Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 24

message: I believe there was another prep school george attended for quite some time before andover but the name escapes me at the moment...Anyone here know?
Jarwulf 02:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: Back in what's now been moved to Archive 23, I proposed a revision of the treatment of the substance abuse issues.  There appeared to be no objection to the final version, so I've made the change: removing the separate section, incorporating a brief summary in the section on Bush's personal life, and moving additional detail to a daughter article. JamesMLane 04:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that. I have to say that you have conceded a lot by eliminating the separate section on the illusions and I thank you for that. I think the problem lies with what is and what isn't worthwhile as far as this article goes. I still consider the inclusion of these issues to be absolute bunk and makes us lousy editors to keep it. No doubt Hatfield and Frank published books, so I can concede that the mention of said books is NPOV. Therefore, it would be best to place those books in the additional reading section. However, the "facts" they bring to light are only notible for their obsurity, not their factuality, and there are plenty of other books that also do this. I'm not sure that the brief summary of their contents with quotes from them without quotes from their detractors is fair. I'm going to leave it alone for now and will make sure I comment here before I make any changes.--MONGO 07:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Substance abuse issues

message: By this edit you not only reinstated your pet language on the substance abuse issues, you also obliterated unrelated improvements that several of us had made.  You reinstated the misspelling "Colections", you moved the citation to Bush's discharge papers away from the sentence about his discharge, you moved the picture of Bush on September 11 far away from the paragraph about September 11, and you restored huge unnecessary white spaces to the "Media" section (at least on my screen, using Firefox).
Your characterization of Tony Sidaway's edit as "vandalism" was clearly improper, because he made his edit in good faith, even if you disagree with it.  When someone changes "Collection" to "Colection", though, it becomes harder to assume good faith, and more tempting to sling around the word "vandalism". JamesMLane 06:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess what....when someone removes my edit and refers to it as "ditching" it can hardly be construed as a good faith edit. My edits are also made in good faith and have been discussed unlike what you refer to as Sidaway's reversion of my edit with not one word in discussion on his part. Where is your Rfc? I'll restore the items in question along with my version of the drug and alcohol link.--MONGO 06:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that this article is well written...it appears to be predominantly a left leaning piece, hence the NPOV tag. I am not interested in playing in JamesMLane's daughter article. I am concerned about this main article only. Many of the "opposing" viewpoints that JamesMLane so graciously has in the daughter article were added by me when they appeared in the main article. That you surfaced a bad edit on my part is commendable on your part...--MONGO 07:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MONGO, please stop blind reverting

message: My initial draft is available here; edit that page but comment on it here.  The supporting statements still need to be supplied or improved, and the versions may change (I haven't yet checked Version 1 against MONGO's latest comment, to make sure it's up to date).  I envision that the RfC would have a link taking the reader to the "RfC: Presentation of substance abuse issues" heading on the GWB talk page.  Does this general format seem OK?  I'm trying to make it as easy as possible for Wikipedians who haven't previously been involved to come here, get a quick grasp of the issues, and give us their thoughts. JamesMLane 07:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Draft of RfC

message: I'm not the one who added this link, but I'm wondering why it was reverted:
* "Global Eye: Blood Group" by Chris Floyd, The Moscow Times, June 10, 2005
It's germane to the subject, and it's been established that external links are NOT required to conform to NPOV (or else we'd never be able to link to anything). There seems to be a balance of pro- and anti-Bush links in the "Further Reading" section. —chris.lawson (talk) 22:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that external links don't need to be NPOV, but it's also been established that Wikipedia is not a collection of links.  We don't try to link to every web page anywhere that's germane to the subject, especially in the case of an article like this one, where there'd be an impossible number of such links.  I see no reason to link to the Floyd article.  It's one among scores of thousands that criticize Bush's defiance of legal and moral standards and his general arrogance.  The comparison to Octavian isn't a common one, but it doesn't provide any reason for the link.  The article isn't needed as a reference to support anything in our article.  It doesn't add valuable information but at a level of detail that we don't want to import into our main article.  Those would be the main reasons for an external link here. JamesMLane 23:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this removed? 

message: Mb1000, it looks to me as if you inadvertently used an outdated version of the article as the basis for your edits.  You undid several minor corrections that had been made recently; for example, you switched the political party links from the correct names of the articles to ones leading to redirects.  There'd be no reason for you to do this deliberately, which is why I'm assuming inadvertence.  In light of the constant vandalism barrage, I'm afraid that if I go through and correct them all, it will take me so long that I'll get an edit conflict and things might get messed up, so I'm going to do a succession of (mostly small-scale) fixes. JamesMLane 04:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mb1000's edits

message: I think the material about PNAC is too detailed and is out of place, and the Downing Street memo is also out of place.  The best order is chronological, near the beginning of the Iraq section, along these lines: Pre-existing U.S. policy (dating from Clinton administration) to oust Saddam; Bush administration appointees include several alumni of PNAC, which had called for overthrow of Saddam; after 9/11, according to Richard Clarke's book, Bush is immediately focused on Saddam as the culprit; in the summer of 2002, the administration was pointing toward the military option, according to the Downing Street memo (quoting the "fixed" passage).  This summary would replace the later references to PNAC and DSM.  The Iraq material would then move on to the existing passages about the Bush administration's arguments concerning WMD's.  Does this seem good? JamesMLane 09:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq, PNAC, etc.

message: I restored a version so it can be back referenced during Rfc.--MONGO 11:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored version 

message: Why is it evrytime I try to add a reference to his grandfather, someone either calls it vandalism and removes it, or simply deletes it under the guise of several larger edits?
Listing his grandfathers name, along with a wiki link to his article isn't vandalism, but for some reason it keeps disappearing
:In my opinion, the fact that GWB is part of a political dynasty is relevent. So long as we don't get into some long discussion about his forefathers since this is an article about the current President afterall.--MONGO 20:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prescott Bush