Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 12

message: The Florida vote was heavily disputed. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still debated, though no longer contested in any legal venue. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.
*1) I support this version Rex071404 06:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VeryVerily

message: The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this decision, Gore conceded the election.  The margin of victory (572 votes) was less than 1% of the number of disenfranchised voters.  (Although the exact number of disenfranchised voters is still disputed, we now know that at least 57,700 legal voters were incorrectly listed on a "scrub list" and thus wrongly disenfranchised.)  Election officials and the NAACP alleged that the state of Florida was in violation of election laws.  The NAACP filed suit accordingly, and a settlement was reached in NAACP's favor.  The election results are still disputed, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).
*PedantI support the above version...  the controversial election needs to be characterised as controversial, supported with basic facts, reserve the rest of this 'controversial election material' for U.S. presidential election, 2000  I would support any version of this paragraph that mentions the controversy, doesn't contain nonfactual 'data' and references U.S. presidential election, 2000, where all the rest of the election controversy belongsPedant 19:52, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
*Support. The shocking "you people can't vote" issue needs highlighted - and on this page - it's entirely relevant as to how Bush got "elected" last time. <B>zoney</B> ███ <B>talk</B> 11:39, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Kevin Baas v.2

message: I haven't read the article in months, but my gut feeling is that in a long article about 2 average sized paragraphs about the election dispute would seem about right. If there was any more than this I could go and look at the detailed article, if there was any less I'd feel it was being glossed over and deliberately downplayed. Ben Arnold 04:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My 2c

message: Including everything I have read on this page, I support V's edits and positions, over N's. Also, please take note that Neutrality was warned this evening for making 9 reverts in 24 hours on John Kerry. As they were all pro-Kerry edits which he made, I suggest that this indicates there bias on his part on this page for Bush. Rex071404 02:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how Neutrality's edits can be construed as pro-Kerry.  Kevin Baas | talk 17:40, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Of course you do, Rex. Neutrality 02:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your comments. Neutrality made 10 reverts to John Kerry today and was the principal cause of that page getting protected just now. He also twice used vulgar language towards me on the Kerry talk page Rex071404 02:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Twice? Vulgar language? Explain. Neutrality 02:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  To answer Neutrality, I count "twice" this way: #1) He characterized my objection to his edit as "BS" (except that he spelled this out). #2) After I replaced the "i" in "BS" with an "*" and explained my action, he reversed that edit with a bold type warning, re-inserting the term "BS" as a comment about my objection. That's twice. And I notice that he does not deny pro-Kerry bias, not does he deny being the principal cause of the page protection there tonight. Rex071404 02:35, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI, in every discussion I have read, I support [[User:VeryVerily|V]] vs. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]] 

message: Regarding the newly added paragraph:
:According to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts from the year 2000 to 2003 have gone to people with the top one percent of income (who earn an average of US$1.2 million annually), and two-thirds went to the top twenty percent (who earn an average of US$203.7 thousand annually). The tax cuts have redistributed the tax burden such that higher income brackets have less burden while lower income brackets have more burden.
: 
I say "so what?"  Read this: How Tax Cuts Work and then tell me if it seems so outlandish that the rich get big tax breaks.  They get bigger tax breaks because they have more money!  The information in the paragraph, while technically true, is slanted POV.  I vote to remove it.  Just MHO... — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:38, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
:I think you misread the paragraph.  There are two issues at stake here, and neither of them involve absolute quantities of money. Tax is based on percentage of income, not raw quantity.  Thus, your point is entirely moot.
:The first issue is percentage of wealth, not raw quantity.  regardless of how much money they make, a certain group of people give a larger percentage of their income to the government, while another group gives a smaller percentage of their income.  The first issue is percentage, burden.  Actually, this issue is the second issue listed in the paragraph.  The second issue, listed first in the paragraph, is distribution.  It's pretty clear cut. you don't have one third going to one third and two thirds to two thirds, in otherwords, this is not a flat tax.  It is slanted in a clear direction.  It is important to note, regardless of which direction it is slanted, that it is such.
:Also, notice that the source is nonpartisian. Kevin Baas | talk 18:51, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
::Is there a graph somewhere of income vs proportion of income paid as direct income tax. I would personally be interested in comparing US and UK. If we could get data for lots of countries, we could even make an article out of it. Pcb21| Pete 15:34, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to mention we already have the data for the UK at income tax. Pcb21| Pete 20:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Paragraph

message: (Group vote sought by Rex071404 08.16.2004)
Owing to what I consider a POV tone, no reference to actual facts, and no source links for these so-called "critics", I wish to delete this from the article:
"Critics of Bush allege improprieties in the venture, which earned US$170 million, including tactics in acquiring both the team and the stadium and land on which it played, as well as its later sale to a family friend who would donate money to the Bush campaign in 2000. When the team was sold in 1998, Bush had earned US$15 million."
Agree - text should be deleted
*Rex071404 07:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reply to: Kevin Baas: what are you referring to:  "unless otherwise can be convincingly demonstrated"? How can my contention that it's POV and is missing citations be "convincingly demonstrated"?. What standard of proof would you accept?Also, my suggestion that it is POV does not bear on the accuracy ot lack thereof of the current version, wouldn't you agree? Rex071404 17:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  A paragraph should only be removed if it is inaccurate/false.  If it is pov, whether subtly or overtly, and/or lacks sources, it should be altered to be npov and to include sources.  I agree that your statement that it is subtly pov and/or lacks sources does not bear on the accuracy or lack thereof of the current version, but your suggestion that it should be deleted does.  This is what I was responding to, though, admittedly, I confused your verbal criticism with what I construed as your tacit criticism, based on the protocol I've just described.  (The comment "please cite requested facts" encouraged this confusion.) I apologize for this confusion.  I believe that the proper course of action, in respect to your verbal criticism, would be to modify the para, not to remove it.  In any case, the vote was for delete or keep, regardless of stated reasons, and my comment was with regard to this choice. I apologize for any misappropriated criticism. Kevin Baas | talk 18:37, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
Pedant:Paragraph should be kept with the minor nitpicks fixed:
I would prefer "Improprieties have been alleged in..." to "Critics of Bush allege improprieties"  because 
1), people other than 'critics of bush' have made those allegations, attributing it to only critics of bush is slanted... 
and maybe more importantly: 
2), "Critics of Bush allege improprieties" doesn't follow the policy Avoid statements that will date quickly as it is stated in the present tense, and in that tense is unlikely to stand the test of time.Pedant 20:11, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
Undecided
*Floorsheim 08:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagree.  The fact represented is that the allegations have been made.  The only question is whether it is a notable fact concerning George W. Bush.  –Floorsheim 12:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Noisy's rewrite.  Facts are presented in encyclopedias. - Tεxτurε 16:43, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: With links to mainstream news sources, it should stay. Otherwise, delete. Neutrality 14:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's purchase of Texas Rangers (current version) 

message: Message from: Rex071404 15:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Message to: Gzornenplatz; What is your opposition to v.2? Rex071404 20:30, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ilyanep's question actually proves what's wrong with your version: it makes it seem as if the critics somehow opposed the stadium deal as such (as if "acquisition of the team and stadium" is a "concern" in itself), when it's in fact the improprieties about it (the details of which are in the references). The original version is just fine. Gzornenplatz 20:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
*Tεxτurε 20:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas Rangers - Consensus building attempt: Please vote V.2 - 08.16.2004 

message: I posted v. 3.0 but I'm holding my vote until I see the rest of the proposals.Pedant
:I tried to merge all the different ideas people suggested, and also the original, then fiddled with it to make it not sound awkward.  I haven't really thoroughly explored the content at those links, just a quick read of the page the link points to... someone may want to look over the whole site over there, or not.  I'm not sure I expressed the pooint of what people thought was wrong with the purchase... if someone feels like it, I wouldn't mind hearing the full-on biased version of what this paragraph is getting at (on my talk page), I'm a little thick when it comes to politics, I'm not sure if the improprieties referred to are "get bush elected" type improprieties or "make bush some more millions" type....  I'd also like to see more proposals, even if they are just better versions of the one I posted.  Pedant 10:29, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
:::: v. 3.0 looks good! Rex071404 07:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  v3.2 

message: Rex071404 23:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What precisely do you regard as POV in the original phrasing?  To me, it reports (but does not judge) a controversy.Wolfman 18:53, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's like asking me, what "precisely" is beauty? I think the newer versions I have endorsed on this page are less POV, don't you? Did you read all the above dialog on the subject? Rex071404 04:57, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I read it.  And no, I honestly don't think your suggestion is less POV.  Partly, that's because I truly don't see anything POV about the original paragraph.  If I understood more precisely what you see, it would be a bit easier.  To illustrate, I'll give a couple examples of the POV I see in your suggested revision.  First, you use the word 'castigate' which has a very negative connotation; that's a matter of tone.  Second, your version leaves the impression that critics are just upset that Bush made some money; which makes them seem silly.  (I have no idea what the precise criticisms are, or whether they are valid).  The version by Pedant also suffers from this latter problem.  The paragraph should at least mention what the actual criticism about team and land acquisition was.  The original version at least offers the weak explanation of 'tactics'.Wolfman 06:15, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This is off-topic for this page, but on-topic for controversial/disputed pages in general, so I hope you don't mind this brief interjection.  I'm looking for a few good veterans of edit wars on frequently controversial pages like this one, who would be willing to look over a design proposal for Wiki branches that I've written up and will probably attempt to prototype in the near future (not likely on wikipedia itself at first, but perhaps on another experimental wiki).  The whole thing is long, but I'd be quite happy if you only looked at the much shorter section on "Branches", which is the most important part.  I'm particularly interested in hearing whether you think such a branch mechanism (a) would improve Wiki workflow and consensus-building, by allowing alternative approaches to be developed and evaluated side-by-side more easily, or (b) would hinder consensus-building by making it less necessary for the majority to take minority viewpoints into account.  But in general, I'm interested in any and all comments, preferably on my talk page.  Thanks! - Brynosaurus 09:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for feedback: Wiki branches/voting proposal (an alternative to page protection) 

message: At his August 2001 physical, Bush was 6 feet 0 inches tall, and weighed
189.75 lbs
:Thats just some info I'm going ad when the page isn't protected. Sam [Spade] 03:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's height/weight 

message: Would it make more sense to have an 'Education' heading and a separate 'Science and Environment' heading? It seems to me that the Science content is more closely related to the Environment content (especially with the mention of the Union of Concerned Scientists). --neatnate 04:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education and Science?