Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 20

message: A huge amount of the NPOV controversy about this article centers around claims about Bush's alleged drug/alcohol use. It's a distraction from more important issues and it's caused a lot of unnecessary edit wars. Since deleting that section is not something I or most editors would support, I think it might be a good idea to split the content about drug and alcohol allegations into a separate article--George W. Bush drug and alcohol controversy, perhaps. That'll move all the inevitable edit wars to the new article and give the editors of this article more time to focus on other, more important issues. Szyslak 19:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but don't think that this would make the article accurate or neutral as there are many other points such as the elections, budgetary comparisons, and use of words and innuendo which would continue to plague this article. Furthermore, the only proof we have except silly jargon from dubious sources which discusses his "drug and alcohol controversy" is his own admittance that he used to drink a lot. A link to a controversy page using as it were the same poorly referenced and unsubstantive sources would be not much better than going ahead and leaving them in here.--MONGO 20:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversies about Bush's and Kerry's military service were spun off into daughter articles because they were so lengthy and detailed that they were cluttering up the main article.  Each of those daughter articles, though, is far longer than the drug-and-alcohol material in this article.  That section doesn't really need to be spun off.  Furthermore, spinning off details to a daughter article doesn't mean suppressing the subject in the main article.  There would still be a summary and a link.  The necessity of reaching agreed-upon wording for the summary would just create a new problem.  JamesMLane 21:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that simply wanting to shunt aside the troublemakers is not any kind of legitimate reason to split off a section. If anything, it seems strikingly like a means of hiding the Bush-embarssing stuff, which one must then go out of their way to find. I can imagine the response if someone tried to split off a list of things Bush has accomplished and been lauded for. If we're going to split up the article...and that's a good idea...it should be by size, not controversy. Kaz 01:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's split off the drug/alcohol section into a separate article 

message: I notice there is a wikipedia article for the controversy surrounding the 2004 election. Where is the wikipedia article for the controversy surrounding the 2000 election please? As far as I was aware it was the 2000 election that had the greater amount of controversy, so surely there is an article for it. If there is, it could be wikilinked to the word "controversy" in relevant paragraphs. If there isn't an article, then why isn't there? There've been many books written on the subject, so surely there's a wikipedia article for it! --Rebroad 21:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  election 2000 controversy 

message: I've restored the wording "controversial and extremely close election" for 2000 and "in 2004, narrowly defeating...".  The reason given for removing the words "extremely" and "narrowly" are inadequate in my opinion.  Bush had the lowest percentage lead in decades in 2004, with the exception of the 2000 election for which the psephologists had to go scrabbling in their records of nineteenth century elections. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you have it looks best. It is a fact that election 200o was controversial and extremely close and it is a fact in 2004 that Bush, regardless of the 3 million vote spread in the popular vote, would have lost if only one state (Ohio) had gone for Kerry who was therefore, narrowly defeated.--MONGO 11:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of [[User:Jewbacca|Jewbacca]]'s edits

message: Man, this article sure is long. 72 KB? I mean, we don't need to treat 32KB as a strict limit, but we ought to at least not exceed 50KB. Why not break some stuff out into subarticles? Everyking 22:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We would, but we're too busy arguing over whether "close" or "narrow" are more NPOV terms to describe Bush's elections. ;-) Szyslak 02:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Long

message: I find Neutrality's assertion that this section is "impossible to maintain" to be inaccurate.  This section has remained quite stable since the three-link-limit comments were added.  --Xaliqen 09:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion pieces