Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 18

message: I made some (imho very) minor changes to reflect the actual status of 2004 Election and reported Irregularities. -- RyanFreisling @ 20:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor factual corrections

message: People keep trying to remove passages that are unflattering to Bush, notably by arguing against the criticism -- Hatfield was a felon, Wormer didn't examine Bush, the Yale professors who graded him were probably liberal bigots, etc.  The NPOV policy certainly requires that we not endorse any particular opinion, pro or con -- but NPOV permits, indeed requires, the reporting of those opinions, properly attributed.  I'm restoring the huge mass of material that's been removed.  That's not to say that all of it is perfectly OK.  For example, there's this statement about Bush's governorship: "His tenure in office featured a positive reputation for bipartisan leadership."  Now, that's an opinion, and unlike the negative things about Bush, it's not properly attributed and sourced.    An article about a controversial subject has a particular need for editors to cite their sources.  Someone notable could probably be found who said something like that, which is why I'm leaving it in for now, but it should be attributed. JamesMLane 16:43, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've stated already, I left in the DUI, the "Irresponsible youth", the drinking, et. al.  But, when someone puts out an attack piece insinuating that He's a "Dry Drunk" without ever examining him either physically or mentally, I say that it has not been vetted properly for inclusion in the article. First Lensman 13:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Please assume good faith. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you, MONGO, that there's no leftist bias in favor of Robert E. Lee.  (Remember, it's leftists who want to remove the Confederate flag from U.S. state flags, who criticize Bush for speaking at Bob Jones University because of its segregationist policies, etc.)  Instead, the difference between the two articles is that Bush is a contemporary politician.  Articles on such people attract editors who support the subject and editors who oppose him or her.  Both sides have a wealth of online source material (far more than in Lee's case).  A better analogy would be John Kerry.  He actually served in Vietnam, yet you'll see that the Wikipedia article reports the criticisms of his service.  For example, it notes that "two of Kerry's former commanding officers, Grant Hibbard and George Elliott ... have alleged, respectively, that Kerry's first Purple Heart and Silver Star were undeserved."  In fact, just as with Bush, the back-and-forth about what he did during the Vietnam War got so extensive that it was spun off to a separate article, leaving behind only a summary.  That's why the articles on George W. Bush military service controversy and John Kerry military service controversy were created.  As for unfootnoted statements, we don't need to provide a reference for noncontroversial stuff like his place of birth.  Although you complain about "the repeated use of the terminology of 'others have said'", I searched the article for the word "others" and found only two uses: a quotation from Bush, and a reference to other previous elections.  I invite you to call our attention to any specific passages that you think should be sourced. JamesMLane 23:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV doesn't mean suppressing all criticism of Bush

message: The article still appears as somewhat left of NPOV, yet the current revision is the best one I have seen yet as of 12:30, 24 Jan 2005 Ferkelparade. I can concede this as an adequate series of alterations, and would not disagree with internal links to the Salon reports, Hatfield's book and van Wormer's discussion, so long as they don't constitute the main body of the article and remain as links to further reading if someone chooses to read such items.--MONGO 13:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on content 

message: The summary simply eviscerated all mention of substantive reports except to repeat Bush's own denials.  Since the President's past life does attract a lot of interest (the afterword to the Hatfield biography, Boehlert's Salon piece, van Wormer's bizarre ad hoc diagnosis) I don't think a summary is appropriate here, and this summary in particular does not capture the breadth of speculation directed at the President by the media both before and during his Presidency. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you admit that it's speculation, then why on earth should it be in the article? The article does need a statement of when and how long the press focused on the cocaine allegations during the 2000 campaign. But aren't citation links a better way to present claims that are just based on someone saying "maybe"?  Gazpacho 18:39, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, much better.  I traced the original to the Irish Times. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gazpacho's summary

message: I still say that this entire paragraph needs to be removed:
:"Katherine van Wormer, a professor of social work and writer on addiction treatment, claims that Bush seems to have the mindset of a "dry drunk," an alcoholic who still exhibits thought patterns that accompany alcoholism[6] (http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html). She bases this view on her perception that his public speeches express rigidness, obsessiveness, impatience, and grandiosity. Wormer's assessment was published in Counterpunch, a magazine edited by frequent Bush detractor and Nation writer Alexander Cockburn. (See also [7] (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info/a/aa081397.htm), [8] (http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html), and [9] (http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy1019.html).)"
It has not been vetted through an actual physical or mental examination. If there were a report by a Bush physician that hinted there was "Dry Drunk" syndrome, I'd say leave it in. What we have here is someone who is trying to negatively label someone whose opinions and actions she disagrees with. Why don't we have a new article called "Wild Accusations About President Bush"? This would be a much better place to put this article!
First Lensman 13:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion Wormer's claims are absolute bilge. However what is worthy of note is that a published author on addiction wrote this extraordinary nonsense about Bush and it was published in the Irish Times.  We're writing a NPOV article here and this is encyclopedic by the standards we're using. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I just don't agree with leaving "bilge" in. Just as I wouldn't put in the Pat Robertson claim that Bush has been sent by God to lead this country. In both cases, there is no proof. We need to have stricter criteria. Why not use the credo of Detective Friday on Dragnet -- "Just the facts"! First Lensman 14:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If it isn't a proven fact, then it shouldn't be included!!! First Lensman 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read Wikipedia:NPOV.  "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves."  If Pat Robertson said that, it's a fact about his opinion that can be asserted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: A reprint in a foreign newspaper doesn't validate an article. First Lensman 15:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, elected officials are especially appropriate subjects for inclusion of third-party opinions -- although, as Tony Sidaway has said, reporting the facts about opinions is our general policy anyway.  If someone wants to add Robertson's opinion that Bush was sent by God, I think that would be an appropriate addition, if it's properly sourced. (I did a quick search and found Robertson saying a year ago that God had told him Bush would win in a landslide: "I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004."   I didn't find Robertson saying specifically that Bush was "sent by God" but I didn't check all the hits.)  Robertson's opinion is quite clearly bilge (at least, it's clear to me), but we can let the readers decide for themselves. JamesMLane 17:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to continue off-topic, but I suspect that any such claim by Robertson would be an urban legend from those who never see his show. He has denounced Bush repeatedly. Others may have made such claims. Gazpacho 18:52, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't we hold ourselves to the same standard for evidentiary inclusion into our legal system? The DUI stays in because we have the record of the DUI. The drinking stays in because the President admitted to drinking and then giving it up. The "AWOL" charge is much more problematic. If you look at the President's record, he earned enough points (842) his first four years, which amounts to over 16 years of service credits at the minimum of 50 rate. So, he's more than earned his honorable discharge. He did skip some months, but the National Guard allows people to skip months as long as they are made up, which the president did. But, it has to be included not because of it's veracity, but as  a note about the rabid attacks against the reelection of this president. The "Dry Drunk" was one article written without any substantiating proof and was not carried by the U.S. press or the Democratic party. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it doesn't warrant a whole paragraph in this article. A citation at the bottom under the new "opinion" section would suffice. First Lensman 19:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wormer Article

message: Thank you for proving me wrong and unprotecting the page.--MONGO 08:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNprotected 

message: The newer version of the box (as found in this version of the article) seems to me to be not an improvement.  Wikilinking some key points, like Bush's predecessory, wife, and VP, is helpful, even if they're also linked in article text; this pulls them together.  Inclusion of the lines for death information is redundant when the box already says that he's the incumbent.  More generally, use of the template makes it harder to edit.  My attempts to edit within the changed format produced various forms of mess, so I finally gave up and went back to the old one. JamesMLane 09:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 68.49.191.97 please identify yourself by contributing here in discussion or remove the tag please.--MONGO 09:02, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who put up the disputed page tag? 

message: Where is the proof?
--Relaxation 18:41, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business man? 

message: The parties in this dispute seem to be on a path that usually leads deep into the dispute resolution process. Have they considered taking the same approach that was done with the national guard allegations, and moving the details to George W. Bush drug controversy, or something similar? Gazpacho 10:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A move like that is appropriate for topics that are accumulating so much detail that they overwhelm the article.  I don't think that's the case here.  Furthermore, even when a lot of the detail on such a topic is moved to a daughter article, it's appropriate to leave a summary in the main article, as is done for both Bush and Kerry with the allegations about their military service.  Yet, in this case, we've seen repeated attempts to delete even the very terse summary of the Bush military service allegations.  The underlying dispute isn't over the level of detail in the passages about drug use; it's about whether the information should be completely suppressed.  Therefore, I don't think that creation of a daughter article would help.  As long as anyone keeps trying to suppress the subject, the dispute will go on.  JamesMLane 10:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Subpage for drug use allegations

message: Gazpacho, I think your edit omits too much.  To Bush supporters, it's important to note that Hatfield had a felony conviction and that his original publisher withdrew the book.  To Bush detractors, it's important to note that Bush said he had no drug use in the 15 years preceding 1989 but refused to answer as to the period before 1974.  I do agree with you about the anonymous email as a source, and I've tried to clarify that the email was contradicted when journalists checked with the very contact suggested in the email.  Also, in looking into this, I found that our article copied too much verbatim from Salon, so I reworded some passages.  I also put in more sources.  You removed the link to Bush's characterization of Hatfield's book as "totally ridiculous", but I think that, on a controversial subject, it's especially important to cite sources. JamesMLane 11:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cocaine allegations

message: What's his view on hunting?
--Relaxation 17:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunting. 

message: Although MONGO says, "Who cares about someone's opinions", there are plenty of instances in which the objective reporting of a subjective opinion is sufficiently informative to be included.  The Wikipedia policy to that effect also calls for attributing such opinions, though.  I've therefore removed this unattributed sentence: "Advocates of the conquest of Iraq have responded by pointing out the billions of embezzled dolalrs those officials at the UN, and in several of the other opposing countries, had gained from the corruption of the Iraqioil for food program."   Even aside from the improper characterization "conquest of Iraq", I don't think this belongs in the article about Bush unless the Bush administration commented on the subject.  I'm sure the administration has criticized the Oil for Food program, but linking that program to other nations' stances at the UN is another matter.  Putting it in this context implies that Bush has drawn that link, which shouldn't be stated unless it can be sourced.  If it's only some other people raising the charge, it should be covered in Oil for Food program but not here. JamesMLane 18:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion as expressed above is also making or relying on unsupported factual statements.  The use of the term "pointed out" implies that the expressed opinion (that officials at the UN, etc, embezzled billions of dollars in funds) is true.  There are assumptions there too (that any embezzlement was exclusively by or on behalf of non-US nationals).  It's a bit of a mess. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One way of recognizing when someone is trying to add PoV when they dispute part of an article is that they complain about specific parts of something they find embarassing to their agenda, but instead of fixing the questionable details, they simply delete the whole thing. If it mention of the opposition to the conquest of Iraq by France and the UN are acceptable, then the counter-arguments popularly given, attributing their motivation to their profit in the food-for-oil fiasco, is equally appropriate. You can arguably dispute the precise delivery, but not the validity of the information itself. Kaz 18:08, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Attributing opinions

message: Why is Katherine van Wormer's opinion that Bush displays "all the classic patterns of addictive thinking" included in this article? As this is simply one person's opinion, shouldn't this be an external link in the opinion section? Carrp 16:11, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in general we shouldn't relegate significant opinions to external links (the opinion section of links serves no meaningful function in my opinion).  Van Wormer's piece is significant because she's a professionally qualified specialist and published author on addiction and the piece was published in the Irish Times. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:27, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree that she is qualified, but it's still only her opinion. Without extensive testing and, at the very least, interviewing Bush, her opinion cannot be considered an official diagnosis. It's very common for doctors to disagree about psychological and behavioral diagnoses. How many other qualified specialists concur with van Wormer? There is already information in this article that details Bush's drinking and drug problems. Van Wormer's opinion doesn't add much factual information. I do think the Irish Times article is worth adding to the external link section (I also agree that the opinion section is fairly useless). Carrp 16:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that the piece is not illustrative in any legitimate sense of Bush's psychological state.  Perhaps it needs reworking to make it plain that it isn't in the article to back up any factual statement.  All it actually says, which I think is extraordinary enough, is that this published expert on addiction came out with this extraordinary pseudo-diagnosis and got it printed in a major European newspaper.  I find Bush's behavior inexplicable, but I think that's more because I'm a left wing European than because he is or ever was an addict.   --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a disputed statement, so you're certainly right that it shouldn't be presented as if it were purely factual.  It was first included with the line "It has been observed that", which was clearly improper, because "observed" has a connotation that the statement is correct.  I was the one who made the change to "It has been argued that".  (I still think "argue" is better than "claim" but I haven't cared about it enough to fight over it.)  Either "claimed" or "argued" is enough to convey the point that it's someone's opinion, not a statement of undisputed fact. JamesMLane 21:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: How does it cast Bush in a bad light?  I agree with you that here, apparently, is a professional prostituting her credentials in order to score a cheap political point.  So how does it reflect badly on Bush? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  van Wormer's Opinion 

message: I removed this recent addition:
: Bush is commonly known as extremely conservative in nature, opposing gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, and misleading the nation over the invasion of Iraq, typically governing from a Christian perspetive, despite our separation of church and state.
It's really just a "well my friends and I think this..." kind of insertion which isn't a lot of use (practically my whole city think that Bush is a raving nutcase but that isn't going into this article unless we run a poll).  I think this kind of thing (especially the bit about misleading people) should have some  kind of psephological basis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush is commonly known as...

message: Perhaps some extra pro-Bush articles could be added to the opinion pieces links. There's 1 pro link and 6 con.
I cut the Against link section down to three links which is, I think, a pretty good number to keep things at.  If you have two good links you could add to the Pro section, then please do.  --Xaliqen 12:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra pro-Bush articles? 

message: What a gobshite! How the hell did he get a second term? do Americans read te newpapers? are they aware of politics at all? god help us.--Crestville 03:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yowza! 

message: The statement we had, that Bush mocked her on television, was wrong.  She appeared on television (on Larry King).  Tucker Carlson wrote a magazine article (in Talk) that reported on Bush's mocking of her TV appearance.  I haven't looked up the paper copy of Talk, and website (like the magazine) is defunct, but the passage was quoted on many websites, so I'm comfortable with it unless and until someone finds it's an error.  (Talk magazine, September 1999, page 106 is the cite I saw.)  The link I gave is to a site quoting the article and also quoting a Salon interview with Carlson.  I don't subscribe to Salon; maybe someone who does can check out the Salon link to verify it.  (An amusing sidenote is that Carlson was worried that his profile would be seen as "a suck-up piece", but Salon characterized it as "the most damaging profile of [Bush] yet written". JamesMLane 21:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to exclude widely reported information simply because the source is not internet accessable.  A proper citation should be more than sufficient.  Also, we shouldn't be a party to a copyright violation simply for our own convienence.  The magazine may not be around, but the company who owned the magazine probably is, and the editor of the magazine and the author of the article are still alive.  Gamaliel 07:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that I'd like to see a link for every point in an article, but it's not always possible.  Wikipedia frequently cites printed sources that aren't available online.  It's not our usual practice to scan such sources and create a website.  Furthermore, Gamaliel is correct that printed material doesn't pass into the public domain just because a magazine stops publishing.  I've given a link to my source.  Any reader who shares your skepticism about third-party citations can see that this one is a third-party citation and can discount it accordingly.  Such a reader can also do a Google search and discount all the many other websites that quote the Talk article to the same effect.  JamesMLane 14:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The objection that we can't include widely documented information unless we can link to a direct version of an article in a periodical which no longer exists is absolutely indefensible. It is clear from the articles linked here, if one bothers to examine them, that this incident did indeed happen, unless Carlson, a pro-Bush pundit, was lying about his own interview with Bush. This does indeed seem like yet another PoV censorship trick, trying to keep a fact embarassing to one's own agenda silent. As with the goat pic, allowing this is a matter of principle, regardless of whether one likes the perception it creates. We should defend the posting of factual material that we dislike more stridently than the stuff we support, just as a society can only have liberty if people are free to make unpopular choices. Kaz 18:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I've tracked down the publication details, the volume and number (it was vol1 no 1), the name of the article and the page numbers.  Thus we have a verifiable citation.  The incident, from Carlson's article as source, was widely reported in news media at the time and has often been referenced since.  I'm not happy with the wording we have now, however, until someone can track down a copy and verify. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Well MONGO, I sure don't think the National Review is left-wing.  First of all, it was founded by William F. Buckley Jr.  Second, if you go to the front-page of their web-site, it's quite clear that the focus is on conservative issues from a conservative perspective.  As for its reliability, it's been published since 1955, not that longevity determines reliability, but it is certainly a respected publication in a number of circles.  --Xaliqen 21:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, National Review is a Neo-Conservative magazine, which means that right now it's devoutly Bush League, for better or worse, since he's successfully advancing their number one agenda. Kaz 04:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Xaliqen, if you read my discussion then you would see that I had indeed praised those that found more credible sources in this matter. So why are you still unsatisfied?--MONGO 08:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Karla Faye Tucker

message: This article doesn't need the TotallyDisputed tag. The way I see it, that's a heavy-duty tag that goes on articles that are blatantly biased, like, say, all those "Palestinian children" lists. George W. Bush is a controversial man, as all US Presidents were to some degree. No matter how neutral or accurate this article is, there will always be someone out there who disputes its neutrality/accuracy. Also, and I know this is no reason to take off the tag, this is obviously one of Wikipedia's most visible articles. Think of what that says about us, when one of our most basic, vital articles has an ugly tag reserved for the worst of the worst POV offenders. In addition, I haven't seen much of a case made on the talk page that this article truly is biased or inaccurate. Szyslak 02:50, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've compared the Goat pic to the pic of Clinton laughing at Ron Brown's funeral. It may be controversial, but only in a way which actually makes it /more/ appropriate in an article about the man. Like the pic of Nixon desperately throwing victory signs as he leaves on the plane. And I agree, it's ridiculous that there's not a pic of Clinton and Lewinsky together in the Clinton article. The problem is that there are Clinton apologists censoring that article, just like Bush apologists are doing here, and both ought to be ashamed of themselves. Kaz 17:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TotallyDisputed tag 

message: We had some discussion late last year about the coverage of the election disputes in the lead section.  My feeling then was that the controversy over the 2004 election was fresh enough that it would help orient the reader if we gave some information of the type that Neutrality has now put in the lead.  Back then, however, some other editors were determined to keep this kind of thing out.  Much as I disagreed with them then, I think that, with the Inauguration having passed, the election controversies don't deserve this much prominence.  Obviously, the subject should be (and is) covered, but it doesn't seem to me that it needs to be in the lead section.  We haven't revisited this question lately; what do others think? JamesMLane 03:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the lead paragraphs of this article, which I take it is what we're discussing, I must agree. Bush v Gore was relevent right after it happened, and in fact maybe all through the first term, since it was pivotal to him being President...but now he's been elected with no sane controversey (aside from the long-standing question of the electoral college, ballot access laws, campaign finance reform, et cetera), so it really belongs only in chronological order in the article's body. Kaz 18:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Hey, why not change it to the "Controversial" tag? Kaz 18:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Bush v. Gore'' in lead section

message: It's amazing how positive facts/opinions on people like this can be viewed as "information" while negative facts/opinions are "POV problems". I don't like editing wars like most Wikipedians, but I will not be censored in the name of protocol. If you want to remove someone putting in the word "poop" or something, i'm cool with that, but don't try to squelch different viewpoints. That's what makes Wikipedia great.
--Karmafist 04:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "POV" Deletions