Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 19

message: I'd like to point out that it's wrong to address Saddam as "Mr. Hussein" or even "Hussein", because Hussein is not a family name. It's the first name of Saddam's dad. We are making a very common western error here, and I propose we correct it by changing the article to address him by first name.
--212.219.0.5 14:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect to refer to an Arab by last name

message: most nuetral version of this page I've seen 70.179.224.245 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: yep

message: Since some people really want to keep the TotallyDisputed tag on this article, let's take a vote on whether we want to keep or delete the tag, a sort of "VfD" for the tag. Szyslak 18:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that is a useful thing to do. Kaz 18:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's certainly full of stuff that a dedicated Bush apologist, if he is for silencing the opposition, would not want included. But it's still stuff which is reasonably arguable. You should be spending more time making sure the equally valid Clinton-embarassing stuff is included in that guy's article, not trying to censor its equivilents here. What happened to that analysis of Clinton as the codependent adult child of an alcoholic, with various power-abuse issues against women? And didn't Safire base his claim that Hillary was a pathological liar on some psych guy's analysis?Kaz 03:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Kaz for admitting that the information that you are putting in the article is bias.  Good Job!----Keetoowah 14:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: You were taking a poll and I voiced my opinion.--MONGO 09:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking van Wormer as a much-discussed example: MONGO, it was my understanding that you didn't dispute the accuracy of the report that she had made this comment; you thought that her opinion, although correctly reported, reflected only her political bias, should be given no weight, and therefore didn't merit being reported in the article (even if reported accurately).  To me, that sounds more like a neutrality dispute than a factual-accuracy dispute.  An example of the latter would be if the article said, "Bush didn't take his required National Guard physical exam despite a direct order from his superior officer, Jerry Kilian, that he do so."  That would support a dispute about factual accuracy, given that there's a dispute about whether Killian gave such an order.  I thought the disputed facts had all been changed so that Wikipedia wasn't endorsing either side, but just accurately presenting evidence.  If the referencing is, in your opinion, of poor quality, we're being accurate if we disclose the source, so that readers who agree with you can discount it appropriately.  Are there any specific instances where you think something is asserted as a fact that should be qualified in that way? JamesMLane 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll get back to you on all that later so as not to take up all the room here...--MONGO 17:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said, this is inevitable in a controversial article. Any serious criticism of Bush is going to offend his apologists, and any pro-Bush information his critics. This article would have to be stripped of most of its real value in order to not be disputed. It is, therefore, inherently controversial, but not necessarily biased in such an overwhelming way that it needs the most pejorative of tags. Kaz 21:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't get back to you about that and in honesty, after close analysis of the article, I see that it suffers mainly from a POV controversy instead of any major accuracy problem. However, as I stated in another response, the following passage is food for thought in that I feel that in some cases, the innuendo here is deliberately misleading..."If those opinions are derived from falsehoods, innuendo and or bad judgement on the part of the person or entity providing the opinion, and we are aware of their dubiousness yet knowingly recite them anyway, then our inclusion of said opinion is malfeasence and is a mirror of that distortion.".--MONGO 11:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can include significant facts that tend to cut against the cited opinion (although we have to rein in collateral disputes).  In many cases of claimed POV, though, all we're omitting is something like "Now that we've told you the facts about this opinion and the facts that some people believe refute that opinion, we want you to know that some Wikipedia editors are among those who believe the opinion to have been refuted." JamesMLane 17:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on TotallyDisputed tag