex 22:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I see lots of oval "W" stickers on cars, too, in support of Bush. But I tend to think that "dubya," when written that way, is usually derogatory. In other words, "W"=supports Bush, "dubya"=opposes Bush. (I'm only talking about written, not spoken, cases.) -- Coneslayer 22:13, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

"W" and "dubya" are very different. I have yet to hear "man I love dubya", it is always more like "that damn dubya is at it again."then again, i never hear probush statments, either... only online... any who, it is hard to argue that something as rednecky as "dubya" is ever a positive... I agree with coneslayer, but posit that it does continue to spoken word as well. "w"=bush lover "dubya"=bush mockerIreverentReverend 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

i guess the problem for me is that i actually pronounce 'W' as 'dubya'. i'm from way south, and i assume that's still the way it's commonly said (been gone quite a while). i never realized that pronounciation was supposed to make him sound stupid. kind of offends me actually, now that i get it. i'd have to really go out of my way to say 'doubleu' if i liked the man, guess it's a lucky thing i don't. Derex 22:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I have a Bush-supporter friend who is not a southerner that routinely refers to Bush as "Dubya." It's probably more common in the South, but that doesn't mean people can't turn it around and use it in a non-hostile way. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:30, July 13, 2005 (UTC)


I was asked on my user page to come defend my reverting of your edits. I will start by saying that I have come to see you are almost certainly not a vandal. I was wrong in calling your changes vandalism. That still does not make them right for Wiki. And it certain does not make those who reverted you, seven to eight different people, including a couple of different moderators, vandals. Continuing to call us vandals, and tossing insults into your summaries is not going to get this impass solved. Neither side was vandalizing.

On the page itself you have been fighting a losing battle. You are *not* going to get you edits accepted that way. And since it's a community project, if they're not accepted, they're not going to remain. It's as simple as that.

As for why I reverted you (and called it vandalism), it was because I saw you having been reverted 4-6 times already, by multiple people, including a couple of moderators, and continuing to try to force your edits into the board. And I could see the potential inflamitory nature of your edits, linking GWB to the term "Redneck". So I joined in to assist in fighing an (apparent) vandal, in an effert to keep Wikipedia clean, so to speak. I'll provide my reasons I think this edit should stay off below.

Here's my opinion of where you need to go from here. These are all just IMHO, of course.

You need to convince people that your edits need to stay. And you need to do that here, on the talk page, before you make even one more try to make the change. Otherwise, after your block expires, it'll just be a repeat of what happened today. You'll edit, multiple people will revert you, and you'll end up blocked again.

I have hope that there's potential in you to contribute here. Getting yourself repeat blocked is not a good way to contribute, nor is it an especially fun way to enjoy Wiki.

So, you need to convince people that what you want to say is worth of remaining in Wikipedia. To do that, you're going to need to present your case, and be ready to rebutt the arguments that will almost certainly be raised against it.

1) You need to show that your item is indeed true. Provide credible links that show that the W was dropped because of possible negative connotations. 2) Demonstrate that this is actually signifigant. There are huge numbers of facts/triva that can be stated about any subject. But most of them are indeed trivial, and don't really belong on Wiki. 3) POV. You need to convince people that this is not a POV statement. That it is not being included in the article for POV purposes.

Personally, I have problems with it for both items 2 & 3 above. I don't see it as an offensive statement by itself, but it is rather trivial, and I worry that the main reason for it's inclusion is to work the Redneck word into the article somehow. Even if it's in a statement about how GWB decided to not use because of the redneck implications, it still puts the Redneck word into an article where it has no nPOV purpose.

Enough for now. This is getting long. I do hope that you can take this whole experience and learn from it, and come out a valued member of the Wiki society we have here. Time will tell. TexasAndroid 23:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way we can get this talk page protected for like a week? It's exhausting keeping up with all the discussion here, and I think it would benefit everyone to just chill out and try again in a week. --kizzle 00:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Locking the talk page won't stop the conflicts that cause the discussions, it'll just bottle them up with noplace else to go. TexasAndroid 02:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I just meant for a few days or so, to calm things down...and i was only half-serious anyways. --kizzle 02:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think locking the talk page is not cool. It's the type of thing that fuels the fires of the "sysopkabal bashers" who voted for Lir in the Arbcom election and will do it again. And it makes disputes more personal and potentially more vitriolic when they're diverted to e-mail and other personal channels. The Talk page is truly the place we should proudly say we're a true wiki. There will always be trolls and vandals, but we must firmly stay to the Wiki Way on talk pages. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 06:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

this is the former vandaliser "the wise vandal" and my cousin "the bush troll " just called me and said what you e-mailed him. i just want you to know that we have stopped vandalising for good! i am a deemocrat even though you probably know that already! if we use to make useful contributions we will add serious TRUE things! i am sorry if we caused you any problems, there is not alot to do in our town so we just used vandalism as a source of entertainment. I understand that the administrators need to create new pages! i am sorry if we caused alot you alot of problems! WE QUIT! Have a good day!

This is the comment I was referring to as impersonating Steve. TexasAndroid 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply


lets face it, "dubya" is pronouced in a redneck way, as opposed to "w". That attaches connotations to the word, ie the speaker is less intellegent, and somone nicknamed that is less intellegent. you would not want a brain surgeon to say" howdy y'all, mah name is Bubbah, I's gonna poke aroun' in dat der head 'o yers and see if'n ah cen dun figure out whats da preblem." I am not saying all people with the mode of speach are stupid, just they sound that way. Same with ebonics. Queen's english, onb the other hand, makes even the biggest moron sound intellegent, and if the queen spoke cockney, well, she would sound stupid as well. you CANNOT argue that redneck accents don't connot anything. -steve

i wasn't aware we had a queen in the states. i assure you that your accent/dialect probably sounds as ridiculous to me as mine does to you. and no, we southerners do not speak as in your caricature. lucky you think we're stupid though, it sure makes it more satisfying to outsmart you. bush surely laughs his ass off at the people who think he's so dumb, and so 'misunderestimate' him. i'm no bush fan, but bigotry/ignorance like this ticks me off. Derex 19:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
You are quite the bright one."Queen's English" is the term for the prim and proper form of english, such as what the queen of england uses, you know, the intellegent formal english of british voice overs. Cockney is the "gutter" speak, such as bollocks, yarbols, mates, and any low brow british sitcoms. Regardless of what YOU say, many people feel the redneck dialect of the south sounds uneducated, no one EVER said that the speakers WERE uneducated, it is just a matter of appearances, that is not QUITE a stereotype, since the only implication is the speacher is from the south... sorry, but if you talk like a hick, people will assume you are a rube. -steve
sorry, that there's just me being dumb again i reckon. them words is just too big for me. i really need to get me some of that there eddication. i always figgered if'n i learned all them ten-dollar words i'd sound like a pompous ass, kind of like you. or perhaps it's just what you say & not how you say it. Derex 18:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Well, there you go, if learning pronuciation and grammar is too hard an effort to sound intellegent, well, we see how good the education is in the sounth, and that the redneck connotations for hillbilly-ese is not far off. Don't worry, someday someone will take you seriously, and hopefully you will find someone other than your sister or cousin to rais a family with. - steve
Whether the pronunciation of 'dubya' connotes a lack of intelligence or not, it's his nickname in many circles. There is also evidence that a typical C-student, 'man of the people' President would benefit from a name with a 'down-home' feel to it. Bush (Dubya) has benefitted and suffered from such a connotation, and so to me focusing on 'redneck' interpretations of his nickname seems superfluous for this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply


oops, forgot "dubya" somehow manages to turn failing/disabilities/stupidity to his advantage. I feel it is quite relevent to point out that many people are embarrassed that they are led by someone who embraces his own stupidity. -steve

You're entitled to your soapbox here on 'talk'... but not in the article! :) -- RyanFreisling @ 19:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

i'm also entitled to an unbiased, factual article about dubya.-steve

Steve, I'm a bit embarassed by Bush myself. However this has no bearing on Wikipedia. We're writing an encylopedia, not an editorial. What's in this article must be neutral and verifiable. If a legit news source runs a story reporting that a poll showed that 52% of Americans describe themselves as embarasseed by the President, that's verifiable. You saying how you personally think "many" people feel is not verifiable. Friday 19:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

As BMIcomp mentioned above, "Dubya" was never used as an official anything. It is a popular and unofficial nickname, and nothing more. It doesn't belong in the campaign section.. probably doesn't belong in this article at all. List of U.S. Presidential nicknames is the proper place. Rhobite 19:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

and the fact he was governer of texas fits "list of governers of texas" too, will remove that bit of info, and any others like it if you use that logic. -steve

Please read Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thanks. Rhobite 19:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
wikipedia policy is to include descriptions of how people view a man. his nickname is an integral part of his public persona. 'bubba', 'slick willie', and 'the big dog' are all listed in the clinton article for the same reason. and rightly so. Derex 19:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think there's a place for a short, neutral mention here in this article. Certainly not in the first paragraph of the campaign section, though. It's pretty warped to put an unofficial nickname above the election results. Let's keep our perspective here. Rhobite 19:52, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
gee, you think someone could move it rather than delete it... gee, i wonder how you do something like that... oh yeah, you take your pro-bush bias outta yer ass first! -steve
Move it where? Your edits will always remain in the page history. And please consider Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks, Sango123 19:57, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
sorry, hard to remain civil after this much bias and vandalism of legitimate additions. I meant since he thought it would fit in a new ___location in the article, rather than delete it off had, move it to a new ___location.
"Legitimate additions" That's exactly the problem. Multiple people did not beleive they were legitimate. Just because you beleive they are legitimate does not mean that they are. You legitimately beleive you have a valid point to make. But please realize that the rest of our opinions are just as legitimate. As for the idea of moving, that's exactly why several people were trying to tell you to take it to Talk. It's here in Talk where these types of alternate ideas can be developed. They don't just pop out of nowhere on the main page. When people see (in their opinion) improper edits, the normal Wiki response is to revert, and then discuss before maybe letting a variant of the action go through. This is called consensous building, and it's how Wiki works. Wiki walks a fine line of avoiding pure chaos, and building consensous on tricky issues is what keeps us from devolving into pure chaos. TexasAndroid 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Trying to get things back on track here. I too see the possibility of including "Dubya" itself in the article somewhere. Especially if the Clinton ones are mentioned in his article. I still don't think it's approprite to talk about his deciding to drop it because of it's connections to the word Redneck. Including Redneck anywhere in the GWB article is asking for trouble. The question remains, where is it most appropriate to go? I'll have to go peek at the Clinton article to see how they used his nicknames in the main article there. If "Slick Willie" can be used in a nPOV way in Clinton's article, surely Dubya can be used here. On a slightly different subject, directly to Steve, I highly suggest you get a registered ID. You've already been impersonalted once in this discussion, and as long as all we have to identify you is your dynamic and changing IP, there's no way to be 100% certain that any specific comment does or does not come from you. I suspect you *really* do not want people putting words in your mouth. TexasAndroid 20:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'll be frank. This is one of the most highly-visible articles on Wikipedia. It's just not worth it to coddle people who repeatedly insert biased, incorrectly-spelled statements. Until we come up with a neutral way of working "dubya" into the article in the proper place, the best solution is to keep it out of the article. There is no urgent need to mention this nickname at this minute. But there is always a need for neutral, readable articles. Rhobite 20:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
i'll be earnest. if vandals hadn't kept removing it, it would not have been repeatedly added, and the correct response to mispellings is to correct them, not remove the addition entirely. Just because you are happy in the current pro-bush bias of the article doen't mean correcting it and impoving it are not important. grow up. -steve
You are *really* going to have a hard time getting anything changed here on Wiki as long as you continue to refer to people who disagree with you as vandals. And I mean that we disagreed with the fact that your comment belonged on Wiki, reguardless of it's truth. TexasAndroid 20:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Steve, I don't appreciate your constant speculation about my bias. Please keep it on topic. Rhobite 20:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
make you a deal, you stop vandalising in a pro-bush amnner, and I will stop pointing out you are a bush fellating, moronic, biased editor! -steve
Steve - You won't do any good whatsoever by calling editors 'vandals' for their reverts while you exhibit similar behavior. Please reflect as to why 'The neutrality of this article is disputed' is the first sentence of the article page. Attempts are being made to compromise. Sango123 20:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

um, deleting is not compromising. -steve

Deleting is a way to keep things status quo while a compromise is reached on the Talk page. Exactly what is happening now. TexasAndroid 20:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
doesn't count when peole just revert and then don't say jack ont he talk page. they were being biased, and that's a fact. if they had responded on the talk page, it would be different. - steve
Ok. I am a bit guilty on that one. You had alreay posted your first comment on the talk page when I joined in the revert party. OTOH, when I did respond it was after I had had a chance to think quite a bit about the whole situation, so I hope I was a good bit more elloquent and effective than I would have been had I responded immediately. I certainly went on for a good bit then. But the general sentiment of my comment just above here stands. Even if discussion does not start immediately, the Wiki way of doing things on controversial points is to leave the point off the article until a consensous/compromise can be built. And for goodness sakes, we're only 24 hours or so later, and we've got a possible compromise wording building in another section. That's pretty fast, IMHO. TexasAndroid 20:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Rhobite please read wikipedia:npov. thanks. steve

who impersonated me? -steve

Look above. I've added a new comment right after it. TexasAndroid 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

thanks --steve

Dubya suggestion

Latest comment: 20 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Not exactly sure where this would go... just a suggestion:

One of Bush's nicknames is "W." Some people from Texas pronounce it as "Dubya." This was used by some Bush supporters during the campaign who thought it would show a "down-home" charm. However, it was quickly picked up by his detractors who claimed it was a sign of his, and his supporters, supposed lack of intelligence.

Any good? I think a mention of "Dubya" should go in the article, but not in a POV way. I could use help with my own POV if the above bit is seen as biased... please help me out. --Lord Voldemort 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I like it. It gets across the whole idea of what the nickname was about. It gets across the ways both sides saw it. And it doesn't use any potentially incindiary words like "Redneck". TexasAndroid 20:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

much better than simply removing it. glad to see people an compromise, and add text that isn't extremly pro-bush. -steve

The manner in which you are trying to write it is anti-Bush, so what's your point. You don't have a monopoly on neutrality do you? see:WP:NPOV--MONGO 20:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
much less biased than removing it, or the rest of the article --steve
Wrong...you don't take information and create a negative to support your point of view....if you think he is an idiot that is fine, but to insist on wordplay to define that perception without evidence to support it is POV pushing.--MONGO 20:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
sorry, I forgot "neutral" in this article means being pro-bush. I reported it as i saw it, can't help it if it looked negative, and even if it was, it would hardly make a dent in this sugarcoated pro-bush propoganda you all call neutral. - steve
I REPEAT. I'm new to this discussion, but I find it interesting you feel the need to question others on their bias and proper editing, when you do things like add GWB links to redneck, moron, and American Idiot... makes it hard for others to take you too seriously. --Gunmetal 20:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

and exactly which one of those was not appropriate to link to "dubya"? -steve

Any and all. "America is on it's second term of it's redneck president "Dubya"."?? You can't make changes like that and then cry NPOV when it suits your fancy. --Gunmetal 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
still don't see how that is wrong. it was a redneck article, ina rednecks in contemporary society section, adding the fact that bush, who is a redneck(fact) is the US presiednet (fact) on his second term(fact) facts is facts is facts buddy. -steve
"steve" is it??? You are out of line. You may not like Bush or his views or policies, but you cannot just call him a redneck and moron. He had a pretty good upbringing and was educated at Yale. And don't start with the whole "his daddy got him in" thing. He did the work, not the best work, granted, but he graduated. He has shown himself to be a very good businessman, and you shouldn't throw bias around. Don't start name calling just because you don't like him. There are better ways to destroy your enemy than with name calling. Oh well. Just my opinion. --Lord Voldemort 20:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Even if I accepted your "Bush is a redneck" as fact, by your logic I assume we should go to the Fag page and add all the prominent gay politicians? --Gunmetal 21:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
homosexuality would be more apropriate, and only the prominate gays, who are open, as bush is open about being a redneck. "fag" would be the appropriate page if, and only if no less offensive page exists. redneck, hick, and hill billy are all about the same level... -steve
  • Didn't "Dubya" more or less start with Conan O'Brien? At the very least he was responsible for its proliferation. Perhaps he should be worked into the "Dubya" bit if it get accepted, thus refocusing it as initially a product of the entertainment industry? --Gunmetal 20:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. Just an FYI to all involved in this discussion. Steve has apparently been blocked again, for 48 hours this time. This time for personal attacks, mostly on his own IP's talk page. Mega-sigh. TexasAndroid 21:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I can't imagine seeing that blurb in an encyclopedia. Why not have an area where we simply list the common nicknames (W, Dubya) and let the reader make their own judgments? —Charles O'Rourke 00:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Steve. When you get back from being blocked, you're gonna need to answer this point. It's a good argument for not including it of which I hadn't thought. It'll need to be countered if you want to have any hope of getting a concensous around adding Dubya to the article. TexasAndroid 13:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
LV's text is acceptable. It should be included because it is such a prominante topic/concern/reality. Otherwise go to all the other presidents and remove all less than flattering nicknames. If slick willy is appropriate, dubya is too then. natch.-steve.

I never said it had to be that exact bit... I was just trying to appease everyone. I think the names definitely should be in there (see some of the other presidents; they have theirs listed), but whether in passing or with some explanation is up to you folks. --Lord Voldemort 14:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I do like your text. The signal to noise ration of this section is very low. Mostly it's been Steve being defensive (and offinsive), and people responding to him, not discussing the idea at hand.
As I see it, there's your text, the comment about should Conan be included, and the comments about it not being encyclopedic. Most of the rest is noise.
That said, and with Steve blocked for another 30 hours or so, can we get some feedback on the text itself? Do people like the text as given by LV at the top of the section? Dislike it? Have alternatives? Think it should be left out altogether? And the question of where it would go in the article is still totally untouched. TexasAndroid 14:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

2005 Inauguration; in campaign header?

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following two paragraphs are under the "Presidential Campaigns" header:

Bush was inaugurated for his second term on January 20, 2005. The oath was administered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Bush's inaugural speech centered mainly on a theme of spreading freedom and democracy around the world. Bush stated in his second inauguration on January 20, 2005:
"From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?"

Do these actually belong under this header? We don't mention anything about the 2001 Inaugural address under that header. Should there be a separate section with the highlights of the Bush inaugural addresses? —Charles O'Rourke 08:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

im not sure, but at times, im not sure i like the idea of bush's "freedom" hes got a bad track recpord for acce[toing the dofferent peoples. Gabrielsimon 08:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

How to Write NPOV

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This one's for you, "steve."

Perhaps that will explain things better for you.—chris.lawson (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

better, i agree yours is more NPOVed but i say it still goes way too lightly over the fact that 18-40, the majority of the years described, do NOT qualify as youth. Thanks for being constructive though, unlike some vandals around here just deleting anything they don't like. you are a good man(or woman). - steve
You need to come up with a different word to describe your opponents (And I don't mean profanity). "Vandal" means something very specific on Wikipedia, and defending from (percived) inappropriate and NPOV edits does not qualify.
You're also walking a very fine line even posting today. Changing IPs in order to get around blocks is very, very frowned upon around here. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you did not deliberately avoid a block, but I would suggest you tred very, very lightly. The moderators are not likely to cut you very much slack at all at this point. TexasAndroid 19:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, removing text you don't agree with is NOT vandalism? brb, going to go blank "creationism" "peta", "GWB" "religion"... What do you meann, changing IPs? what is an IP (intellectual property?) how did I change that? What block? I was blocked yesterday, but (obviously) no longer blocked today.-steve
No, removing text because you do not believe it should be in an article is part of the normal editing process. On Wikipedia the term "vandalism" is reserved for edits made in indisputable bad-faith. There is a difference between removing a couple recent POV edits and blanking an article. Rhobite 20:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sending my response to Steve's new personal talk page. This is no longer about GWB or the GWB article. TexasAndroid 20:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oh, so i can only blank the last edits, as long as I call them POV... gotcha. I will go find some edits I don't agree with and call them POV and THEN delete them, and DEMAND the author talk on the talk page, and then ignore them. Thats how it works?- steve

Steve, perhaps you should just take a deep breath, stop frothing at the mouth, and come back when you are in a better mood. Be careful you are not blocked again. I hope that with time you can become a valued member of the Wiki society. Thank you. Banes O9:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Bush's height

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This mirrors a similar comment I made on the Dick Cheney talk page when someone removed the vice president's height from the opening paragraph. It does seem to be a pretty random, irrelevant fact to have in the intro to his biography. The rest of that opening section is a very high-level look at who he is: the president, a politician, a Republican.. oh yeah, and he's 5'10? We don't have his weight, shoe size, other irrelevant physical details, so why his height? Maybe it could go somewhere in the article (not sure where it would be appropriate, though), but the opening paragraph doesn't seem right.

I'll leave it there for now so I'm not re-reverting anything, but I'll take it out if no one posts a disagreement.. —Charles O'Rourke 23:45, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you -- there's no reason to summarily delete it, but the opening paragraph isn't the best place for it. Where it goes, well, I don't much care, but perhaps it's something that could be added to the infobox? —chris.lawson (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Looking around again, I can't find any place in the article where it makes sense. (The infobox also doesn't seem to be appropriate IMO; it's all presidential-related data). We don't have height information in most Wikipedia biographies, and I can't see any reason why Bush's height is notable. Shouldn't we just remove it as unnecessary detail? —Charles O'Rourke 04:24, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Kerry's height is in his bio, at John Kerry#Home life and interests, in a section collecting such personal details. Obviously, for either of them, or any similar figure, height isn't an important datum, and it certainly shouldn't be in the lead section, but I think the article can accommodate a few such "human interest" facts about the subject. JamesMLane 04:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
In the case of Kerry's bio, his height is somewhat notable because he has a nickname relating to his height and it would have made him a comparatively tall president, as the article mentions. I'm not sure that Bush's height is at all notable. Do you see an area in the article where you think it would be a relevant addition? —Charles O'Rourke 04:53, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that height is slightly more significant for Kerry than for Bush, but if you follow the Kerry link, you'll see a fair number of other such items (tastes in music, movies, etc.). It probably doesn't fit well in any other section in the Bush article, so perhaps it could go (at or near the bottom) under "Personal information" or "Miscellaneous" or some such. JamesMLane 05:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Segmentation of Bio from Presidency

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I suggest creating a Bush administration article as a place for developments related to the Bush presidency. Perhaps even presidency and administration articles will be developed as independent foci. This has already been done with domestic policy etc, but Im thinking it would be better to refer to the administration as an entity led by, but not entirely within the context of GWB. This should be a bio article, and hence strictly related to his person.

The idea is that article development into new articles (segmentation) generally is driven by quantity of material, and conversely article development can be hampered when appropriate segmentations is resisted. This has proven to be true over the years, AIUI. -SV|t 07:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think that at least a summary of his presidency would have to be left in this main article, for readers who want to know the most important aspects of this part of his life without going to another article. Is that how you see it? JamesMLane 08:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Certainly. The proper style is to represent the major subarticles in some reasonable proportion in a separate section. The new article would simply add much more room to grow. -SV
I don't think that too much detail should be removed from the actual bio article. Like most presidents, I think George W. Bush is primarily interesting because he was president; most people aren't going to look him up because they're interested in who ran the Texas Rangers during the 80s. People will be going to his article expecting to read stuff about his presidency, and I don't know that it makes much sense to force them into another article. Looking at a couple of other presidential articles, they are all about the presidencies; sure, they have a few paragraphs on what they did before they were president and what they did after, but people are looking them up to see what they did during. IMHO. —Charles O'Rourke 12:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps there wont be much removed, but rather whats there will be duplicated, with more room for detail. Theres a very important but subtle difference between the Bush predidency and others —can you guess what it is? Heres a hint: Clinton's presidency ended the same month Wikipedia was born, (back when S:RC was useful, if you can imagine that). It was likewise harder to work on Bush I's Wikipedia articles during the time when he was president. Sinreg -SV|t 05:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
In a way, I think that means we should take a step back and look to the older articles for guidance. Encyclopedias are supposed to be filled with relevant, verifiable facts; the kind that still matter long after what's happened has happened. Bush's article is probably too long because every time something comes on the news, someone runs over and adds it to Wikipedia. Most of this stuff won't matter in 10 years, and with the benefit of hindsight, it will be easier to cut down what is and isn't notable. However, even without that hindsight, that standard is what we should be aiming for. I think that breaking it into sections will encourage too much detail (we have too much as it is). —Charles O'Rourke 12:03, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


Resume Rfc

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please see Archive 26 for complete RfC text

Since there apears to be a short respite from the trolls and sockpuppets venturing here...let us now resume the Rfc on drug and alcohol abuse. I appears that the majority wish to see some sort of a version one with a link to the daughter article. Why don't we recheck the tally in the Rfc at top, have Kizzle redo his summary to ensure it's correct and see if we can't achieve some sort of fully agreed conclusion on this matter.--MONGO 18:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC) Tally as I see it:

  • Version #1 no link: 2
  • Version #1 yes to link: 12
  • Version #1 plus hatfield maybe: 1
  • Version #1 plus hatfield definitely: 2
  • Version #3: 7
  • Version #3 or #4: 2
  • Version #4: 4

--MONGO 18:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think Version #1 with a link would be fine too (Doesn't seem helpful to put my name up top anymore), with one slight change. What is the purpose of mentioning the fact that he didn't join Alcoholics Anonymous? Wouldn't just saying that he stopped drinking be enough? Should we make it a habit of putting things people didn't do into their articles? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that version one mentions that he didn't or did join AA, but the daughter article might...not sure.--MONGO 18:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right...it does say that...your point is valid as it suggests that Bush definitely DID have a big problem with alcoholism, and even though there is some circumstantial evidence to support that, it isn't clear whether he did or didn't have a substantial alcohol problem.--MONGO 19:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hmm...James never answered my above response to his argument that the majority of voters voted against proposal 1. Lets see what he has to say in response. I think you've summarized my summary pretty well, except I think its 12 instead of 14 people for V1.5. James, buddy, I say this with all the respect in the world for you, but I think the concensus is against your proposal. Even still, I wouldn't mind if you have slight changes or nuances to V1.5 you wish to add. --kizzle 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Where are these different versions, and where can I cast my vote? If I'm too late to the party, that's OK. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
It's at the top of this page...but after reviewing the options, how about just add your thoughts down here...thanks.--MONGO 19:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Or you can find the updated version here. --kizzle 19:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'd vote for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article but without the AA reference, per Lord Voldemort's comments above. —Charles O'Rourke 20:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

In response to kizzle's comment, I did indeed answer his suggestion. My answer is already a few hundred edits ago, though! There's no consensus for Version 1 because nearly half the people oppose it. I gave my analysis of the responses in this edit. More generally, I agree that we need to do something to wrap this up. It's going to have to be a compromise, with more information than the Version 1 supporters want but less than the rest of us want.

Here's one suggestion: It seems that quoting and/or naming van Wormer and Frank caught the most flak. By contrast, a couple of Version 1 voters mentioned including Hatfield. On that basis, we could: (1) not include the quotations about Bush's addictive thinking pattern and megalomaniac tendencies; (2) not even include the names of these two critics in the text; (3) not include the reference to Alcoholics Anonymous, which I think was added originally because it supported van Wormer's contention that Bush hadn't really treated his alcoholism; (4) substitute one sentence that encompasses both sides of the dispute without giving any detail, something like "Psychiatrists have argued about whether he currently shows alcohol-related traits."; (5) not include the second link to the daughter article; and (6) include Bush's denial of Hatfield's charge, but with no other reference to Hatfield's charge. Here's a draft proposal:

Substance abuse controversy

Main article: 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 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. [64], [65], [66] Psychiatrists have argued about whether he currently shows alcohol-related traits.

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [67] 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. [68]

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." [69], [70]

[end proposal]

This suggestion is even less informative than what we had at the end of the previous round of discussion (late May). I don't like it. I'm sure MONGO won't like it. I'm sure most of the people who responded to the RfC won't like it, for opposite reasons. But I also don't like having this drag on and having the article saddled with the NPOV tag. Can we take this, call it Version 1.5 if you like, and be done with it? JamesMLane 08:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

If you select one single version, this version 1.5 has the others beat 2 to 1...you're assuming that folks that want version 3 would want version 4 but I don't see that as the case....I do see that folks that would prefer version 4 would reluctantly agree to version 3 though....if you want my final word, I say it should not be under it's own heading...insert it into the body of the text under the personal stuff, right after the discussion of his DUI arrest in Maine....then that will be the final word on that section, at least from me...but it certainly doesn't qualify the article in terms of being able to eliminate the neutrality tag, as some of the article is riddled with POV.--MONGO 17:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I archived most of the RfC stuff. Hopefully i wasn't wrong in doing so. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

James, are you sure you answered my comment? --kizzle 22:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dubya revert war

Latest comment: 20 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

There appears to be a revert war going on regarding this text:

One of Bush's campaign nicknames is "W." Some people from the American South mispronounce it as "Dubya." This was used by some Bush supporters during the campaign who thought it would show a "down-home" charm. However, it was quickly picked up by his detractors who claimed it was a sign of his, and his supporters, lack of intelligence.

I can't find any majority support to include it in the discussions above. The anon trying to include it claims there is. Can anyone clear this up or is it just vandalism? - Tεxτurε 21:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

See the various discussions with "Steve" a few sections above. Some contributors felt that it is OK to include a mention of the "Dubya" nickname, but virtually all users agreed that Steve's contributions were poorly-written and opinionated. Looks like he left for a few days and came back. I'm still in favor of including a small mention, but we should not speculate about proper pronunciation, the perceived intelligence of "rednecks", etc, as Steve has repeatedly done. Rhobite 21:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
My vote is still that we have only a mention of the nicknames (in other words: | Nicknames: | Dubya, "W" |), in an appropriate place (undecided as of yet — maybe at the bottom of the Infobox?), and leave the commentary out, because none of it is cited and it's all opinion. The place within the article that Steve keeps putting it (in between two paragraphs that belong together) is not the appropriate place, even if the content was good. —Charles O'Rourke 21:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I had no real stance on the issue. I think it would be good to at least note the nicknames, but perhaps going into detail isn't really needed here. I've changed the article. We'll see how long it takes to be deleted. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Congrats for it lasting for at least a while. And for being bold. Noone's reversed it yet, so it may stand. For all that I liked your original text, this simple mention may be the best way to settle this whole thing. TexasAndroid 01:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply


I see 4 for including something about dubya int he above convo, no general negatives, and only one person against that text in particular. As I see it, that text wins.... but any way, flame on as always hi-lar-ieous to watch this talk page and your linked page.... while steve wasnt the most... suave... he has a great point about it being included, along with it's popular use/connotations, or atleast WHO uses it, ala slick willy.... any way, continue. IreverentReverend 23:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • Neither name is an official or formal name and thus can not go in the first words. But he is referred to it, so it should go later. I think this is a good compromise:
Bush is also known informally as "W" or pejoratively as "Dubya" to distinguish him from his father. --Noitall 03:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, almost. Dubya isn't always pejorative; many supporters also use it and Bush himself has said it. What about, Bush is also known informally as "W" or "Dubya." The problem is, where does it fit within the article? —Charles O'Rourke 03:31, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Your proposal is fine. The name used depends on context anyhow. --Noitall 03:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the "pejoratively" part is inaccurate, but we could explain the origin of the nickname in neutral fashion. This might be especially helpful to non-native English speakers who don't immediately pick up on the pronunciation of the letter. How about: Bush's most common nickname is "Dubya", from the colloquial pronunciation of his middle initial. JamesMLane 09:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
colloquial does NOT mean redneck/improper, nor does it imply that. Infact, it implies that it is CORRECT, ergo that one just wont do. Not acceptable. steve
Wikipedia does not make prescriptive judgments on the use of language. So, the word "mispronunciation" is POV in virtually all cases. Please do not replace it. Rhobite 20:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I speak english and a little spanish... what language is it where the letter "w" is pronounced "dubya" in english it is pronounced "double-you". It is not a judgment to say that other pronuciations are wrong, it is a fact. steve
oh and if we can say anything is the correct pronuciation, i nominate "ass-whole-oh-rific more-on" as the pronuciation of "w".
You're right that "colloquial" doesn't mean "redneck", nor should it; I've heard people in NYC give URL's as "dubya dubya dubya dot whatever". Merriam-Webster online gives this definition of "colloquial", which I think is appropriate here: "used in or characteristic of familiar and informal conversation; also : unacceptably informal". In practice, the term has been used by supporters and opponents of Bush, so it's not unambiguously pejorative. It's also not worth more than a passing mention in this article. JamesMLane 22:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dont you think that "dubya" and "W" should be placed in a trivia section, like there is for Kerry? I notice that his nickname is located in the sectiom "home life and interests". Isnt dubya/W merely a nickname, and not very encylopedic? Anyway, maybe we should just have a vote before steve, bless his heart, starts creating again. I hope this can all be resolved soon. (Banes 13:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC))Reply

I'm not sure Presidential nicknames are unencyclopedic. They appear in many president's articles. My original text was just a way to try to make everyone happy. I think maybe a little explanation might be good per JamesMLane's suggestion above. As to where it would go... who knows? I'll have to check the other articles again to see what the general model is. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if this would be an answer or not and if this would be appropriate for this article but since there is continued ongoing discussions and revert wars what if this box was placed at the end of the article? It has information about presidential nicknames and presidential heights. This way, if people want to know more presidential trivia, they can click on the links in the box. maltmomma 14:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
A section labeled "Trivia" rubs me the wrong way; "Miscellany" or some such would be better. Both the "Dubya" nickname and Bush's height are minor items that don't need to be near the beginning of the article. JamesMLane 14:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I tend to agree that these are minor issues and really don't belong at the beginning or top of the article. The box says "U.S. Presidential Lists" and could be placed at the very end of the article. It really doesn't even have to come under a heading. Just thought it might be a compromise. maltmomma 15:02, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I repositioned it to the bottom of the personal heading section, right after the comment on his height.--MONGO 18:13, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I feel that we should fit in with the "standard" that other presidential articles set forth. Since they include the nicknames directly int he article, we should as well, unless people go out and remove them from other articles. Why should it be ok for "slick willy" to be included in clintons and not "dubya" in bush's?

I agree with you guys entirely. Maybe another solution is that we should just make a new section containing Bush's height, weight maybe, pets, pastimes, musical tastes as there is for Kerry, and yes, nicknames both derogatory and complimentary, and so on. P.S. This has been said often, but can someone please archive this page? Thanks. (Banes 15:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC))Reply

Like I said, majority were for including it. -steve

Archive

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I tried to archive some of this page... not quite sure how to do it, but no one else was stepping up to the plate. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I thought I had archived a bunch, but this talk page is still way too long. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Okay... now only 268 kilobytes long. Still needs more work. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

sorry about the multiple posts....

keep getting a server not found error, appolgies

Please revert

Please revert these two POV additions by an anon:

"even though there is nothing in the Bill of Right or the Constitution which protect Church and State sepration. This commonly sited by Democrats is a quote from a very old speech not an Amendment at all."

"To date Bush has invited any and all Democrats to the table to share their ideas to fix Social Security. To date the only action Democrats have taken is to critize Bush's idea and no Democrats have submited any ideas of their own."

The establishment clause has long been interpreted as prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. Not just by liberal activist judges, either. Current SCOTUS is 7/2 Republican appointees. And the social security bit is just a meaningless accusation. The article is about Bush.

Thanks. Rhobite 20:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Got the first two I think...missed the third one.--MONGO 20:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, the third one was just my rationale for not including these edits. Thanks for removing them. Rhobite 21:25, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

colloqial

Latest comment: 20 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

1.Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal. 2.Relating to conversation; conversational. thats the dictionary.com definition. How does that fit with "w" mispronounced as "dubya"? that is neither a characteristic, nor appropriate from spoken language, AND not conversational. steve

You are continually trying to make this change in an effort only to detract from the subject. No one has agreed with your change. Please stop changing the text to "mispronounced". - Tεxτurε 20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
please stop misusing pronounced. You obviously don't know what it means.
Agreed...and why not create a user page, Steve?--MONGO 20:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
don't feel like allowing you freaks to find out any more about me than I have to. feel free to "talk" to me on my talk page.

Personal attacks can get you blocked. Please refrain. - Tεxτurε 21:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

sorry, I take that back, was not aware that "personal" included refuring to large groups of people, as a group, as a whole. my bad.

Pronounced means spoken in a certain way; mispronounced means badly spoken. Received Pronunciation is not "correct" English. smoddy 21:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

cheer up charlie. don't be such a bitter bee. --kizzle 21:06, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am not from vietnam, nor do i appreciate being called a bitter bee. Please stop the personal attacks.

ROTFLMAO - Tεxτurε 21:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

wasn't referring to vietnam. just sayin, take it easy bro. seems like you're a bit worked up. --kizzle 21:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

hey if refuring to you as a group as freaks is a personall attack then that was as well. no double standards here folks.

Does anyone else find it humorous that someone so up-in-arms about pronunciation spells about every third word incorrectly? Lay off, Steve. This is quickly turning into a very lame edit war. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


Thank you BMI for finding a quasi acceptable permutaion, and even more thanks for getting a MUCH better version in before the page got locked. BTW if I get banned, I expect all other users violation 3rr to be banned as long. and their were quite a few of you.

I am not sure this is a very good compromise. It gives no insight to the variation. At least "coloquial" gives foreign readers some insight into why it is said "Dubya" and not "Double-you". Just my opinion, but what do I know? I'm just a Dark Lord. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

If anyone else supports the removal of "colloquial" please give your opinion here. If not, I suggest that we return the text when the article is unprotected. - Tεxτurε 21:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Note the dictionary definition of "colloquial" quoted at the head of this section: "Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language". It's characteristic of the spoken language that this letter is sometimes slurred as "dubya". I don't like the assertion that Bush was nicknamed this by the media and the public. Is there any support for that? I had the impression that he picked up the nickname before he was in the eye of the media or the public (and it would be hard for the amorphous "public" to nickname him anyway). JamesMLane 00:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

"dubya" sentence debate

Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I see one sentence that says "dubya" and it simply says that some members of the media have that *variation* of "W", which stands for Walker. I don't see what is wrong with that. Why are you guys getting irritated? Voice of All(MTG) 22:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

By the way I noticed, according to the history page, A number of reverts recently. Also someone changed "V.P. John Edwards" back to "V.P. Dick Cheney". Why the heck did it say John Edwards in the first place? Was that vandalism? Voice of All(MTG) 23:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yes, vandalism. This article is one of the most heavily vandalized in Wikipedia. JamesMLane 00:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

NVOP sign still necessary?

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I have made a few minor (style) edits to "Early Life" and replaced the POV "unnamed environmentalist" with just some environmentalists. I have read the whole article several times and see nothing wrong with it, if anyone disagrees with killing the NVOP sign then please list the reasons. Voice of All(MTG) 17:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

You're new here as far as I can tell....the huge length of discussions here are all the reasons needed for the continuance of the tag. I am opposed to it's display as well, but the fact is that there are many that have chimed in in one way or the other and the argument is usually about neutrality. Now if there was an accuracy tag, I would agree to it's removal, even though there have also been those that question the accuracy of the article. "Unnamed environmentalists" isn't POV, it's just unreferenced.--MONGO 18:06, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am new. Anyway, MONGO, there are a lot of disputes(pages and pages), but many of them have been resolved or fixed. The remaining issues are based on "variation" vs. "mispronounced" of the word "dubya". Variation is the best, but either one is fine, I mean who cares? Well, obviously some people do :). But such things just are not worth a NPOV tag, many articles still have discussions and revisions without NPOV tags. Voice of All(MTG) 18:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Please do not remove the tag, thank you. Please read beyond the dubya controversy discussion.--MONGO 18:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I know that there are other running issues, but I was trying to say that they are all of the same relevancy, not much. Also, "unnamed", although not at all HIGHLY POV, does seem to suggest that the critics are just some unknown people without established(well, well known at least) reputaions, like ameteur greens. "Some" is less implicitive, albiet bland and lame, so I think it is better. Voice of All(MTG) 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
You accidentally deleted the comment about the poll which I put back in below. The poll question is just one of many ongoing disputing either the neutrality or even the accuracy of this article.--MONGO 18:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry! I got the error that someone else(You I guess) had made changes to the talk pages after I had started to edit it in the edit box when I submitted, I wasn't sure what I was doing exactly so I pressed back twice (talk page) and rewrote my post, apparently I still accidently deleted something. :/ Voice of All(MTG) 19:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

NPOV still needed? heck yeah! read the article once. It practically drips pro-bush lovin's. Until the article has some resembalence of neutrality, NPOV should stay.

Pro-Bush, where does it "love" Bush, and please sign your post.I don't even like Bush, but I still think that the article is pretty NVOP(ignoring random vandals). It is definitely NOT pro-Bush. Voice of All(MTG) 20:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think the tag should be removed as well, but it's probably futile. Rhobite 20:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


it is not NPOV because any thing negative is "alleged" and anything postive, is. it is POV'ed because nothing negative is allowed to be posted without sugarcoating it. Glosses over the fact that he lied to the american people, started needless wars, killed many americans, glosses over his drug scandal, glosses over his violations of the first amendment, glosses over the fact that he lets his religion dictate what laws he signs, glosses over the fact that he makes up words, cannot speak publicly, glosses over the fact that many americans distrust him.

Yikes... sounds like someone could use a nap. Just kidding. I don't think anyone thinks Bush will go down in history as the best president ever, but you seem to harbor something deep within you that dictates that if it isn't negative it must be POV. Many left-wing editors (many who HATE Bush) have said this is a pretty NPOV article. It still needs tweaked here and there, but on the whole, it's not that bad. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Poll Statistics

Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A recent Zogby poll showed Bush's approval rating a 46% for the month of March, 2005 - the lowest Bush had ever received, and the lowest second-term rating of any President since World War II. With the exception of John F. Kennedy, however, it is still the highest career long low-point rating of any President since polls began.

I can't be the only one to find that these two sentences contradict each other. Having a "lowest second-term rating of any President since World War II" and "highest career long low-point rating" don't seem compatible. I'd like to see some clarification on this. (unsigned comment by Randvek)

The "second term-rating is too vague" so it should be the contradiction that goes. Also I motion for removing the NPOV sigh and putting up an ACCURACY sign instead until the statistic issues (Ok, so there are still important disputes) are resolved. Voice of All(MTG) 19:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think the two statistics can be reconciled. Some Presidents hit their career lows in their first terms. Some of them, such as Carter and Bush 41, weren't elected to second terms. Presidents who get re-elected tend to be those who are better at influencing public opinion, so second-term ratings tend to be higher, because the Presidents who couldn't sway the public as well have been weeded out by the election. So, to invent some numbers for illustration purposes, suppose Carter during the hostage crisis or Bush 41 as the economy tanked got approval ratings of 39%, while the worst ever received in the first or second terms of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton was 52%. Then Bush's 46% would meet both stated conditions. JamesMLane 19:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Here's a sentence I don't understand

Latest comment: 20 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

From the article:

Among these appointees, Negroponte, Abrams, and Poindexter, along with Otto Reich (Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere for the Secretary of State) were criticized for their roles in the Iran-Contra Affair and for allegedly covering up human rights abuses in Central and South America.

This is right under the section about Bush's cabinet. My question is this, Why is this in the article? This has nothing to do with Bush, could be seen as POV, and are (at this point) unsourced. Should we remove this, or was it added to "add balance"? (By the way, I hate the rationale that adding POV stuff to stuff that is the opposite POV makes an article NPOV. I guess it is the old "Two wrongs don't make a right" thing. Dang, I hope i don't lose my reputation for being an Evil Lord) --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Well after re-reading my post, it looks like I won't lose my reputation for being a poor typist or grammarian. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Exactly the point...the article is not neutral. I see no reason for this unless it is there to make Bush look like he supports their actions due to his appointing them...they were criticized but were they actually found guilty?--MONGO 19:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
It's appropriate in an article about Bush to include some information about his appointees and the reaction to them. Abrams did indeed plead guilty to criminal charges. You want an idea for balancing it? With a little research you could probably find support for the point that Bush's appointment of Christie Whitman was generally welcomed by environmentalists, who considered her more pro-environment (or at least less rabidly anti-environment) than some of the people Bush could've put at the EPA. If my recollection on that point is true, then it's also a notable aspect of Bush's appointments that could be mentioned in the article. JamesMLane 19:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, remember James Watt...the "thing" Reagan put in to head the Dept. Of the Interior...talk about someone that was on a witch hunt to make the National Parks into a big strip mine...or a parking lot...I would agree that Whitman is a much better choice for that post than Watt would have been for any post. Thanks for the clarification...info man!--MONGO 19:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Watt had a tendency to make everyone else look good by comparison. I don't think it would add much to the article to say that some of Bush's appointees were less controversial than Watt! JamesMLane 20:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I agree...it's not much of a complement to say that Bush never appointed someone as bad as Watt...but between Reno and Ashcroft...that would be a toss up of lousiness too.--MONGO 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


So it would be valid to go into every U.S. President's article and write commentary on their appointees? I just don't see a valid reason for keeping something like this, unless there was a huge well-known controversy (Clarence Thomas, for example). Perhaps I am being long-sighted, but will this sentence be important in thirty years? Oh well, I'm not going to fight to take it out, I just thought it seemed like it was oddly stuck in there. --[[User:Lord Voldemort|Lord Voldemort]] (Dark Mark) 20:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

NO it wouldn't...it's probably here because Bush is the sitting President and we are actively engaged in evaluating him, whereby the other Presdients are now all has beens.--MONGO 20:14, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we need to give a discourse on every appointee of every President, but how often does it happen that a President appoints, to a high position, someone who was convicted of criminal conduct for his actions in a previous appointed position? JamesMLane 20:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

New lead photo

 
 

Which picture is better for the lead of the article? Both are "presidential portraits" while he was in the White House but the top photo is at a much larger resolution than the bottom.

I personally feel the top one would be best, but thought I would post here first for some thoughts. --tomf688(talk) 20:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&oldid=19323860"