Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about George W. Bush. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Education

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)

Inconsistent use of % GDP to refer to "records"

From the Article:

Statement 1: " had reduced total federal revenue, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, to the lowest level since 1959."

Statement 2: "The annual deficit reached record levels of $374 billion in 2003 and $413 billion in 2004"

This is an obvious (at least to me as an accounting guy) POV violation. Nominal numbers rarely tell the whole story in an economy we expect to grow over time. Stating that annual deficits are records in nominal terms is misleading especially after referring to federal revenue as lowest since 1959 as a percent of GDP. The author uses % GDP when it makes the President look bad and quickly abandons it when it would show non-record deficits as a percent of GDP.

I won't edit it, but I think a consensus can be reached on consistent use of nominal or percentage numbers when referring to the economy. This should be at least one sticking point we can all (at least the level-headed among us) agree on.

Consistent use of statistical terms absolves you of charges of manipulating numbers.

Oops, Forgot to Sign, --DSquared 5-31-05

In fact, I just read the reference to USAToday's pre-election article and it mentions this fact at the very end of it's article.

"The administration and congressional Republicans say the most important measure of the deficit is that the 2004 shortfall was an estimated 3.6% the size of the economy. That is well below the worst-ever 6% figure set in 1983 under President Reagan."

(Strictly speaking it is the worst-ever Post-WWII.)

"Many economists agree that such a comparison is more significant because it shows how affordable the deficit is for the nation. But many of them are uncomfortable with shortfalls of that size because deficits are expected to worsen later this decade when the huge baby boom generation begins drawing on Social Security and Medicare. "

I'd like more comment on this before someone makes the change as it will get reverted by opponents anyways.

--DSquared 19:37 5-31-05

I have no objection to including the information, but the term "nominal" is uninformative and possibly confusing because of its colloquial use to mean "small". I think what you mean is to make clear that the Bush deficits are records when measured in current dollars, so that's what I've changed it to. (I don't know how the Bush deficits compare with Reagan's in constant dollars, but it would be interesting to know.) Also in that section, I've removed the unattributed POV that Bush's tax cuts helped curb the recession. JamesMLane 22:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we are running at 3.6% whereas Reagan was in the neighborhood of 6% don't quote me. Nominal just means the actual dollars as opposed to referencing a value in relation to something else ie GDP. Nominal is an accounting term and is used correctly, if you use it to mean small that is incorrect, colloquially or not.

--Dsquared 05:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to percentage of GDP, but to the actual size of the deficit, adjusted for inflation. Bush's deficits are bigger in current dollars but maybe not in constant dollars. As to "nominal", it may have a technical meaning in accounting and have a different, though still correct, meaning in other contexts. Merriam-Webster online mentions "trifling" and "insignificant" as possible synonyms. Anyway, whether that meaning is correct or not, we should try to avoid a term that many people will read that way. JamesMLane 07:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dsquared is correct, but I understand the confusion. Nominal is one of those words that means what it sounds like: "In name." If you say "Catholics have a nominal obligation to attend mass weekly" you may mean the obligation isn't actually significant, but you aren't saying the obligation is small (it's a big obligation that whose violation is condoned though not approved by the Church). Hence, "nominal GDP" is the GDP by name (number of dollars). Nominally, I'm "James Garfield VII", but my friends call me Harry. -- James (not JamesMLane or evan James Garfield).

Substance abuse issues

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)

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)

Why did President Bush seek tax cuts during his first term?

AFTER READING THE WIKIPEDIA RULES AND REGULATIONS, I TRIED TO REMOVE THIS AS A POINT OF DISPUTE. WHY IT IS BACK UP HERE I HAVE NO IDEA. EDITORS' EFFORTS TO "EXPLAIN" THE GUIDELINES WERE MERELY CONTRADICTORY.

Why does a Right-Wing response to Left-Wing allegations use all caps? Turn the cap lock off.Steve Austin 16:46, Jun 14, 2005 (GMT)

The section titled "Economy" states that Bush passed three major tax cuts that caused record deficits. Either the first or third paragraph needs to include the purpose of Bush's first fiscal policy act (to alleviate the effects of the NASDAQ collapse, the 2001 recession, high energy prices, whatever). I have tried on several occasions to edit this in and have been rejected every time. Now, I understand that some editors do not want any economic blemishes attributed to the Clinton administration, but the way the entry reads now, the only reason why Bush wanted to cut taxes was to return to deficit spending. That's horseshit, and I'm quite sure every intelligent person knows it.

Currently it doesn't say anything about why he wanted the tax cuts. It lets the reader draw their own conclusions. This is the easiest way to remain neutral - give just the facts. DJ Clayworth 21:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The FACTS are that there were express reasons why Bush wanted to cut taxes when he took office. Whether or not his goals were ACHIEVED is up to the reader to draw his own conclusions. OMITTING important information does not promote neutrality, it in fact does the exact opposite. As the wise Bernard Goldberg stated in in his famous book, "There are two kinds of bias. Not reporting the whole story and over-reporting half the story."

Then CITE those facts. Don't just say he did it for certain reasons, attribute it from somewhere. --kizzle 21:57, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

FROM WHERE? A CAMPAIGN SPEECH?

That's a start. Check interviews, radio addresses, official word from Scott McClellan [1]... and easy with the caps bro. --kizzle 17:24, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, the National Review article you put in here doesn't quote Bush using these reasons as Tax cuts, they're just ex post facto analysis by someone else. --kizzle 23:46, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I DID NOT PUT A THIRD-PERSON ARTICLE HERE. THE ONLY SOURCE FROM WHICH TO CITE REASONING IS A CAMPAIGN SPEECH. AND THAT IS NOT A CREDITWORTHY SOURCE.

Remember that we can't take Bush's word for it. Some people believe his stated reason, that he thought the tax cuts would be good economic policy, would spur job creation, would reduce the deficit, etc. Other people think that, in saying that those were his reasons, he was shamelessly lying, and that his real short-term purpose was to reward his corporate paymasters. For the long term, no, it is not horseshit to say that Bush's purpose was to return to deficit spending. This is part of a long-standing right-wing plan to reduce or eliminate government programs that they don't like: "To critics the Republican budget strategy is 'starve the beast' -- cut taxes and use the resulting deficits as an excuse to squeeze spending." [2] So if we want to cover this subject, we have to give Bush's stated reasons, and also present the opposing POV as to what his reasons were. JamesMLane 00:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WHY DOES A LEFT-WING CRITIC'S ALLEGATION OF A RIGHT-WING BUDGET CONSPIRACY COUNT AS FACT? DOES THAT MEAN ANYBODY CAN PUT ANY RIGHT-WING ALLEGATION HE WANTS IN A DEMOCRAT'S ENTRY? FURTHERMORE, HOW CAN BUSH REWARD HIS "CORPORATE PAYMASTERS" IF SOFT-MONEY DONATING CORPORATIONS BENEFITTED ZILCH FROM THE TAX CUTS? THE "REWARD" WENT TO SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS WHO PAY THEIR COMPANY TAXES ON THEIR 1040'S LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE.

The real bottom line is the war. Bush seems to think he can finance the war and make tax cuts too and this is the primary reason we have a soaring deficit...as far as him trying to award "his corporate paymasters", that may be true, but it hasn't helped the economy and corporate stocks are flat. The only thing fueling the economy right now is the real estate boom.--MONGO 07:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THE DEFICIT IS FALLING, NOT SOARING. AND THE GDP HAS BEEN GOING UP EVERY MONTH FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, NOT DOWN.

I agree it hasn't helped the overall economy. More precisely, the "reward" he's given is that the post-tax distribution of income has become more unequal, so that his rich individual donors are doing better. Getting into the details about the redistributive effect of the tax cuts, however, is probably beyond the scope of this article. JamesMLane 07:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IRRELEVANT. "DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME" IS NOT AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF TAX INEQUALITY. BRACKET-BY-BRACKET PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF OVERALL TAX BURDEN IS.

To anon: please see WP:Capitalization for info on how people in the English-speaking world capitalize proze [3]. Harro5 00:19, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

MONGO upends the compromise

MONGO, I simply can't understand your edit summary in your deletion of the truncated language about substance abuse: "I don't know who put all this in...." It was discussed at length on this page. Consensus (in the sense of wording that everyone who commented could grudgingly live with) was reached more than a week ago; see Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 23#Possible compromise. In fact, I waited a few days after the last comment before implementing the change, to make sure everyone had the chance to comment. If you haven't paid attention to this page for a while, you should know that, at the rate it generates controversy, there might be something relevant in the talk archives, which you should check before you wade in.

Now, as to the specifics, it's simply not true that all we quote is the "detractions". We also quote Bush's key statements. In the version that I added, there was an additional sentence after the reference to the psychological stuff: "For further details on these arguments and the opposition to them, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy." Someone has since removed it, presumably because it violated the principle of not duplicating links. In that sense, the removal was correct, but I went along with the original inclusion of the sentence to appease people who seemed to think that the reader wouldn't know that there was opposition to these allegations unless we expressly said so. Therefore, I've now restored that superfluous sentence. The version you unilaterally inserted is completely inadequate for reasons stated in the archived talk. I thought we had a compromise; if we don't, then I'll go back to urging that we do it the right way, which is to present the information in this article, including Hatfield's felony conviction and Savodnik's criticism. JamesMLane 09:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane...you're full of it. The summary you supported was almost as long as the daughter article you wrote. The only information you wished to include was the garbage that has clearly been shown to be worthless POV information. I conceded to the ridiculous daughter article only because it included the detractions of the illusionary information. I've contributed here for some time now so don't pretend that my short sabbatical means that my vote now doesn't count....I looked for what you call a consensus and saw none so you must be dreaming. But if you think it is okay to include the unethical opinions of those with obvious antiBush politics and the unproven allegations of a known felon and expect anyone to believe that this article can then be considered authoritative then there is nothing I can do about it except edit, which I will do.--MONGO 07:07, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, your last revert undid what you saw as vandalism, but it also deleted useful stuff like the media links to Bush's speeches, better wording of links, and a category. While it is fine to undo vandalism (in your eyes) please do not sacrifice good edits for this. Harro5 08:01, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, MONGO's back, all right.

The statement "you're full of it" might conceivably be construed by some as a personal attack. If, however, I remind you of Wikipedia policy on that score, you'll simply ask me to stop lecturing you, so let's move on.
What I would like to see in this article would indeed be about as long as the daughter article, because it would have all the information (pro and con). I said repeatedly that I was against creating a daughter article. Nevertheless, because it seemed like the best chance for compromise, I agreed to go along with creating the daughter article and using it to hold a lot of information that should be in this article. If you mean that the compromise passage I inserted is nearly as long as the daughter article, you are clearly mistaken.
Your denigration of the material is based on your personal standards, which differ from Wikipedia's policies, which you don't want to hear about, so I'll move on again.
I didn't say or even hint that your vote doesn't count. It's not a matter of formal voting, but everyone's voice counts, regardless of how long they've been here. What I said was that, if you spend some time on sabbatical, you should catch up on the talk before making major changes. To do so is considered good form, precisely because everyone's voice does count.
I stand by my interpretation of the outcome of the discussion of the proposed compromise.
Yes, I see that you can edit, pretty much regardless of what anyone else says. Your attitude, as expressed on your user talk page, is, "I can rewrite the article to fit my POV . . . ." Given that most of your edits relate to this article, you're obviously willing to just keep reverting, while those of us with broader concerns don't want to waste the time. Nor, based on what I've seen of you over the past several months, does there seem to be much point in trying to reason with you any more.

I conclude that the best step at this point is to try the RfC process. I'll begin preparing my thoughts about the best way to go about it. JamesMLane 08:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you start a discussion with "MONGO upends the compromise"...that appears as a personal attack as well...as if I have been the only one with a disagreement with the issues.
My attack of the information has nothing to so with personal standards...the same voices of dissent have been heard from other editors as well. They agree with me that the information represents Junk science and is poor choice if we wish this article to be taken seriously.
My user page does not contain the passage as you quoted...I merely stated that it is my user page and in the case of that one page, I do protect it. Naturally, it has been vandalized which I find humourous, but since I don't tolerate profanity there, I do reserve the right as all wikipedians to edit it mercilessly...I wasn't talking about this page or any others.
As far as reasoning with me, obviously we are in serious disagreement with what constitutes good editing. Hundreds of books have been written which discuss the information such as is found in Hatfield's and Frank's books as well as his oil connections, his "weaseling out of Vietnam action", his taxation policies and, well, you name it. I don't see them mentioned or quoted here to as large a degree. There is no doubt in my mind that the inclusion of POV opinions by those strongly polarized politically from Bush, presented by them in an unethical manner and other information which is written by felons with zero credentials is poor editing. I agreed that the books could go in the further reading section and or in the daugther article you created. I do however, commend the rather NPOV version of the daugther article, in that you did also include the counterarguments.--MONGO 05:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was a compromise that no one had objected to, then you made a major change; my statement described your action accurately and was not a personal attack. I also accurately quoted a statement from your user talk page in which you clearly referred to this article, not to your right to maintain your own user page. Thank you for your comment on the NPOV daughter article; I have always supported a version of this article that presented all the information, including Hatfield's conviction, Savodnik's criticism, etc. I removed Hatfield's conviction only when the evidence supporting his point had also been removed. Obviously, we should present both sides or neither, and I think both is better. JamesMLane 05:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't even find it...but since you say it is there, I'll assume good faith and believe you. Again, you're a smart guy I know, so what justice is served by the inclusion of the information in question if we don't also include references from every other crackpot or book peddler that has written or stated some silly opinion(s) and got it published? As I mentioned, there are hundreds of books and editorials...how can we expect to be taken seriously when we dwelve into such baloney for articles such as this?--MONGO 07:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I would call it a semi-compromise, as in we'll see how it goes, at least from my end. My main concern is this is just going to go around in circles. Keeping all the allegations in the daughter article but not on the main page except a brief summary is something where both sides give something up, so for me its pretty fair between you and Mongo. Personally, I am for the succinct paragraph that's there, along with your nice daughter article. --kizzle 06:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

James, once again, tell me how exactly what you're putting in is a compromise? This just looks like your way. What are you giving up vs. what is Mongo giving up? --kizzle 15:58, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's an effort to demand that this information, regardless of it's lack of factuality or encyclopedic integrity be very visible. It makes the article look more like a high school report than one that should be found in wikipedia. The more I fight against this kind of poor choice of encyclopedic merit, the more I think I am working on a political blog than an online encyclopedia. Once the linked article was created, the need for the information to be here became less necessary. Instead, the "compromise" is almost as long as the the daughter article.--MONGO 20:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The way I'm working on setting up the RfC is to present people with three alternatives. The version I favor puts all the information in this article. It would be along the lines of the way the article looked a few weeks ago, in this version, although I'm still trying to get through the barrage of edits and vandalism reverts to look at all the different older versions. The RfC will also present the version MONGO wrote a few days ago, and the compromise that was developed in the discussions among several editors in late May. The compromise omits the elaboration of the criticisms, the supporting information, and the opposing arguments and information, all of which I think should be included.

In the course of the discussion here, you proposed a version (16:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)) that's somewhat similar to what I've labeled the compromise. The main difference is that your version left out the paragraph beginning "Bush has described his days before his religious conversion....", which contains Bush's own comments about his drinking and his quitting drinking. You also omitted the mention of Hatfield's book and Bush's response to it, and you included a reference to one of the pieces of evidence adduced by Frank's opponents (lack of personal examination). Kaisershatner, who wanted to minimize the discussion in the main article, seemed to be OK with the way my version treated those points, so in proposing a candidate for inclusion I went with Kaisershatner's revision. Do you want to have yours included as another alternative in the RfC? If so, please let me know whether the wording would be as per that May 24 post of yours. It would also be helpful if you'd write the statement about why that version is better than the others.

The RfC won't accomplish anything if it's framed in an unhelpful or biased manner, so my plan is to post a draft here before beginning the RfC. JamesMLane 20:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you post a link to the rough draft in your userspace when you create it, and do you mind having (constructive) input from others on your proposal? --kizzle 00:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I'll create it as a subpage and post a link here to invite comments and edits. If the RfC is phrased in a way that some people regard as biased, then the existing disputes about the Bush article will merely be joined by new disputes about the RfC. I'm taking a crack at writing the "ballot statements" for the version I favor and for the compromise, but MONGO (or someone else) should write one for the version he keeps reverting to. JamesMLane 00:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned in edits...the short summary is NPOV and even describes the two folks who claim that his current behavior is a reflection or result of past substance abuse. Had the daughter article not been created, I would have probably had to (regardless of my strong desire not to) support the illusions and the detractions as you support. However, I see no reason for a summary almost as long as the daughter article or as detailed. Regardless, it is obvious that I think any inclusion of the commentary makes us bad editors. There have been countless other articles and books published which also make rather strange claims such as these and I don't see them incorporated here. I can't help but think that the utilization of these lousy (sorry) sources makes the article look tabloidish. I can agree to a better wording of my version as I am sure my grammatical skills are less than many here, but again see no reason due to the existence of the daughter article that we need to dwelve into the issues so deeply...in fact, the issue of his arrest (for DWI) should also be placed in the daughter article as support for his possible substance abuse...I'd rather see it there than here...but have left it in because it seems to be a fact.--MONGO 03:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the draft I'm working on, I said that everyone agreed with leaving the DUI conviction in the main article -- so now I'll have to change that. One of the alternatives presented will be to have the short paragraph you wrote, and nothing in the main article about the DUI, Bush's statement that he stopped drinking at age 40, the Wead interview, or of course the Hatfield/van Wormer/Frank trio that at one point I thought was the only subject in dispute. As for changing the wording of the paragraph, my assumption would be that the best outcome we could hope for from the RfC would be picking one version as giving the general approach. No words would ever be carved in stone. MONGO, do you want your comment above, everything after the three periods, to be the statement in favor of that version? JamesMLane 03:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can cut a paste my version and it is...."There has been much discussion regarding possible drug and alcohol abuses, primarily during Bush's youth. Though Bush admitted to alcohol abuse, he only alluded to using both marijuana and cocaine in his youth. Many books have been written and in at least two of these, Bush is described as having symptoms visible today which indicate that he did abuse drugs and alcohol excessively at some time in his past. See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for more discussion." As far as I am concerned, the article you created, the daughter article that is, can be the place to discuss the issues. I consider that to be giving a lot on my part. I indeed would like to absolutely suppress Hatfield, Wormer and Frank due to issues I and many others have repeatedly mentioned. I am more ambiguous on the conversations Bush had with Wead and Graham. I would agree to the incorporation of the Wead and Graham issues in the main article on Bush if the other stuff was thrown out and the daughter article disappeared entirely...no link, no article.--MONGO 07:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I have searched for what you keep referring to as a compromise in archive 23 and fail to see it...I suggested here Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_23#Vote_on_Drug_and_alcohol_section in archive 23 my version at that time. Since the creation of the daughter article, I now support my version as metioned above as I see no reason for redundancy...--MONGO 07:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, MONGO, you've confused me again. The RfC as I envision it will have two major components with regard to your version: the version itself, and a statement in support. It seems to me that what you've provided above is a different wording for the former. I'm trying to include a "snapshot" of each version, i.e., a link to how the article looks with that version in effect, so I need to know whether the snapshot for yours should include the wording you first inserted or what you've written above, and whether it should include the DUI conviction in this article. As I mentioned to kizzle above, the last thing I want is for the setup of the RfC to be the source of yet more time-wasting bickering. JamesMLane 07:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I was confusing...as the daughter article now exists, the following is what I consider to be my version.........

"There has been much discussion regarding possible drug and alcohol abuses, primarily during Bush's youth. Though Bush admitted to alcohol abuse, he only alluded to using both marijuana and cocaine in his youth. Many books have been written and in at least two of these, Bush is described as having symptoms visible today which indicate that he did abuse drugs and alcohol at some point in his past. See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for more discussion."

--MONGO 20:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Preparing a Request for Comment

MONGO has made clear that he'll just go on reverting endlessly over the substance abuse issues. Seeing no point in further attempts to reach a compromise that he won't revert, I think we should see if the RfC process can accomplish anything. I suggest that people be shown three alternatives:

1. The "full" version, with the information (both sides) included in this article;

2. The "short" version, which would presumably be identical or similar to the paragraph that MONGO has now inserted; and

3. The "compromise" version, identical or similar to the way the article stood from May 31 or so until June 4.

After the three versions would be a "ballot statement" for each of the three, i.e., the proponents' explanation of why they think it's the best. Next would come the poll component, in which people could express their preferences. Finally, there would be a section for comments. In terms of the expression of preference, we could probably assume that anyone preferring the "full" or "short" version would have the "compromise" as a second choice, but perhaps the people preferring the "compromise" should be asked to indicate their second choice. On the other hand, that might just make the poll more complicated without furthering the goal of achieving a stable version. JamesMLane 10:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would support some steps to end this ongoing dispute over Bush's history with alcohol. I have this article on my watchlist, and nothing makes me groan more than rapid updates of the page with MONGO or JamesMLane making reference to the other's edits. Let's get some definite comments on people's positions, as it is clear a compromise cannot be found on the talk page. Harro5 10:16, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's a request for comment, not request for a majority ruling. meatball:VotingIsEvil. By all means have an RFC, but use it to create discussion and find new ideas, not as a simple way to get more manpower behind a certain POV (whether it be N or not). --W(t) 10:52, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

I agree; that's why I called it a "poll", not a vote, and that's why I said there should be provision for people to comment. I also think it's useful to get people's ideas here about how to set up the RfC before going ahead and posting it. JamesMLane 11:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I can say, is I knew this was coming, except it took like 4 days instead of 2. I would just like to go on record supporting the version that's currently in, without specifics, to avoid future conflict of this nature, as long as ALL of the info James wants in is contained within the daughter article. --kizzle 18:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that since the version I eliminated was as long as the daugther article, I saw no reason for a daugther article. However, since one now exists, the summary which is NPOV is suffcient. I already did an Rfc on the article about a month ago but would gladly welcome all opinions in this most important of articles.--MONGO 04:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just changed one thing on the text, made it specific that illegal drugs was "marijuana and cocaine", if someone disagrees that he has alluded to using cocaine (see Wead non-denials) please state here a better way of characterizing Bush's cocaine usage. --kizzle 05:15, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

My Pet Goat Picture

Guys, this image has got to go. It is incredibly POV and has no business here. If there are no objections I will remove it in a few days. Monkeyman 19:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is it POV? It has both points of view--The_stuart 20:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also object. It's not at all POV to include this. Many people would find it more significant than one of the photos of Bush meeting with various foreign leaders. We had a long hassle about this, now buried somewhere in the archives; the result was the current caption, which presents both sides' opinions about the incident. Somewhere along the way,though, the photo has been moved so that, on my screen at least, its placement seems to create huge stretches of white space under the "Media" heading. It should be near the discussion of the September 11 attacks, although that section must also accommodate the picture of Bush at Ground Zero. (Some might call that picture "POV" in that it shows Bush in a heroic, leadership role, but I think it's also significant and should also remain.) JamesMLane 23:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's unprofessional to use this image. To an outside reader it looks very POV and takes away from Wikipedia's credibility. I'm not ignorant of the fact that this image will probably never be removed but I wanted to go on record that this is incredibly poor form. (And also for the record, I did not vote for Bush in either election.) Monkeyman 14:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not only is it unprofessional, it tips the hand to the uninitiated of the true biases running amok in this "NPOV" encyclopedia project. I propose we just put a picture of Michael Moore and be done with it. Why beat around the Bush (pun intended) and put up some facade of neutrality here?

I also think the pet goat picture needs to go. But to answer the question about a "facade of neutrality": I think it is a very good sign that the encyclopedia gets vandalized roughly equally by right-wing extremists and by left-wing extremists. This shows me that something is working. Rhobite 02:16, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Keep the picture. How is it POV to simply provide photographic evidence of the fact that W did not tell the children about 9/11?

It's inherently POV because of where the image came from. Everyone knows this image from the Moore film which was about as POV as you can get. I restate my vote to remove the image. This is not an issue of right vs. left, politics, or personal views on the current administration; This is an issue of wikipedia's integrity. Monkeyman 17:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, if the image was taken by Robert Novak, it would be NPOV? I highly doubt it. The source only matters if you doubt the veracity of the information, but its hard to argue with a picture of Bush reading a children's book while terrorists were attacking the country. I think Wikipedia's integrity is safe in this instance. --kizzle 18:48, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The image is not "from the Moore film which was about as POV as you can get", it was taken by whoever witness the event, broadcased on national media, and later quoted by Michael Moore. It has nothing intrinsically political. Rama 19:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the picture is a still also seen in the movie by Michael Moore and is shown in that movie in a manner which is derogatory as to what Bush was actually doing...the picture is in this article to remind us of how Moore saw him perform immediately after the initial terrorist attacks...but Moore's interpretation isn't necessarily accurate and in fact, it is POV...Monkeyman is hardly the only person that has argued against the use of this picture in this article and interesting, the same picture ia also in the article we have on F911.--MONGO 19:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what ? There are also images of the campain, of the occupation of Iraq, of an American family raising a flag in their garden, who know what else... Should we renounce presenting information on the basis that opponents have showed it too ? Rama 20:03, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't help but think that those who want to keep the image are severely anti-Bush. Indeed, JamesMLane's own user page states that he is, "Hostile to the right wing". I suspect other users in favor of keeping the image have similar views on Bush. This is fine, have whatever feelings you want about anyone, but how can say something like that and then pretend to be NPOV? My only interest is having an article that outsiders will walk away saying, "You know, Wikipedia really has their stuff together ... That was a professional and intelligent writeup of a potentially biased topic." Monkeyman 23:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed at the reaction to that comment. I disclose my bias, so the statement gets quoted by every right-winger who wants to disagree with one of my edits. Do you think that anyone who doesn't disclose a bias therefore has none? It's clear that Moore didn't take this photo. The argument for suppressing it is that a perfectly valid piece of information becomes POV and must be excluded from Wikipedia whenever someone makes partisan use of it. Well, Bush has made partisan use of the undisputed fact that he signed the Medicare prescription drug benefit, so if the photo goes then that fact should go, too. MONGO says, "Moore's interpretation isn't necessarily accurate and in fact, it is POV." Quite correct. If you'll pardon me for yet again citing Wikipedia policies, a practice that appears to upset you, we report significant POV's without adopting any of them. That's why the photo caption doesn't say that Moore's interpretation was accurate. Instead, it reports on the two most widely held reactions to the incident, one positive and one negative. JamesMLane 07:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your rush to becoming offended, you appear to have missed my point. I am stating that if someone feels overly passionate one way or another about a particular topic, they should carefully consider their contributions to the article because of a potential for conflict of interest. For instance, if I had a family member killed in the Iraq war, would you really want me to make significant contributions to the 2003_invasion_of_Iraq article? Monkeyman 23:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't offended -- just, as I said, amazed. As for the question you ask, I evaluate edits, not editors. Some relatives of Iraq war victims could make useful, factual, NPOV edits to the article, despite their personal feelings; some people without that kind of tie can't. If the edit improves the article, it doesn't matter who made it. JamesMLane 01:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jeez...all I said was that Moore used the film footage from which this still photo is from in his movie. In his movie he then essentially makes a mockery of the scene. The only way we know today about the photo is from the movie, not from the original source. The movie was anti BUsh...absolutely anti Bush...incorporation of this type of photo is just as POV as the one with Bush having some kid on his lap which another user stated is proBush...why is it okay to show him in a bad light but not in a good one. Besides, I already argued against the picture and decided it wasn't worth the effort...as far as I am concerned it is here...but I hardly thing that it is the most famous picture of the man as some others wish to believe. Regardless, Moore's smear campaign and this silly picture didn't keep him from being reelected. I guess in the eyes of some, that means half of the American voters must also be "dry drunks".--MONGO 07:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why would someone think Wikipedia unbiased if it omitted the most famous photograph in his Presidency, the only photography we have of that particular President at a pivotal period in his career? In centuries to come, people will ask "What did George Bush do when they told him America was under attack?" And the answer will come from us who know, ringing down the years: "he went right on reading the Pet Goat book." Let us choose, for once, *not* to rewrite history. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what did John Kerry do when he heard what had happened. he sat stunned for quite some time.

what an abnormal reaction. J. Parker Stone 00:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. However this article isn't about John Kerry, whoever he is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i think you're overstating things. and from what i could tell, the "pet goat" somewhat misstates things -- it was a children's collection, of which "my pet goat" was a part (this seems to be mostly perjoratively intended on the part of Moore.) and the fact is he just isn't primarily known for that photo. i would say he's probably more known for the Ground Zero photo, but i haven't checked the article yet to see if it has that J. Parker Stone 01:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The picture of Bush at Ground Zero has been in the article for a while now. So has the image of the TIME cover, which serves only to convey the magazine editors' opinion that Bush was the Person of the Year. I can't remember that anyone has tried to remove either of those favorable images. Both of them should stay, along with the "Pet Goat" photo. That it's not the title of the book, but only one story within a larger collection, is mentioned in the article about it that's hyperlinked in the picture caption. This discussion, though, leads me to notice that, because it's not the book title, it shouldn't be italicized. JamesMLane 07:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, Adolf Hitler also appeared as Time's Man of the Year. The award goes to the person who has appeared most in the news or made the most significant contribution to the news in that year. Bush's reaction was certainly reported a lot in the news on 9/11 (certainly in the UK) and to be neutral, Wikipedia must report that controversy. The picture is not perjorative unless you solely take it with the context of Farenheit 9/11, which is clearly not the only context. smoddy 08:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Begin Brodo

I wholeheartedly vote Keep This moment is crucial in understanding the power George W. Bush actually has within "his" administration: None.

Even the spineless Clinton or Bush Sr. would have rushed out and made phone calls themselves, giving orders and putting plans into motion. Even that colorless, odorless substance known only as Al Gore would have done better in a clutch-- he's seen combat; his wife was the head of death squads in the '80s which took out the First Amendment and non-traditional lyrics in music. That picture of Bush sitting in the classroom waiting for his orders, confused and powerless, reading children's stories says a thousand words that American ears are willfully ignorant of. The fact that Michael Moore, Academy-Award recognized glory whore appropriated the image for his mediocre anti-Bush film and ruined the impact with a voiceover is not relevant to its place as the beginning of World War IV.

Would you censor a woodcut of Secret Treaties being signed? Would we remove a painting of FDR sitting on his hands as Kamikaze fighters took Pearl Harbor? Should Wikipedia pull down its links to the Zapruder film?

Likewise, doesn't the whole Monica Lewinksy thing make Clinton look bad? Let's cut that out of his article. Carter didn't lose in 1980, it's just that Reagan won!

Tell us, Monkeyman, what makes your opinion about 11 September 2001 the Neutral Point of View?

By the way... J. Parker Stone? (coughSOCKPUPPETcough) Brodo 01:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Trey Stone (J. Parker Stone or whatever) is for real at least far as this issue is concerned. Let's address the argument and not the man.

A very close friend of mine, a former Republican voter, interprets the Pet Goat scene as calmness in the face of tragedy. I tend to agree with Moore that iy seems to show indecisiveness but I wasn't there and the precise context of the moment is lost forever. Whatever, the picture on its own is devoid of interpretation, it's just a picture of a President who has been told, for the first time since Pearl Harbor, that his country is under attack. As such it would be silly to remove it, just as it would be silly to removed the long-censored wheelchair pictures of FDR from his article. Whatever next, we should remove the "Mission Over" picture, too? -Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a lot of great talk and all, but I haven't seen yet one argument for why a picture of Bush reading My Pet Goat is biased, beyond that the video footage was additionally used in a michael moore movie. I myself am going to make a home video of how much i hate Bush, using the official portrait that this page uses, so get ready to find another picture. --kizzle 04:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

The picture is biased because there is one widely interpreted meaning of it in the public's mind due to the Moore film. Had there been no F911 movie, I would not have an issue with including the image. My only concern is that someone reading Wikipedia for the first time will pull up the Bush article, see the goat picture, and immediately think we're a biased encyclopedia. This is not a viewpoint we should be presenting, especially in a flagship article. Monkeyman 11:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, but I think in an article covering the president who oversaw the worst terrorist attack on native soil in American history, we might want to include a picture of what he was doing at the time it happened. --kizzle 22:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason why this image is not used or referenced in the New York Times or the Washington Post. It is because of the loaded meaning the picture has in the mind of the public. Is Wikipedia only striving for the journalistic integrity of Newsweek and Time? As I have stated before, I don't expect this image to disappear anytime soon but the issue needed to be raised. For an outsider who is coming here looking for an unbiased viewpoint on Bush, we come off looking like a bunch of amateurs. Monkeyman 23:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think I would agree with you more if it was Michael Moore doing the actual filming himself...however he just included archived footage of Bush. It is loaded with meaning because it should be, but this does not necessarily mean the simple inclusion of this picture of a pivotal event renders this page biased. --kizzle 00:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

That's a well presented argument. You can always edit it out as nothing is written in stone here, but I think the concensus will be against you as I also tried to eliminate this photo and changed my mind when we got a more neutral caption aded.--MONGO 12:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brodo

Sorry to have hidden my opinions away where you had to ignore them, Monkeyman. Please address my point of view. I will try to state it simply and reference my statements: you can freely reply to each numbered item individually or all at once.

1) The New York Times and The Washington Post aren't the gold standard of neutral. The Times helped George W. Bush bang the drums of war-- for example, it is documented fact that Judith Miller's contributions to the public perception of Iraq's WMD supply were fed to her by Ahmed Chalabi. The Post broke the Watergate story way back when, but was actually chasing Vanity Fair when Deep Throat's son revealed his dementia-addled father to the world. You may wish to start imposing your opinion on Wikipedia readers in 1970 and work your way up to the present: isn't it better to say that Nixon retired at the height of his presidency? Words like "Resigned in shame to avoid Impeachment and prosecution" have no place in a Professional Encyclopedia. Perhaps Richard Nixon (may his golden throne at God's left hand never grow cold) was in fact our greatest President, and gosh doesn't the Vietnam War article just resonate with liberal naysaying?

2) Cause precedes effect. Things that happen in 2001 can't be changed by a movie that went into production in 2003. Before Mike Moore took this video and put in in his movie, it actually happened. If Moore makes a movie next year that includes footage of black voters being disenfranchised in the 2004 elections (waiting in lines in Ohio, being told their names have been removed from voter rolls, etc) you may want to track down any pages on "Ohio recount" and "Diebold" just for starters. Similarly, if Michael Moore's next movie has sarcastic, homespun, playing-dumb commentary over film of John Kerry conceding the election before all of the votes are counted, does this erase Kerry's actions from history?

3) Your associations with this image are shaped by a diet of mainstream, corporation-funded media sources. Russ Kick's website, The Memory Hole, had a full version of this video (at least 10 minutes longer than Michael Moore's edit) posted almost immediately following the events of September 11, 2001. 3a)Michael Moore does not own the copyright to this video, he did not shoot the video, and Michael Moore cannot be blamed for how bad the video makes the president look. If you download the entire thing and watch it without Moore's commentary, the video is still factual representation of recent historical events. Moore cannot be blamed for Condoleezza Rice's perjury in front of the 911 Commission, even though C-SPAN video of that false testimony is included on the F911 DVD.

4) Amateur footage of the September 11th attacks has been used in many news broadcasts and movies. Should these movies be burned, or perhaps would you like them sealed in the manner of the President's National Guard records? Or maybe littlegreenfootballs should spearhead a nationwide boycott of CBS, NBC, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and the printing press.

5) If this image were on the official White House web site about 9/11, would you allow it on Wikipedia? This "flagship" page certainly does conform very closely to the official biography as presented here. Is this to be our standard? Maybe it would be more Patriotic if we just redirected our articles to relevant pages on whitehouse.gov, and whenever the offical Bush Administration story changes Wikipedia can, too. Think of the time saved when we don't think critically and question what the authorities say!

6) The "en" in http://en.wikipedia.org/ refers to English. This is part of the intentional architecture of Wikipedia, and it means that this site belongs to the entire English-fluent world. As such, the highly-censored history of the world that is spoon-fed to Americans does not implicitly trump actual events. That correction only happens thanks to long nights MONGO spends at his keyboard: he takes great pains to whitewash the George W. Bush article, and you should consider him an "admin", as many of the reverting edits are made at his discretion. Maybe you'll be his apprentice in the Department of Censorship, but please make sure that every detail on the life and times of George W. Bush agrees with MONGO's personal beliefs-- he, is in charge of this article and we all have to respect that.

Brodo 01:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bravo, right up until you started personally attacking Mongo. Your biggest accusation towards Mongo is that he reverts "at his discretion." So what? He represents a moderate-conservative viewpoint that is vital in keeping this article from decaying into a target for liberal angst. Your other points are well thought out and I hope Monkeyman focuses on the other aspects of your post. --kizzle 01:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

My friend, please consider the source of my accusations and attack, as you call them. "Moderate" and "conservative" are loaded terms, relative to one's own political beliefs. In my political spectrum, they apply to George H. W. Bush, John McCain, Bill Clinton (domestically) and Howard Dean. According to the way I view the world, politicians like George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton (foreign policy), and Joe Lieberman should be described as "extremist liberals" for their foreign policy decisions, positions, and budgetary excesses. Likewise those loyal to any elected official, no matter what occurs. When you characterize my sarcastic comment on MONGO's domination of this article as an "attack" you may be throwing words around a little liberally yourself. Brodo 02:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What can I say...I work a lot of nights...I certainly don't own this article...but I do spend a lot of time here...maybe I need another vacation. Besides, I don't care that much about the picture of Bush reading the Pet Goat book image one way or the other...I was just chiming in.--MONGO 08:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Begin Monkeyman

Brodo, as I mentioned on your talk page I was not ignoring your comments. The formatting you use makes it hard to follow who was saying what. Thank you to whomever added the line breaks.

Firstly, let me say that I have been respectful of everyone's comments here and I hope the favor can be returned to me. Some of your comments, Brodo, come off as personal. As I have no intentions of anonymously removing the image over and over, you have nothing to worry about.

I do not get my news from "mainstream, corporation-funded media sources". The only two news sources I trust are The Economist and The Onion, all others are suspect. Also, I voted against Bush in both elections. If anything, you should expect me to favor keeping the image. The only reason I'm arguing for removal is because of the way this image reflects upon Wikipedia's integrity.

The New York Times and Washington Post are not unbiased, but they are about the best we have. I agree with you that Wikipedia's aim should be even higher.

Regarding your somewhat odd implication that I would like all documents showing the current administration in an unfavorable light sealed and burned: My request to remove a controversial image does not classify me as a rampant censor. To date, I have made zero edits to the Bush article (other than possibly a vandalism revert). There have been several attempts by different people suggesting the removal of the image since February 2005 when the picture was first added. As has been stated earlier, I am hardly the first person to suggest removal of this image.

My only concern, as I have stated several times before, is how the inclusion of this image reflects upon Wikipedia. I would welcome commentary on the following question: Why don't the New York Times and the Washington Post use or reference the goat image? Within the answers to that question are the same reasons Wikipedia should not use the image. Monkeyman 16:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There could be a variety of reasons, and I don't think its fair to simply assume that since the image does not appear in the New York Times, it means that there's something wrong with the picture, unless you call them up and ask them directly if it is intentional. Since a newspaper only covers current events, where would they put the picture, with the social security debate or Iraq war? On an encyclopedia which summarizes his entire career, I think it is essential to have a picture to know where he was while the attack occurred, just the same as if we had a picture of FDR when Pearl Harbor was bombed. As Brodo said in point 2, the mere fact that a movie made 2 years after an event using independent footage does not erase that event from history. --kizzle 16:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with kizzle, and I would add that there's no basis for calling this "a controversial image". That term might apply to something like the photo of an antiwar rally attended by both John Kerry and Jane Fonda, which was doctored to put them next to each other. There's no similar controversy about the accuracy of the "pet goat" image. It's a controversial image only in the sense that it accurately portrays certain facts, but the conclusion to be drawn from those facts is disputed. The same is true of many other facts. Our NPOV policy doesn't mean that we have to censor out facts that are cited by one side in a controversy. It means that we don't endorse any of their conclusions. We've followed that policy here. JamesMLane 17:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's late, and I have to work all day tomorrow... what should I do, go to sleep or mess around on del.icio.us and Wikipedia? You guessed it. Here's the page I was talking about, although my memory (left-wing bias, lack of blind nationalistic fervor, what-have-you) seems to have enlarged it. I'll be back. Zzzzzz Brodo 08:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS, here's another page (one with a far less NPOV, but it's still just a video of the President)

Did you know that the U.S. Secret Service, in conjuction with the rights abusing Patriot Act may take the Oswald picture decorating your user page as not being so funny...with your infinite knowledge they may think that (due to their obvious gross incompetence) you may have certain abilities to disprove all the findings of the Warren Commission and in an effort keep these findings from the public (since we live in a totalitarian police state) your IP may end up getting tracked and well...that's why we have Gitmo, right?--MONGO 09:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Begin Jordan - I think the reason why this picture is POV is that it is only significant from a single viewpoint. This is evident by the arguments given in its favor. Most of them say something to the effect of "Americans should know what their President was doing while his citizens were dying." For those who don't find his reaction unusual or inappropriate, its an extremely pointless piece of information. Also, there have been efforts to try to justify its presence by saying saying that it doesn't matter where the picture came from, who took it, where else its been cited, etc. Most of these statements force some sort of alternate supposition (ie, "What if this picture were reported in a newspaper" or "what if one of the positive pictures were used in an anti-bush movie"). Of course, all these suppositions are false, which is why they are not logically sound. The problem is, an Encyclopedia is meant to give significant information and facts. The goat picture is only significant within the F911 context. It's not bad simply because Michael Moore used it, and therefore everything he put in the movie is anathema. It is because if the picture had NOT been used in Moore's film, it would not otherwise be famous, significant, or recognizable, and so using it in any context carries with it an implicit declaration of Bush's faults. We have to recognize it for the context it is in NOW, and that picture will forever be remembered within the context of F911, and we can't change that. A good indicator that this is true is that people even want it there, and are defending its presence. If it were really as innocuous as certain people protest, (and all these people seem quite critical of Bush), they would not really mind if it were taken away.

Now that I've said that, I'm really curious why Bush is raked over the coals so much for not erupting in the middle of a grade-school class. What were we expecting him to do? Strap on a cape and fly to the rescue? I'm guessing that he, like the rest of us, didn't fully comprehend the magnitude of that event in the very moment someone told him, and the President of the US is, in fact, a human being.

-Jordan

MONGO, please stop blind reverting

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)

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)

- My comment has been deemed a personal attack by MONGO, and so I will now cease from questioning his decisions. I had apparently forgotten that this is MONGO's world and I'm just living in it. The Bush article is very well written with the exception of this drugs segment, and unfortunately if MONGO had stopped to listen, he would have heard me supporting his version of the drugs summary. I made my comment linked to above to point out another example of MONGO reverting the good as well as the bad, but would like to say that I agree the summary and link to the daughter article are sufficient in telling readers the story. To MONGO, I would encourage you to add in the opposing opinions you believe aren't found on the daughter drugs article, and would ask that in the future you discuss with me on my talk page what you see as a "personal attack", as you might find I have similar views to you regarding this current drugs summary situation. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 07:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

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)

JamesMLane repeatedly violates the NPOV policies

Regardless of his constant insistence otherwise, JamesMLane states that there is a "consensus" in support of the long winded "summary" of the alleged abuses by Bush of drugs and alcohol when the fact is that there is none. I see zero reason for the "summary" to be almost as long as the daughter article he created. During the initial creation of the linked article he initially supported and edited a summary in the main article which offered only the detractions and none of the rebuttal. My summary of this issue is NPOV, it details that Bush admitted to alcohol abuse and that there are books which indicate that Bush suffers from some form of post abuse syndromes attributable to drugs and alcohol excess. I offer none of the detractions in my summary. But this isn't good enough for JamesMLane...according to him, regardless of the lack of merit found in any of the issues, he considers it worthy of this endeavour solely because it supports his predisposed bias against the subject matter. I also deleted the portion in which Bush is lampooned in the British press...virtually every President this country has had in the last 50 years has also been lampooned in the British press. It isn't noteworth to have this in this article either. But JamesMLane thinks so. According to the JamesMLanepedia, it is noteworthy so long as it puts the subject matter in a bad light to support his politics.--MONGO 06:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane's affirmations might be in need of some discussion, but you tend yourself to make similar statements ("My summary of this issue is NPOV"). Also, the reversion matter mentioned above is a little distrurbing. This, and the rather loud tone on this page and your talk page, might be symptomatic of an attachement to the article and some particular formulations which, however commandable the intentions which construct them, can have negative influences. Perhaps you might want to intellectually take some distance with the matter and discuss on a softer tone. Rama 07:09, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm sure you're politics are not dissimilar from those of JamesMLane. I explained why my summary is NPOV and my commentary, regardless of it's seeming hostility, is benign. My hope is he will learn to put aside his predisposition against this subject matter, as will you, and understand what constitutes neutrality. As you quickly rose to defend JamesMLane, it is obvious that your politics are probably similar to his..."hostile to the right". MY efforts are to make this article NPOV, and to do so will be a victory for Wikipedia, not me, so that is why I am here so much....if this article can become neutral, then they all can.--MONGO 07:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not come to the defence of anyone, but of the standards of discussion, as any admin can and should. Please stop making wild guesses about my political opinion, and try sticking to the subject at hand, which is the quality of your edits. Rama 07:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An Admin should understand what neutrality is. I have no aspiration for Admin or anything else except to make this article neutral. The day you defend me, will be the day you are neutral. Besides, JamesMLane has repeatedly attacked me...where were you then?--MONGO 08:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will defend you the day you will be the one harrassed againt the raules of civility. To the day, I have not yet seen that happen. Making vague personal statements ("JamesMLane has repeatedly attacked me...where were you then?", "I'm sure you're politics are not dissimilar from those of JamesMLane") about the behaviour of the people trying to suggest you to tone down is not helping your case. Rama 08:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you only see what you want to.--MONGO 08:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well if that's so you should be able to show an incident--most likely on this talk page or in the archive--that Rama has missed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's that got to do with his flagrant disrespect of the NPOV policy? When you use the term "ditched" in an edit over me and expect anyone to see that as a good faith edit, then explain it to me...that is a personal attack, no? JamesMLane has referred to me as "sniping", starts off discussions finger pointing, lectures in a condescending manner, adds little to the article that would prove to me that he isn't passionately opposed to the subject matter, refers to me as using a "mongopedia"....and none of that is personal...get real...he blatently states in his user page that he is hostile to the right...George W. Bush is the right...so how can anyone expect him to remain neutral...his edits don't support this, his commentary doesn't either...--MONGO 09:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite in the same way that we expect someone who would state that he votes Republican most of the time to remain neutral. Why couldn't people make abstraction of their personal opinions ?

Also, if you have specific reasons to complain, please provide precise quotations. I vaguely remember the "mongopedia" thing, but I recall that as being part of an exchange where you were rather virulent yourself, not a deliberate aggression from JamesMLane (though I would indeed appreciate everybody to make attempts to cool the siuation down). "condescending manner" is very subjective and it seems that you do not alwazs share the same formality level than some other editors (I remember the "were not impressed" by Tony Sidaway as something rather amusing).

Globally, the ambiance here is sour, and is would be nicer if people were more polite; since someone has to make the first step, I am just suggesting that you might bring your contribution toward a calmer tone. The rest is up to you. Rama 09:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That you disagree with me is no surprise...I won't do the work for you. If indeed you think that my tone is less appropriate than JamesMLane, then that's up to you. I provided enough evidence and won't search for links to support your refusal to accept my good faith that what I claim is true.--MONGO 10:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MONGO takes me to task for using the term "ditched". I agree that it was an insensitive word to use. My edit summary, referring to a form of revert, was "Ditched MONGO's edit, kept 147.133.62.239's."

I don't see that this can be interpreted as other than a good faith edit, however. The language was not diplomatic but was hardly indicative of "vandalism", as MONGO termed it. Edit summaries by MONGO are often much more hostile: "POV purposeless edit deleted" (removing a paragraph about Mr Bush's appearances as the witless butt of jokes in the British media). As far as I'm aware the paragraph was neutral and factually reported the extremely negative reputation of the 43rd President in the USA. It also set it into context: apparently Reagan is widely admired in the USA, even by his political opponents, but in the UK he still has a very poor reputation. "Bumpkin certainties and cowboy worldview" -John Patterson, May 14. cf: "Bush is routinely lampooned...as a dim-witted cowboy...This is similar to the British reaction to Ronald Reagan..." [4] --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the British press and the British in general have long enjoyed lampooning American Presidents and oftentimes Americans and vice versa...that this occurred with Bush in mind is not noteworthy and in fact, the inclusion is merely one more opportunity for opponents to the subject matter to take another jab at the 43rd President. Hence the ongoing need for the NPOV tag...I wonder...do you support the inclusion of anything positive, or just the tabloidish ramble that keeps this article in a perpetual state of anarchy?--MONGO 10:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Most US Presidents get a pretty easy ride in the UK. Reagan and George W. Bush are both popularly regarded as beyond the pale, however. I think that's significant and noteworthy. I do not share your low opinion of the article's quality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Reagan is considered "Outside the bounds of morality, good behavior or judgment; unacceptable" [5]. I can understand disagreeing with him, but that characterization is really beyond the pale. Trödel|talk 14:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is, to the best of my knowledge, an accurate description of the British attitude to the presidencies of Bush and Reagan. Their politics are so extremely rightwing by British standards that it isn't surprising. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not challenging your characterization - all I can say is wow. Trödel|talk 14:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's their rhetorical style that alienates Brits more than anything else. Reagan's "We bomb Russia in twenty minutes" jibe, even though he thought the Mike was off, was altogether too uncomfortable for the British, who were at that time well within the range of Soviet SS-20s. Bush's near-global unpopularity following the Iraq war is well established from several worldwide opinion polls, and is in part based on a perception that he either doesn't know what he's talking about or does know and doesn't care about the truth. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

St. Augustine's take on edit wars

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The sincerest love for the erring is indeed quite compatible with keen repugnance for the error to which they cling. From the very definition of practical civic tolerance . . . springs the maxim which St. Augustine expresses as follows: "Diligite homines, interficite errores; sine superbia de veritate præsumite, sine sævitia pro veritate certate" (Love men, slay error; without pride be bold in the truth, without cruelty fight for the truth) (Contra lit. Petil., I, xxix, n. 31, in P. L., XLIII, 259). [6]

I've tried to follow this advice. To say something like "MONGO is a pathological liar" would be a personal attack, and I haven't said it (I don't think it would be a fair characterization even if our rules permitted it). On the other hand, to take a particular statement, such as the claim that the compromise version quotes only the "detractions", and to show that that statement is false, is not a personal attack, even if it incidentally reflects badly on the editor who misstated the facts.

My reference to "MONGOpedia" was, in context, a shorthand for a thought that I had explained at length -- that MONGO's argument for particular edits was based on what he thought the policy should be, although actual Wikipedia policy was to the contrary. I quoted and linked to the policies I was invoking. To my mind, that's rational argument; telling another editor "you're full of it" is a personal attack. Also, by my lights, Harro5's criticism of one of MONGO's edits was not a personal attack, and MONGO's deletion of another editor's comment was highly improper.

I agree with Rama that the tone here is sour. MONGO, if you want to cite a specific edit of mine that you think constitutes a personal attack, I'm willing to consider whether I was out of line. Expression of disagreement with particular statements, however, is allowable.

Still, although it's allowable, I'm not going to disagree with many of the things you've said in your last several posts, because I've already refuted them. I'll trust other editors not to be swayed by your continuing to repeat your assertions without addressing my arguments. The only point I want to add concerns your reference to "JamesMLane's daughter article". As I've stated, I don't think there should be a daughter article. That was, however, the approach that seemed a reasonable compromise based on the discussion here in late May. To implement that idea, someone had to do the actual work of extracting the content from the current version of the Bush article, plus content that had previously been excised on grounds of length, and organizing it into a new article. I did that. I can claim credit for having done the organizing work, but it's certainly true that almost all the material in the article was originally written by others (including you). I hope nothing I said gave any contrary impression. There is no ownership of Wikipedia articles, and even if there were, I wouldn't own that one. JamesMLane 11:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad things are getting a bit cooler, frankly I believe the above two sections constitute a complete waste of time, as we have 2-3 versions being prepared for an RfC; the only good that has come out of these sections is to further tensions between opposing viewpoints.

James, there are a few things I take issue with your version. I appreciate the time you have taken to organize the content and spin the daughter article off despite your personal feelings, however, to summarize a 5 paragraph daughter article with 3 paragraphs seems to me to be a bit excessive. While this in no way is a quantitative determination, summary text should generally be more of a slight fraction of the daughter article. In the case of the 2004 Election Controversies pages, the daughter articles are so massive, there needs to be several paragraphs to simply touch on the general themes of the daughter articles. In Mongo's version, we simply state what we absolutely know for a fact about Bush's drug usage, we don't say how or why, just what we know. If someone is interested as to how this information was ascertained, or wants to delve further into the issue and see notable opinions on the matter, they are encouraged to visit the daughter article.

By offering a relatively extensive summary text that rivals the daughter text itself, I truly believe you are dragging your heels, so to speak, in the compromise. Mongo and others don't want this material on Wikipedia at all, yet he agreed to place most of the controversial issues in a daughter article. While you have agreed to a daughter article, the summary text you are offering is rendering such a page as redundant. There is absolutely no reason why we need to include mention (by either name or citation) of Hatfield, Van Wormer, or Frank in the summary text, except to say "Many books have been written and in at least two of these, Bush is described as having symptoms visible today which indicate that he may have abused drugs and alcohol at some time in his past". If people are interested in these notable opinions that are generally referred to, then they will click on the daughter link and find out about their opinions. If there is a general theme you feel missing from such a description that transcends one individual's opinion, then it may be appropriate to add. However, your attempt to add any specifics to such a passage will warrant an equally justified rebuttal text to add context, which then nullifies the point of a daughter article in the first place. Either compromise truly with an efficient summary/daughter relationship or don't compromise at all and seek an RfC to include all the text in the main article. --kizzle 16:54, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Please remember, kizzle, that I'm starting from the position that there shouldn't be a daughter article. I pointed out the comparison between the amount of material about the George W. Bush military service controversy and the material being disputed here; the former is long enough to justify a daughter article, but the latter isn't. I think the material should be in the main article. You're right that the length of an adequate summary will be an appreciable fraction of the length of the daughter article, but that's not because the summary is too long, it's because the article is too short to be an article. That's why the daughter article is a compromise. It meets your criterion of making everyone equally unhappy.

I thought that most editors saw value in keeping Bush's own comments on the issue -- his description of his "irresponsible youth" and his statement that he'd stopped drinking, and the Wead interview. That's about half of the compromise. The rest states the allegations that are addressed in the daughter article, and also states that they're denied (by Bush) or disputed (by other professionals). Now, however, it seems that MONGO at least wants to remove the two paragraphs with Bush's personal comments. I think those comments are unusually revealing for a public figure. It shows that Bush has a lot of courage and/or that he felt under some political pressure on the issue. Either way, those statements would merit inclusion even if Hatfield, van Wormer, and Frank had never written a line about him.

As to the specifics, I think that your suggested phrase -- "Many books have been written and in at least two of these, Bush is described as having symptoms visible today which indicate that he may have abused drugs and alcohol at some time in his past" -- doesn't exactly capture what they're saying. It's not so much that his past abuse of substances has left lingering effects on him. Maybe his liver still shows the effects, but that's not what's meant here. It's rather that the underlying personality traits that caused him to abuse alcohol still persist and cause him to do other things even if he's not drinking. That's my interpretation, anyway. Rather than rely on your interpretation or mine, I thought it was safest to use verbatim quotations. If the only way to settle this is to agree on a paraphrase, I suppose we could make the attempt, but I thought the quotation would be less open to dispute. Apparently, on this article, there's nothing that's "less open to dispute". JamesMLane 18:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Normally, a daughter article of such comparatively short length would not be justified in my mind, however, I believe that there are other considerations that need to be addressed in addition to size. When I added details to this article about Bush's insider trading allegations, I noticed that this was a sore point of contention for most Bush supporters, even though most of the text I was taking was verbatim from Craig Unger's and others books (so much so that I was worried about copyvio), however this was edited and removed many times. Finally, I split most of the text off onto a daughter article and kept only the essential gist of the allegations. The disputes settled down and it hasn't been edited since.

Thus, in principle I agree that the minor amount of text total is not sufficient to justify a daughter article. However, in practice, I think it is good to split off highly controversial passages, whatever size it might be, to redirect a "target" for the dispute off the page. Only in extreme conditions do I think we should do this, but quite frankly, I feel like I'm growing old before my eyes debating this over and over again.

One thing I do know for certain. I understand you are starting from the position of not wanting a daughter article at all, but if we are going to do it, lets not do it halfway. Save the specifics for the daughter article, only mention general themes in the summary. --kizzle 19:32, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

In framing the compromise, I was trying to mention the themes. I've explained above why I don't agree with your summary of the van Wormer and Frank works. Would you support the compromise if the verbatim quotations from van Wormer and Frank were replaced by an agreed-upon paraphrase? Of course, we'd then have to try to agree on that wording, which will make all of us grow older still. JamesMLane 20:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, and I think I'm probably alone in this one, I'd like to quote verbatim without attribution (or at least only attribute in the daughter article). This way, we don't leave room for either interpretation or adding context to Van Wormer or Frank. But like I said, I can see why people would not want to blindly quote. Let me ask you this James, in one sentence or less, what do you think is similar between Van Wormer's and Frank's central thesis, and is there a way to combine all three of them into a generic statement about Bush? --kizzle 21:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise, I've already said that I'd reluctantly acquiesce to concealing van Wormer's name. What I mentioned before, though, was that with Frank's book included in the list at the end of the article, I just thought it was too coy to say "one psychiatrist" without even mentioning that the work referred to was in that list. As for the similarity, each of the two opinions is talking about personality traits common to people who abuse alcohol, traits that, in the absence of treatment, persist even if the person stops drinking. If by "all three of them" you're including Hatfield, he's completely different. JamesMLane 07:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Draft of RfC

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)

Daughter article on Alcohol abuse

Lengthy discussions have ensued as to the encyclopedic value of much of the allegations and innuendo regarding Bush and substance abuse. Even though he claims, which I am sure is true, that he opposed a daughter article on the matter, JamesMLane created one anyone. It is his way of ensuring that the disagreements which seem to be leaning more towards deletion of specific points (wormer, hatfield and frank) which were becoming louder, would't force this deletion. In the scenario we now face, no matter what this information will still be available, regardless of it's lack of factuality, unethicalness, sensationalism and Sunday morning cartoons silliness. The Rfc offers JamesMLane a win-win scenario, as even in version 1, which is my reluctant preference, there is still a link to his daughter article, containing the information that I have argued against for months. As far as I am concerned the daughter article should be placed in requests for deletion and the main article should have paragraphs 1 and 4 of version 2 and be incorporated in the main article with no subheading: Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth." and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years; he says that although he never joined Alcoholics Anonymous, he gave up drinking for good shortly after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham. [1] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushtext072599.htm), [2] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072599.htm), [3] In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [8] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4282799.stm), [9] The rest, as I have stated repeatedly, is all nothing more than tabloid nonsense, policitically backed opinion and attempts to make a quick buck by those you dwelve into slander. Repeated statements by Lane in that the version he supports which appears to be version 3, he has made a compromise based on some kind of a concesus for version 2 are not true. At most, his concensus consisted of one person agreeing and two others reluctantly saying, okay, if we have to. I'm not falling for this ruse...I stand by my version above.--MONGO 18:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I differ with some of characterizations of the disputed info by Mongo, I must agree in that concensus for compromise was weak at best. I think Mongo has a genuine point of contention, in that he is compromising by letting James keep the material in Wikipedia, with his preference of placing it off the main page. However, I still have yet to see what James has compromised in this situation, as the "compromise" offer is way closer to his way than Mongo's by almost negating the need for a daughter article in the first place. --kizzle 19:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Once, again I know I need to keep things tongue in cheek as I sincerely harbor no hostility to anyone here. My commentary is my pereception and I certainly hope no one thinks I am acting in bad faith or that I see others here doing so. Perhaps I should update the Rfc with what I consider my version and call it version 4...but I gotta run. I'm sure my edits to the main article will be reverted here quickly. Version 2 in the Rfc quotes the detractions but only alludes to the counterarguments...it would essentially say that Bush has this or is this way because of this....I don't see that as a neutral treatise.--MONGO 19:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the passages above, MONGO has reiterated some opinions he's been expressing for months. I've been expressing my disagreement for months. There's nothing to be gained by another go-round. We should instead concentrate on framing the RfC, in the hope that it might spur some progress. MONGO, if you want to create a Version 4, go ahead, but I thought Version 1 was your version. If you don't like Version 1 the way it is now, edit it, or remove the entire text and substitute what you want -- whatever you want. I'll leave it in if it says, "Some radical leftists, probably in the pay of Osama bin Laden, have launched various defamatory attacks against Our Glorious Leader. If you absolutely must read their drivel, it's here -- but before you click on that link, remember that you're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Just be sure that the version you favor is in there so that there's at least a chance of getting comments on it in the RfC. JamesMLane 20:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Version 1 is essentially my version, but it was only because you created a daughter article...had you not done so, then, as I stated, the 1st and 4th paragraphs of version 2 and incorporated in the main article with no subheading would be the only version I would support. Your creation of the daughter article is only your way of ensuring that all the information, regardless of it's quality control, would forever taint us. Don't make the assumption, based on my stand on these issues that I think of GWB in any way as a Glorious Leader...he is the lamest lame duck President I can think of...but this is not the place to lampoon him by the incorporation of tabloid nonsense.--MONGO 20:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, I agree with James's new phrasings, as i have never seen a more clearly NPOV (and entertaining) paragraph in my life :) --kizzle 20:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

You think we should include it in the RfC, just to make all the other altenatives look reasonable by comparison? JamesMLane 21:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps as a version 4...if mandatory, version one can stand since I'm sure many here will wish to continue to see a link to your article, and in all fairness, perhaps a link is best. It will be at least a day before I can add it as a version 4, substantiate why it makes sense and to also substantiate why version one is a viable alternative. I really don't argue with the 1st or 4th paragraphs of version 2 and consider them factual...everyone knows where I stand on the rest...but I will look it all over, either devise a version 1 or another whole version and call it version 4 and make it look decent...my goal is this article, I doubt I'll dally in the sub article at all so long as it shows all the arguments and counter arguments which it appears that you have taken great care in developing. Your Rfc on this issue also looks very professional.--MONGO 00:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ya, all of his briefs for rfc/arb (see Rex's fiasco) are very meticulate. I think James has a mild case of OCD ;) --kizzle 00:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's a different disorder. I went to law school. One sociologist of law said, "The ability to think like a lawyer is a saleable neurosis."

As for the RfC, my idea was to array them in order of increasing levels of detail. So, MONGO, if you want to do another version, go ahead and set it up as Version 4, but I'll probably move it and renumber everything accordingly. I think it will be easier for people to follow if the alternatives are in a logical continuum. JamesMLane 03:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

All edits for the past month or so have been vandalism or edit wars. Is page protection appropriate? --Saucy Intruder 14:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would support that. It would have saved me a couple hours last night ;) —chris.lawson (talk) 15:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If people can't vandalise this page they'll find another one to vandalise, I'd just as soon they do their vandalism here where everyone's watching. I'm not really watching the edit warring here though, so that could be a valid reason for protection, but only temporarily. --W(t) 15:21, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

I agree with Weyes that we shouldn't protect against vandalism unless absolutely necessary. This page is watched by many people, and the workload of reverting vandalism is widely shared. The edit war is a different problem. Instead of a protection, I'm hoping that an RfC will help us deal with the dispute. I'm putting some effort into framing it so that people who haven't edited the article before can get a quick grasp of the dispute and give us their comments and opinions. The draft is here for anyone who wants to help refine it. JamesMLane 19:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why was this removed?

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)

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)

Why was this removed?

--Oipolloi 19:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because some people like to equate Hitler with Bush. Oh, those wacky people. --Golbez 21:52, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

This photo is very strong in its pro-Bush POV. It doesn't have a context, it doesn't say what Bush is doing, and the caption looks like it has been written by Scott McClelland, Bush's press secretary. You cannot add a photo in that doesn't in some way strengthen the article. The photo of Bush speaking on the aircraft carrier is nationalistis, and to say Bush is a populist is to live life with two eyes shut. Unless you can come up with a meaningful reason to show this picture, other than to soften Bush's image to readers, I am removing this picture. Harro5 22:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

And yet the My Pet Goat picture is completely neutral and appropriate for the site? This proves Wikipedia is nothing more than a revisionist history haven for left wing whackjobs. This page is an embarassment to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.

Hadn't realized there was a big controversy over whether Bush was holding children on his lap or not. Gzuckier 15:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

God I love when people resort to the "left-wing whackjob" to make their point. It just shows we're getting under their skin. I would love to hear what that anon has to say about exactly *why* the My Pet Goat picture is not neutral rather than spitting hostilities and getting overdramatic. --kizzle 16:20, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

"It just shows we're getting under their skin." And so you tip your hand as to your true agenda. Why would a supposedly "Neutral Point of View" web site care if they are getting under the skin of conservatives? Like I said, Wiki is a haven for moonbat revisionists wishing to pen their own warped version of history. No real Encyclopedia would include what is effectively a still from a Michael Moore polemic screed and then claim to be representing a neutral point of view. But I understand that you need the blue state porn pics to attract the moonbats to the site.

Mb1000's edits

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)
Addendum: I made these changes through the "Domestic policy" section, but not thereafter. The rest needs to be undertaken, because the latest edits removed at least one valid interwiki link ([7]). Mb1000, if any of your major substantive changes, such as the complete removal of the faith-based initiative section, were intended, I think we need to disentangle them from the problems that somehow arose, and then discuss whether the substantive removal is justified. On that example, I think that Bush has pointed to the faith-based initiative as one of the major achievements of his administration, and it deserves to be included. JamesMLane 10:26, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Iraq, PNAC, etc.

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)

Restored version

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

Prescott Bush

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)

Please comment on draft RfC

MONGO has added his ideas to the draft RfC. There are now four proposed versions of how to treat the substance abuse issues. The current draft is available here. I still need to add the links to the snapshots of Versions 3 and 4, but otherwise I think it's in final form.

This has been hanging fire for a while and I'd like to see if we can get comments from editors not previously involved, so I'll post this pretty soon unless someone thinks it's seriously wrong. I tried to be fair in setting it up. MONGO, one of the most vocal proponents of removing the disputed material on this subject, has signed off on this version, so it represents at least something of a "bipartisan" effort. JamesMLane 13:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks good...I hope you're right and folks at least "vote" their preference. You have spent a lot of time on this Rfc and I have too so I hope everyone gets involved...--MONGO 19:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

group hug. --kizzle 19:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided using the word "vote" anywhere in the draft. I hope the posting attracts people who respond in the "group hug" spirit of working toward consensus. JamesMLane 12:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it officially now posted as I see at least two people have "voted"? Or are you just still looking for feedback?--MONGO 20:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should put that up on the RfC page James. --kizzle 20:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I was letting it sit as a draft a bit longer to see if anyone wanted to make further changes. Some people went ahead and voted anyway; one of them then offered to remove his vote and restore it later, but that seems pointless. I'll go ahead and post it on RfC. JamesMLane 20:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)