Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 14

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 10

←

Archive 12

→

Errors happen all the time

There is no such thing as error-free voting. See this new news article about what is happening right now, in Palm Beach County FL.

Rex071404 17:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did you hear what I said? I said "I have used the term "margin of error" more than you have in my correspondances." You're, as they say, "preaching to the choir". Kevin Baas | talk 17:45, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Then you agree, the validity is not in dispute. Rather, what happened was there was bickering as to how to deal with the problems which fell into the margin of error. This included those who were erroneously labled as "felons" on the voter list. For this reason, the word "validity" needs to be stricken from the sentence in question. Rex071404 21:05, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problems related to the controversy fell outside of the margin of error. That is what I have said and provided evidence for within my correspondances wherein I mentioned "margin of error". Kevin Baas | talk 21:30, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

I disagree. Please list your top 10 aforsaid problems in a list - I will address each of them. Rex071404 01:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Give me some time to revisit my correspondances. Kevin Baas | talk 18:32, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

(me whinning:) So much time is spent trying to communicate to you.... spend your own time. Research. Look at the 2000 election page, the florida central voter file page, google, read the report by the u.s. commision on civil rights. etc. It's all spelled out already. clear your mind of bias and just read it for what it is with an open and unprejudiced mine. Kevin Baas | talk 18:41, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

I guess it's not that important to you Rex071404 07:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here are the problems most pro-democracy activists talk about

Over 20,000 African Americans (who would tend to vote Democrat ie Gore) were kicked off the voters' roll in Florida for no legitimate reason
Polling stations in predominantly African American or poor neighbourhoods did not open for the length of time they were supposed to
People who were on the voters role were turned away from the polling station for no legitimate reason
Entirely innocent people were told they were unable to vote because they had been convicted of a felony. Most were innocent- apart from the one guy who was told he couldn't vote because he had gotten a parking ticket in 1957, or the man who was told he couldn't vote because he had committed a felony in 2007. --Cynical 17:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

economy

seriously guys, someone needs to talk about bush's economic policy. it is a big deal historically. reagan had the debt skyrocket, clinton started leveling it off, bush went back to skyrocketing. this is a fundamental change in the way government has spent money compared to the past history of the US. it needs to be in there. yeah i know it can get all POV .. too bad, its still important to at least mention his actions and ideas. especially if you are going to point out that he is the 'only president with an MBA'

Clear Skies Act

In my opinion, most of the details about the Clear Skies Act listed under Environment should be moved to the Clear Skies Act article, which should also incorporate a discussion of the criticism of the legislation. neatnate 00:26, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is use for to give a brief discussion of the topic in this article. I think the space currently alloted for this is proportional. Kevin Baas | talk 03:36, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

FL Vets Kerry / Bush

Here

Rex071404 01:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dispute on this page

There has been posted a WP:RFM regarding revert wars on this page. All concerned or interested parties, witnesses, etc. might be interested in taking a look and posssibly joining in the process. Kevin Baas | talk 18:37, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

FL Vote 2000 chronology

For those of you who care to read an accurate chronology of the FL 2000 dispute, please read this. Rex071404 03:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That looks accurate, given what I know, and reasonable. It does have a small conservative slant too it in the wording and a few minor ommisions, but to a tolerable degree. I think that this article would benefit from a link to this page. Kevin Baas | talk 00:01, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

I prefer this version

The Florida vote was heavily disputed. When the initial tally came in as favoring Bush by a very small margin, at the request of the Gore campaign and as a result of several local election board decisions, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop these recounts from further delaying the certification of his winning tally and after a multifaceted U.S. Supreme Court, ruling of 7-2 and 5-4 [1], Gore conceded the election. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.

Rex071404 07:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Photo with Putin

There are some photos from their first meeting in Slovenia in 2001 here (and then US-Russian Summit). The photos are not really public domain but they may be published if the source and photographer are mentioned. So if you find any photo interesting to include under GW Bush or Putin, fel free to do so.

Incorrect Link

I'm a relatively new user of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is the right place to make this comment, but perhaps someone can pick this up: for some reason, when I try to read the Wikipedia article on "Fascism", I am incorrectly diverted to "George W. Bush". I don't know how to correct this, otherwise I'd do it myself. Please would someone more experienced sort this out ? Thanks.

It would seem someone's already fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out! --Golbez 16:54, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand. What was the problem? (hahaha). Gzuckier 20:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is protected...again -- Let's focus on Mediation at RfM

I'm protecting this page again due to the ongoing edit war interspersed with vandalism -- and in hopes that mediation will begin. This seems rather ridiculous to me. This is one of the most important articles in Wikipeida at the moment, and it appears unacceptable either for 1) the page to be protected, or 2) the page to be in a state of connstant reversion. However, in light of the last few days, I am opting for choice #2. A consensus on this article however it needs to be worked out, whether that is multiple articles, a section about points of contention, or whatever works.

There is a pending request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#VeryVerily_and_Gzornenplatz.2C_Kevin_Baas and I am willing to mediate this dispute if I am an acceptable choice.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 14:17, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As an interested party, I made a comment at that mediation page and user Neutrality deleted it. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 14:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Preventing editing is NOT the same as neutrality

'The 2004 U.S. presidential campaign is underway. The race will likely be heated and partisan; the related Wikipedia articles may be the focus of contention and debate—possibly diminishing their neutrality.'
Surely, if the neutrality is under dispute enough for the article to be 'protected', it is in the interests of neutrality that the article is made UNAVAILABLE until the election is over- display a message like 'to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral in the US Presidential Election campaign, this page has been temporarily removed'.
Otherwise Wikipedia is being used as a platform to disseminate views that are about as partisan as it is possible to be- just because the people who wrote it in its current form managed to get it protected before the people who opposed that viewpoint could get their version protected

Global survey shows 30 of 35 countries want Kerry in White House

This survey data should be included in the article.--Eloquence *

Don't see why, especially not in the GWB article, maybe the 2004 Election article. When America has a poll about who should be President of France and that gets included on Jacques Chirac, give me a ring. At last check, only one country was voting in this particular election. --Golbez 18:30, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'd almost say that it's relevant to the public perception outside of the u.s. section, but this is questionable because of it being in large part about kerry and the election. If it was written differently, I'd have less reservation. I think it would be relevant on the 2004 election page. Kevin Baas | talk 18:48, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to the "perception outside the US" section of this article that in 30 out of 35 polled countries - including all of America's traditional allies -, the other candidate would be preferred by the majority, often a very large majority.--Eloquence * 19:19, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Good point, for some reason I hadn't thought of that. I stopped paying attention to the article once the VV stuff started. Just keep it short. :) Here's hoping those 30 countries are wrong. (go Badnarik!) --Golbez 19:26, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I am opposed - this is just another end-run around the NPOV standards - so as to inject anti-Bush POV material into the article. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 21:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The results of a non-baised poll is not pov. The fact that a fact with no a priori leaning (i.e. no predictable outcome; a neutral expectation) sheds positive or negative light on a person does not make it pov. Analogy: Because a quantum particle takes on a certain value when it is measured does not make the measuring instrument, or the choose of measuring technique, or the communication of the measurement, biased. The act of measuring and/or expressing the measurement, when the value is not known a priori, is neutral. Again, the results of a non-baised poll is not pov.

It would be biased/pov, however, to include it where it is not relevant, as this would be forcing the issue not for information purposes, but pursuasion purposes. However, the cited information would provide representative substance to the section on public perception outside of the U.S. Kevin Baas | talk 22:15, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Blah Blah Blah - it's still POV and I am still opposed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 22:21, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Given that there is already a section in this article about GWB's worldwide popularity which cites several polls, there's no reason to exclude this particular survey and it would be inconsistent and contradictory to keep this one out. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 22:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why don't we just make some generic statement, do you really think we should be editing what should be a biography page with every poll article? We would have to edit the page at least 2-3 times a week with every new poll. I would understand the election 2004 page, but not the biography page. PPGMD

I think this is quite an exaggeration. Nobody here thinks that we should be "editing what should be a biography page with every poll article", and it is ostentatious to suggest this.

It is important to have an international public perception section for multiple reasons. Two very important such reasons being (1) because this is an international encyclopedia, and (2) because international public perception has a very real and measurable effect on international affairs, such as those involving GWB. (and vice-versa)

I do think, however, that this section is really reaching it's limit in proportional size. That should be watched. Our goal should be to make the information in there as representative as possible of international public perception in a compressed manner. I think the cited poll would be a big help to this cause. Kevin Baas | talk 22:34, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)

I'm hardly arguing that every poll be included. But this poll involves 35 countries. If the article can mention a poll about his popularity in Morocco, it can mention a poll about 35 countries. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This stuff rolls off my American (excuse me, United States) back. If 35 countries were polled on whether the US should be blown up, the results might not be much different. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. The question really should be how much this hurts Kerry. - French fries 06:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Freedom Fries? [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 06:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think, in such a case, the results would be any less valid or deserving of mention, if, in fact, that was the consensus, which I highly doubt. Kevin Baas | talk

You don't think 30 of 35 countries would prefer French fries to freedom fries? -- Cecropia | Talk 07:08, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of either, myself. Too salty. I prefer nachos. Kevin Baas | talk 07:14, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the end of the section should be "...nigeria and the phillipines, while ... are split." BTW I think how the rest of the world percieves our leaders is also important, and this section belongs in the article. --128.119.74.149

Could I ask what country Bush and Kerry want to be President of? The opinions of people in the UK, France, etc. are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT (this coming from a Brit)--Cynical 19:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is very simplistic thinking. Firstly, the president of the united states is the most powerful person in the world, and his decisions have large impact on people outside of the u.s., so it is something for them to be concerned about, insofar as they are concerned about things that impact them (as any rational person would be). Because they are affected, they have a valid claim to reperesentation. From the other perspective (inside, looking out), it is informative for people to get a second-person perspective of the political officers of their government, to learn about how their actions and decisions influence events around the world, and how the people affected think and feel about those effects. It is important for people to learn this, take those people's thoughts and feelings into account with good faith, and use them to help them see the bigger picture, which is ultimately at play. Kevin Baas | talk 20:10, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

I will start out by exposing my potential bias. I am a supporter of Bush. I believe that, as a matter of editorial style, polls have no place in a reference article. While the results of this poll may be "factual" at a point in time, who's to say that next week's poll will not show an opposite result. All polls due to their nature are subject to bias. For instance, which 35 countries are selected to poll? Or how was the question asked? I would also disagree with adding the latest Gallop poll results to the Kerry article. I would not be opposed to language roughly similar to the following. "During President Bush's term, his positions on several issues, most notably the war in Iraq and the rejection of the Kyoto treaty, has strained U.S. relations with some historical allies. However, Bush has also forged relations with new allies." sskipworth

If you think that it is possible to present an article on George W Bush without being biased in some way, I think you would be naive. If the article stated that Spain, the UK and Italy had supported the war in Iraq, this would be a statement of fact. It would also ignore the blatently obvious point that the populations of these countries do not support but indeed gravely oppose George Bush and the Iraq war - and yet the majority of the populations supported America under Clinton. Bias is demonstrated in the way facts are presented - balance must be demonstrated. Either no international support for Bush or his wars should be mentioned or the balance between governmental support and the oppositions of populations. Ps Bush has made no new allies just new enemies abroad - that is not bias, that is a statement of reality. Wake up!

Texans for Truth

The article on John Kerry has a paragraph about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, with a link to that article. Texans for Truth is, like SBVT, a 527 group that's buying TV time to attack a major-party presidential candidate over his military record. Is there any reason why the reference to Texans for Truth should have been deleted from this article? JamesMLane 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Amen to that. --kizzle 04:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Those who follow my edits will know that I am careful to make sure things are not unfair to GWB. that said, even though TfT is a pile of democrat bunk in my view, the link for them should stay here as it is relevant. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 07:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

you're totally right. how dare they put up an ad with people who claimed to serve with him who said that he was lying about his service when they provide little substantive proof. oh wait, who are we talking about? --kizzle 16:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please don't make such irrelevant posts.

I think that there should be a link to Texans for Truth, maybe at the bottom of the article. Texans for Truth is not an organisation that has had a major impact on the campaign. - Calmypal 17:34, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

When discussing the current campaign, I can see where the Swift Boat Veterans is part of the Kerry history. They have been a major part of the campaign. So has MoveOn and even Michael Moore. However, Texans for Truth has not been up to this point a major part of the campaign and should not be added to Bush's article. sskipworth Sep 28, 2004

Ongoing Edit War between VeryVerily and Others

There appears to be an ongoing edit war between VeryVerily and most other editors of this page. Instead of conducting this non-stop edit war every hour of everyday, we could all discuss the merits and demerits of these edits and come to consensus.

So starting off, why might (some) of VeryVerily's edits have merit? Why are they considered illegitimate?

- anonymous observer

It's a fairly complex issue. First, as I noted, some of the edits in question were made by others to shorten the page, which has been deemed overly long. These edits where wholly reverted by my opponents in order to erase mine, when they went back to the version before mine (Gzornenplatz thinks it's okay to do this, and once put a "warning" up that any edits to my version would be reverted). Second, I wanted to consolidate the material on the military service controversy on its separate article because it's so unwieldy and large on its own. But people keep adding details to this article. Thirdly, there has been a dispute over the wording of two sections, where two users are reverting every edit I make to it because of a poll taken weeks ago that preferred their text to an entirely different text. I don't accept this as grounds to undo any work I do. The details of this debate are scattered across Talk pages (see User talk:Ludraman for a recent summary). Hope this helps, V V 20:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VV, it is generally accepted policy on Wikipedia that sections which become too long are summarized in the main article. This is what the current revision (the one you keep reverting) does. It provides a summary with a link to a detailed article, rather than just one sentence and a link. Otherwise, we open the door to selective editing, where POV partisans can just move out any content they disagree with and leave merely a link in place.

Furthermore, you have reverted more than that, e.g. you have restored the "perception of Bush" section to its previous, rather poor state. This is unacceptable.--Eloquence *

POV partisans selectively summarize as well; my summary is that "serious questions" were raised, which makes it clear it's a major issue, and shows where to read more. I agree with those who say the article is overly long with these sorts of details. Anyway, there were a lot of changes being made to the article which were getting erased by those with a zeal to revert my edits. Including, now, you. I realize you made further edits to clean up after reverting me, but the fact that your first edit was to revert me makes me less willing to try to pick through and put them back in. I don't know what your problem with the perception of Bush part is, that was one of the major points of contention that started this whole miserable edit war, so just dismissing it as poor is not going to be enough. V V 21:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, you are not creating a summary, you are just creating a link. That is inadequate given the importance of the issue in the campaign. What you are doing is clearly POV, stop it.--Eloquence *

I disagree. And four paragraphs is IMHO too much. If this is your only gripe, let's talk. V V 22:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am also an observer to this war. I looked at the John Kerry page and there is a lengthy discussion of the controversy surounding his medals, much of this information is repeated in Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. For fairness, there should also be a discussion of the controversy about Bush's service in the National Guard. It appears to my that VV is simply removing information critical of GWB instead of adding balancing information. Edwinstearns 21:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am not removing it. I am organizing it. V V 21:22, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant removing it from this page. Additionally you are removing information about his SAT scores on entering Yale, his alleged cocaine use, accusations of insider trading and references to critiques of his policies. Edwinstearns 21:30, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removing from page: yes, I think this needs to be spun off, as the controversy is large and complex; hyperlinks are very useful in this regard! (a) SAT scores: that info was trimmed by someone else, and the trimming reverted without explanation due to the reason above of reverting any edits made to my version, so I left it; the reason I believe is that it was more detail than needed for an article of this scope. (b) Cocaine use: I tend to agree this is relevant and should be kept, not sure how it got lost; if it settles down I'll put it back myself. (c) Insider trading: hm, I don't know why that was removed either, but mention of it should be much shorter than the long version promoted, as it's not a significant charge. (d) Critiques of policies: there's already tons and tons of this in the article, way too much, and some users just want to pile on more; the specific ones you noticed might be Kevin baas's, who tries to spin an anti-Bush POV a lot. V V 21:35, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For just a minute, lets all be calm...breathe in...breathe out.... Good. Now, how about taking some time to discuss this issue and coming up with at least some sort of agreement on how to proceed? Be it keeping VVs version and making some additions or reverting to the other version and adding back a peaceful, a resolution can be made. From a third party, this definitely appears as two POVs fighting over which one is best. Neither seems too neutral. So, could we please can the childish revertings for a moment and move this arguement to the talk page? --Richss 21:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

If it appears like this to you, you haven't looked closely enough. It's VV against the world, round #2342.--Eloquence *

I've looked...I've seen. More people are trying to revert it to the old version and he is stubbornly reverting it back to his version solely on his own. However, both versions are sitting there and can be reverted to at any time. So, why not one side...I'm not saying which...call a truce (not revert)...for say...half an hour...until things have cooled off --Richss 21:58, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

As I've stated several times, many of those edits were not made by me at all, but by people who were reverted by those with a policy of reverting any edits to "my" version. This is not "VV against the world". V V 22:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whatever...its projected now...I was being neutral and say that all sides should take a break and not undermine the system. --Richss 22:36, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

This is what WP:3RR is for. VV is in violation of it and should be blocked by an uninvolved sysop for 24 hours. The problem with just waiting is that this is a very busy article, with edits being heaped upon edits, and it becomes very difficult to merge edits which have been made to a particular version into the one which ends up being the preferred one. VV once again here demonstrates his lack of willingness to debate individual points and instead just makes wholesale reversions which are impossible to reasonably discuss.--Eloquence *

You are making wholesale reverts. And we no longer do quickpolls or any other form of temp-blocking. V V 22:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And if you think I have not been debating individual points, you have been paying no attention at all. This conflict is two months old now, and it is not for no reason this Talk page has repeatedly become so unwieldy in size. If you opt to discuss and respond to my points, great. V V 22:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Over at John Kerry, there was much editing back and forth. Currently, I am not editing there. Even so, from watching VV's work here, I think he is doing an excellent job of presenting clear reasoned arguments and supporting facts. Simply because he is outnumbered here, does not mean that his efforts should be framed by others as "VV against the world". That is an adversarial statement and indicates closed-mindedness. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 22:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VV is not supporting anything he does with facts. Have you seen the edit history? I will list things that he's done:

(V V note: I have changed the bullets to numberings to make response easier.)

Removed: Bush got a GPA lower than that of the average Yale freshman, and his score may have been padded because one (or more, it doesn't say) of his parents were alumni.
Removed: The quote of Bush where he says that he joined the Texas Air National Guard so that he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam.
Removed: Jerry Killian says that he was pressured to "sugar coat" an evaluation of Lt. Bush.
Removed: In some records, Bush repeatedly was absent from active duty.
Removed: All mentions of Texans for Truth or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Removed: Allegations of cocaine abuse.¹
Removed: Allegations of insider trading.¹
Removed: Allegations of corrupt real estate trading.¹
Reworded²: Section about the validity of the Florida vote.
Removed: Bush's foreign policy is influenced by Project for the New American Century.
Reworded²: Caption of G-8 Summit - removed "talk over issues".
Reworded²: Tax cuts section.
Removed: The US has violated international trade laws during Bush's term, so the World Trade Organization imposed sanctions against the US.
Removed: Schools were not given adequate funding under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Removed: Bush's cabinet is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the wealthiest cabinet in US history.
Removed: Any mention of Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 9/11
Reworded²: Section about Bush's poularity outside the US.

¹Allegations by critics, not opinionated Wikipedians.

²"Reworded" as in made to sound less bad.

He's not making any arguments, he's removing them. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 16:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VV despite being opposite to my personal viewpoints i have a tremendous respect for the way in which you conduct yourself on these boards, however the list above distresses me and looks like borderline censorship. What is your take? --kizzle 19:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

V V Response: Again I urge people to take a few moments and review what has been said on this page. As I have already stated several times, many of those edits were not made by me. Other users were, for example, trying to trim the page down to 30kb by moving tangential, non-biographical material off this page. They edited my version of the text, and Gzornenplatz announced he would revert any edits made to my version without prejudice [2]. Boy, am I sick of repeating this. When I restore my edits, I go back to the last version before one of these users reverts, which may include other edits not made by me. But unlike my opponents I do attempt to restore edits made by other users in the interim. Now, let us go through Mike Storm's list:

1, 6, 7, 8: Not removed by me. I tend to think 6, 7, and 8 deserve some coverage, but less than there is. The Yale admissions process is however out of scope; that alums get preference is old news.
2, 3, 4, poss. 5: These edits pertain to the George W. Bush military service controversy, for which there is a separate, dedicated article. All these little allegations such as who pressured who belong there. As is, the issue is summarized and the reader directed to the article.
10, 16: Not removed by me, and I don't agree with the removal of 10, which I hadn't noticed. 16 should be gone though; a moviemaker hating Bush is not news.
9, 17: I stand by these "rewordings". I have explained them extensively.
11: Not removed by me, but does "talk over issues" add any information?
12: The tax cuts section was completely spun by Kevin baas.
13: Kevin baas added this as part of reverting me; I am suspicious of its appropriateness, especially since he's trying to put it on another page too.
14, 15: Not removed by me. 14 I'm unsure about. 15 is indeed pointless trivia, as pointed out by the user who removed it.

I hope this clears up my positions. Again, for those jumping into the fray recently and pronouncing judgement, please again learn about the history of the conflict. V V 22:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From looking at the edit history of this article, you've been making POV edits for a while. It seems a little strange that all the "non-biographical" information that you've removed has been critical of President Bush. Also, judging by your edits to other political pages like Anti-American sentiment, Oil imperialism theories, and Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration, this removing of information by you is not a rare occurance. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 02:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you read one word I wrote? And unless you've taken a close look you have no idea what you're talking about re those other articles. V V 06:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I read what you wrote very thoroughly. I'm merely pointing out that you have a history on this page and others of making POV deletions. I know that you said that you're merely re-instating the edits that others made, but it's interesting how all of the edits were critical of George Bush. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 20:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong, of course, in that I make neither POV edits nor tend towards deletion. But that text was removed critical of Bush is not surprising, as this article was loaded to the hilt with anti-Bush text, far beyond what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. V V 09:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have just proven that you do indeed make POV edits and tend towards deletion. While this article may have been "loaded to the hilt" with anti-Bush statements (which I seriously doubt, compared to the pro-Bush ones), it appears that you have been making a campaign of going around to other political pages and making questionable deletions on them, too. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 02:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must have missed this "proof". Are you referring to the claims I rebutted above? V V 11:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I rebutted your rebuttals. Read my posts, please. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 12:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Give it up. Claiming you've "proven" I've made POV edits will not get you anywhere. V V 13:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My observations on this matter cause me to agree with VV here: There is and has been too much anti-Bush material in the article. Frankly, if VV were to be making the deletions you claim he is, it would be for the better. I say we need less bile and more neutral. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 09:08, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Check the edit history of this page, and you'll see that VV made every single deletion and rewording that I listed above. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 02:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page protected

The wholesale reversion war is out of control; as such, the page has been protected until a compromise can be worked out. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 22:25, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Glaring inaccuracy

The latest Killian memos that 60 minutes provided are obviously, blatently fraudulent. They are the output of a MS word document. It is absurd that this entry mentions the content of fraudulent documents and does not mention that the documents are bogus.

If this entry is not corrected quickly, the reputation of Wikipedia will be damaged permanently. The page needs to be unlocked, and the entry about Killian fixed immediately.

Can you please tell us where we can find these memos, and give evidence of their fraudulence? Also, please sign your posts by typing ~~~~. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 16:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good starting point for info on Killian forgery

[[3]] Sdaconsulting 18:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bad starting point - that website is strongly biased to the right. Kevin Baas | talk 18:53, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Thank you for the evidence. However, that page was last updated on Feb. 10, 2004. If no new info has been added since that time, then there has probably been no ongoing investigation. Also, that investigation was not conclusive; therefore, instead of simply removing any mention of the report, it should be stated that the validity of the report is in question. More evidence is needed from multiple sources before information is entirely deleted from a Wikipedia article. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 18:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about you evaluate it for yourself. It's as phony as a $11 bill. The folks who do the bulk of the work here are welcome to look at the evidence themselves, I think you will agree that the memos are fake -- whether they were created by Karl Rove to discredit CBS or whether Dan Rather himself typed them up. The evidence is so overwhelming, I don't think anyone here will try to argue that these memos are real after reading these links.

[[4]]

[[5]]

[[6]]

[[7]]

[[8]]

At what point does Wikipedia decide to remove portions of an entry on Bush based on forged documents? After CBS admits that they ran with fraudulent documents?

Sdaconsulting 19:49, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not convinced either way yet, and I don't think a bunch of blog entires are conclusive evidence. I could dig up just as many blog entries that put forth a convincing case that the documents are authentic, such as this one. I'm skeptical of the case for forgery because it keeps changing (70s typewriters can't do a superscripted "th", oh wait, they could but they were too expensive, oh wait, the air force had some, etc. etc.) and so I would of course be against a declaration in the article that they are forgeries. We won't have a conclusive case until we discover more about the provenance of these memos, as we surely will in the coming weeks. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 20:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've read the links, and I do not find them conclusive. Kevin Baas | talk 20:06, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

OK, but I still stand by what I said before. In my opinion, until CBS actually comes out and admits it, the citing of the report should stay, but with a message about its authenticity. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 20:07, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not surprising that the case against these memos has changed slightly -- they have only been out for 48 hours. The strongest case is that the appear to match a document created in MS word using default settings and then faxed and multiply copied and that 99%+ of typewriters extant in 1972 could not possibly have typed this memo (in fact it appears likely that no circa 1972 machine can produce this document, and there is a $10,500 reward for anyone who can show otherwise).

This is ignoring multiple problems with the signature, suspect terminology "CYA memo" etc. and the extreme convenience of the new memos in attacking Bush as a counter to the Swift Vets damage to the Kerry campaign.

If this is the sword that some people want to fall on, such as Dan Rather has chosen, I'm not going to stop them. There are credible reasons to dislike Bush and work against his reelection -- this ain't one of them. The DNC is running away from this live grenade as fast as their legs will carry them -- I wouldn't recommend visiting the blast radius of this one -- it's gonna be a doozy! This has every potential to be a huge scandal for the entire mainstream media and perhaps even the Democratic party as well. Sdaconsulting 00:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George W. Bush military service controversy

This page George W. Bush military service controversy (see link) is not locked! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:52, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

However the George W. Bush page still contains information from the (obviously) fraudulent Killian memos and is locked, last time I checked.

If nobody is willing to evaluate the evidence online and state that they feel the Killian memos are very likely (80%+) legitimate, I think we need to remove all "facts" that spring from the Killian memos in this entry. Sdaconsulting 19:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

NPOV means give all sides: Explain the memos, explain the doubts. V V 21:46, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Compromise page

I've created a page to work towards a compromise. Direct edits to George W. Bush/Compromise, and please don't revert war there. Guan aco 20:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to merging this edit into the personal life/military/etc. section?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=George_W._Bush%2FCompromise&diff=0&oldid=5808681

—Guan aco 22:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like the compromise page as it currently stands. The least thing I liked about the frozen article was the inclusion of speculation on his entering Yale. Encyclopedia biographies should not include every little criticism being hurled at the guy. —Mike 08:25, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

VV, how does one have a "Neutral Point Of View" about a fraud like the Hitler diaries or these bogus documents? I have not seen anyone willing to argue their authenticity here -- I must assume because the evidence is overwhelming that these documents are fraudulent.

There should not be "facts" on the George W. Bush page based on the fraudulent documents CBS used.

Sdaconsulting 21:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BTW if anyone wants to edit the article on the Killian Forgery give it a whirl.

NPOV about a "fraud" is maintained by, until fraudulence is proven, keeping the data regarding the memos in the article, but inserting a message about its questioned authenticity. Sdaconsulting, you seem a little too eager to believe whatever you read online, and I'm rather glad that this page is currently protected. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 22:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response to Mike

Mike, I'm new to Wikipedia but I do seem to recall something about not making personal attacks, unless I'm mistaken.

At what point is a fraud "proven"? Some people believe that 4000 jews didn't show up for work on September 11 2004? In fact surveys have shown large numbers of people in the Middle East believe in that "fact". However I just looked over the article on Wikipedia about the WTC attack and didn't see any mention.

If anyone wants to stand up and claim that these documents are legitimate -- go ahead -- because the experts that CBS had cited are backtracking on their own support for their authenticity.

I submit that anyone familiar with word processing software and typewriter technology who examines those documents and looks at the links I posted is going to be very convinced that these documents were NOT typed up my Col. Killian in 1972 and 1973.

I'd be happy to wait on removing the content relying on the Killian Memos in question if you can explain at what point these memos can be said to be "proven" false? I'm sure there are some people who will believe to their dying breath that the memos are 100% true. Some people still believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I guess to them it is not "proven" that the documents are false. Does that mean we can use content from the protocols and add smears from them to the Wikipedia article about Jews?

I'd like to invite the Wikipedia community to take a look at the links I posted to this discussion and if anyone wants to defend the authenticity of these documents, or defend the probability that these documents are legit, to do so. I think it's quite possible that examining the memos and links I gave will convince everyone here that the memos are bogus.

Sdaconsulting 23:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If enough rebuttal is added, the allegations, though appearing to be false, need not be removed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Sorry I missed some of your replies above. Looks like some of you DO believe that these memos are real, even after reading my links.

Sdaconsulting 23:10, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't personally attacked you, and a fraud is proven by general consensus of people who know what they're talking about (no, Sdaconsulting, I am not saying that you don't know what you're talking about). Your example of 9/11 can be easily disproven by taking a look at the attendance records of the companies who had offices in the WTC. Your second example is even better, because on the Wikipedia article The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it says,

"The overwhelming majority of historians in the United States of America and Europe have long agreed that the document is fraudulent, and in 1993, a District Court in Moscow, Russia formally ruled that the Protocols were faked in dismissing a libel suit by the ultra-Nationalist Pamyat organization which was criticized for using the document in their anti-Semitic publications."

Historians definitely know what they're talking about, and a legal ruling backs it up. The fact that a few blogs say that the memos were fake is by no means a general consensus of people who know what they're talking about. However, I still do believe that message should be inserted into this article about the disputed authenticity of the memos. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 01:52, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is there actually any credible document authentication expert who says the documents aren't fake? There are at least a dozen of the leading experts who say it's bogus. Sdaconsulting 04:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which experts? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 20:37, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

many are listed here: [[9]] Sdaconsulting 10:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Several experts who say that the documents are "definitely authentic" are also listed. That is not a consensus. I stand by what I said before about inserting a message about the memos' authenticity. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 01:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For those interested in the Killian Memos

There is a good graphical analysis here: [[10]]

Sdaconsulting 00:21, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here is a good summary of the problems with the Killian memos:

[[11]]

Sdaconsulting 00:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A few of us have been adding info about the (now pretty obviously fake) memos here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy#Memos_allegedly_from_Jerry_Killian

It is not just a few bloggers who think they are fake. It is most everyone, including the experts CBS tries to quote in their defense. TimShell 02:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What should be in the article

I don't believe either way. In any case, I think the memos should be in there, with all the supporting evidence such as corroboration and signing..., followed by the doubts about them, clearly stated. I don't think the article should say that they are authentic or inauthentic until the article can demonstrate so conclusively, or the opposite claim is debunked. AS long as it's clear and in proportion, and there is no extrapolation or suggestion, it's all good. Kevin Baas | talk 01:06, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 02:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the memos should be in Wikipedia somewhere, with the evidence pro and con as you suggest, but I don't see why it should be in this article. This article should include a quick summary of the National Guard controversy. That dispute long preceded the release of these documents, and has considerable substance beyond these documents, so an appropriate quick summary wouldn't get into any of these points. That's covered by the link to George W. Bush military service controversy. JamesMLane 17:31, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Provided we are not trying to say these are genuine but rather we present them as "papers which are purported to be" or something like that. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 01:57, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation

Killian Memo Has Wrong Deadline, Cites Wrong Regulation [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we please stop creating new sections every time someone makes a new point? This is the ninth new section on the same subject. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 17:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm only looking at some really lousy PDFs but did find a couple of things. There is an interesting post on Slashdot from someone with extensive experience with the IBM Selectric Composer. To his eye, the memos are exactly what would be expected from that machine because the bottoms of the letters are not level with the baseline; something very difficult to do with Word but common for the Selectric unless it had been maintained properly. I also noticed that, on the second page of the PDF, the "th" is superscripted in the body of the memo, but not the header. In Word, superscripting ordinals is automated and it's either on or off. Mixing it up like this takes work.

None of this, of course, is the main issue for the Wikipedia. Neither side has enough information to carry the day at this point. So wouldn't the proper approach be to say that the documents have been produced but their authenticity is in dispute? User:Jaywalk 09/13/04 10:22pm, Boston.

TIME Magazine: "Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York City who worked for IBM repairing typewriters from 1973 to 1985, says those experts "are full of crap. They just don't know." Glennon says there were IBM machines capable of producing the spacing, and a customized key — the likes of which he says were not unusual — could have created the superscript th." [12] To say the memos were impossible to produce in the 1970's is, to say the least, under dispute. Wolfman 03:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There apparently is already a wikipedia article on the Killian memos. Not even remotely NPOV as yet, but I'm sure that will come. Perhaps GWBush should just link there. Wolfman 03:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The GWBush article already links to George W. Bush military service controversy. I think that's the right way to handle it. We should avoid having to edit the GWBush article every time some new angle develops on the Killian memos. JamesMLane 03:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that's right. The controversy article is a more appropriate link. Wolfman 03:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's possible

In regards to the possibility that a particularly expensive and rare model typewriter just so happened to be the one used for the memo and just so happened to produce such a curiously matched to MS Word memo, well here's what has to have happened for that to be true:

A man who never typed memos of this type (says his wife)
would have had to have had "CYA" fear (that his son says he was not the type to have)
which would have drove him to produce memos
which ALGORE's opposition research team never found
and Ann Richards oppo team never found
and the Democratic National committee never found
which were not in the papers his wife still has
and not in his Guard files
but somehow were perfectly preserved
and somehow fell into the hands of those who want to publicize them
after not falling into friendly hands in 32 years
but even so, are indeed bona fide
and came to CBS, via a route they won't announce
after having sat around all these years
since supposedly being typed - in complete opposition to the known personality traits of the supposed author
on a very rare and expensive typewriter
which the national guard had none of
using a particular typeface element
and in doing so, exactly matched MS Word of today
but with no proof that this supposed typewriter configuration actually could produce such a result (only speculation)

I've heard of "totem pole hearsay", but this - this is "totem pole speculation" 17 times removed. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 03:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Putting aside any other comments about your list I might have. Points 1 and 15 are the same. Also Points 4, 5, 6, 11 and 14.

BTW DailyKos.com [13] [14] [15] has a great deal of detail about 16 - 20 in favour of the documents being real.. AlistairMcMillan 04:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

nepotism

In ==other advisors and officials==, nepotism should be wikified thats all ...stupid protection...

When protection is removed, let's join hands and fix this typo

The electoral college outcome could have been altered by a difference of only a few hundred (537/2) popular votes in Florida.

Presumably the "/2" should be deleted. Tempshill 16:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If he won by 537 votes, only half (269) of those people would need to switch side to change the results. DenisMoskowitz 20:43, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Gotcha. So, it just looks like a typo and needs a few words in there instead of a math symbol. Thanks -- Tempshill 20:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"If 269 votes counted for Bush had been votes counted for Gore, or, if more than 537 uncounted votes were counted for Gore, the outcome of the election would have been different." comments?Pedant 01:06, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Has anyone else noticed that the word Afghanistan does not appear in this article? Rather odd considering the US fought (and indeed is still fighting) a war in Afghanistan under Bush's leadership. Wolfman 19:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was part of a perfunctory effort at splitting off some information to a new Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration page. The war sections were simply moved. I have rewritten the foreign policy section now to give a broad overview of all this information, with proper links to the individual pages. V V 21:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nor does the word "Iraq" (in the foreign policy section, at least). There is no info about wars in the main article. Perhaps there should be - wars are pretty significant events when people besides the u.s. does them, i'd expect it to be the same for the u.s. in unbiased media. Kevin Baas | talk 19:56, 2004 Sep 18 (UTC)

Ouside US

"Recent polls indicate" ___ "erosion of support among Europeans for Bush, for example a drop from 36% to 16% favorability over the last year in Germany."

If I had to characterize "a drop from 36% to 16% favorability over the last year" as either "slow", "moderate", or "rapid", well, I wouldn't hesitate to choose "rapid". Kevin Baas | talk 15:25, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

I agree that it is rapid, and that's how I originally wrote it. Later I realized the actual numbers are a few words later, so why bother spoonfeeding? So, I struck the adjective I had inserted. That's also my feeling about the adjective in the 1st sentence of the section. Just explaining my position since I made the change, but not planning to involve myself in the section further. Wolfman 15:42, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why bother "spoonfeeding" (a misleading analogy, in my opinion):

Because lacking characterization, the mind interprets it as being characterized as "moderate", which is not true; misleading.
Because there is no pressing reason, such as NPOV, accuracy, etc., for it to be excised.
Because it puts the information in a broader statistical context. (Relative/Comparative)

Kevin Baas | talk 15:54, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

What a "pile"! When I tried to characterize John Kerry's 1st injury as "minor" (which indeed it was), there were HOWLS of protest from some of the same editors here who now defend using the word "rapid". Bah! [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 21:10, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling other people's ideas a "pile". Thank you. There is an on-going discussion over the word. --kizzle 21:23, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I've had some pretty "non-minor" injuries, but I've never had shrapnel in me. Perhaps they thought your characterization overly diminuitive and your intent was for rhetorical purposes rather than purposes of accuracy. For the news reports I've heard, the injuries he got were the norm for those hospitalized from the war - that would make them "moderate", wouldn't they? In the relevant statistical context, yes. Perhaps they were upset because you were calling injuries that were moderate, minor? Kevin Baas | talk 22:31, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

discussion on VV / KB edit

can we get some discussion on this rather than constantly reverting? --kizzle 22:51, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

here's some excerpts from the discussion history:

that doesn't include rfc, mediation, or arbitration requests, and other dialogue with neutrality, GZ, GBWR, etc.

also, see the edit summaries in the edit history. Kevin Baas | talk 23:20, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

wow. umm, I think i'm going to stay out of this one. --kizzle 23:21, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I tried. I used "definitvely" to both re-assert "lower" without adding a modifier adverb that increases perceived level of popularity. --kizzle 23:58, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Definitively doesn't seem to add anything and even sounds funny (to me). I think Wolfman's suggestion of not having a qualifier at all was the most promising compromise, but since Kb wouldn't take it I'm back to generally - which I still think is best as it refers to, well, generally instead of absolutely, which leaves open that there may be the Kolo village in Taiwan where Bush is adored. V V 00:27, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, VV, I have not declined the offer of not having a qualifier, and I resent being misrepresented by you. I think either Wolfman's or Kizzle's compromise would be acceptable to most people here, including me. I think Wolfman's is less open to disputation. In the future, please do not misrepresent other people, it is explicitly against policy. Kevin Baas | talk 01:43, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Will you quit posturing? You restored your language after Wolfman's edit. V V 04:36, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I assume you were talking about this: [16]. I honestly didn't notice that the qualifier had been removed. I saw every other change reverted to the less grammatically correct version: (the improper conjunction, and the run-on paragraph), so I assumed that it was reverted indiscriminately, and all changes were reverted (a discriminate reversion would at least have retained the grammatical corrections). This was an oversight. Given this event, I see that your allegation that I declined the compromise is substantiated, and I rescind my allegation that you misrepresented me - you respresented the meaning of that action correctly, though I want to reiterate that it was not intended.

I hope you can understand how this confusion made me think I was being misrepresented, and how, in that circumstance, I was not posturing. But in any case, I will let you do the honors of removing the qualifier, which I accept, and please, while you're at it, restore the grammatical corrections. Kevin Baas | talk 16:50, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

See... we can all play nice :) --kizzle 17:05, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Is your objection to the adverb that it's there or that it's not "potent" enough? In either case, see my argument re the Kolo village above. V V 23:17, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must be blind because I don't see what you purport to be my objection to the compromise of removing the adverb. If you are willing to compromise in of working towards consensus, then please demonstrate this by removing the qualifier ("generally"/"significantly"), as we both have agreed upon. Kevin Baas | talk 00:25, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

Also, there is a distinction between "phrasing preferred by Kevin baas" and "grammatical corrections". V V 23:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there is a difference between grammatical corrections and prefered phrasing.

Usage of conjunctions are textbook grammatical issues. In proper grammar, the conjunction "and" is used when the two parts of the sentence are logically similiar, while the conjunction "but" is used when they are logically conflicting. For example, compare "a is X but b is X" with "a is X but b is Y". Do you dispute this?

I'll concede that paragraph breaks are more subjective in grammatical terms, but the consideration of this should not thereby be defered, because they are nonetheless important for readability, and I can't think of any other reason to split or not split paragraphs. As to splitting the paragraphs, is it more readable when they are together? Is the fact that a different survey is being discussed not a sufficient change in topic? Is the paragraph not long enough to be split, and the resulting paragraphs too small? I don't understand why you think it is better to not have a paragraph break here. Kevin Baas | talk 00:25, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you really do think that this discussion is serious, but I have to ask: Who cares? It's not that big of a deal whether or not a single adverb is in an article that's composed of thousands of words. As for paragraph breaks, I really don't care, but my English teacher said that paragraph breaks should be used when discussing a new topic or making a new point. Why the long discussion over such trivial matters? [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 16:26, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VV, can you explain this diff?

vV, can you explain this diff?: [17] There are some edits (such as the spelling correction) that are understandable, but a lot of the edits seem to be changes from a more neutral wording to what is clearly a less neutral (and more misleading) wording, such as

(V V I changed the bullets to numberings so as to be able to respond point by point below.)

"some tests of the system have succeeded and some have failed." -> "many tests of the system have been successful." In truth, more tests have failed than have been successfull, but the wording that you prefer leads one to believe that it is the other way around. Do you see this? If so, why do you think it should be this way?
Also, "without approval" -> "with at best only ambiguous support", it is for more significant that the u.n. did not approve, as the u.n. is a legal body and when we are concerned with it in the sense we are here, we are concerned with legal events, and the implications of those events in terms of the legality of actions taken by the affected parties. Secondly - and less significantly - to say "at best, only ambigious support", is a stretch to use the word "support", and to make a point to say that some countries supported the action (which I'm assuming most people have the good sense to assume anyways, making this superfluous).
Then, there is "some claim"->"many argue". does a significant majority of people in the world "argue", or even "claim" this? I am very doubtful of this, but if you can demonstrate that this is the case, I'll justly concede the appropriateness of the word "many" in preference to the more moderate "some". as to "argue" vs. "claim", what is the basis for their argument? if they don't have a substantial basis, then they can't really "argue", but they certainly can "claim", regardless. As I understand, we usually use the word "claim" for the sake of NPOV. Why do you feel that this should be an exception?
Also, you reinstated "significant" in the outside of the u.s. section. Why do you feel that it is okay to omit this in one place, but not another. "but not from significant minorities" - what is "significant" about the minorities? doesn't minority just mean less than half? what does significant minority mean, then? Frankly, I think that you are setting different standards for presentation of information that sheds bush in a positive light than a negative light, and by this inserting pov, whether wittingly or unconsciously.

Can you explain some of these edits?

Also, please respond to my questions in the section above, re: grammatical changes/prefered phrasings. Kevin Baas | talk 20:47, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

(KB - I hope you don't mind that I started threading this. If you do, feel free to move my response to match how you responded.)

The clause begins although, so mentioning the failures in the independent clause would be - dare I say - grammatically inappropriate. At any rate, I don't see the need to mention objections twice in one sentence with support only once. A rewording that addressed this in a neutral manner would be fine; I'll try something myself.

I like the way it's worded now. Kevin Baas | talk 22:33, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
Recall, it was the position of some that Resolution 1441 constituted an authorization to use force. I think "at best only ambiguous support" gives quite a lot to the opposition.

I have carefully read through that entire document, and have found nothing that could possibly be interpreted as even to suggest an authorization of force under any contingency. In fact, the resolution stated explicitly that if there were any problems, the U.N. was to meet in order to reach a consensus on the next course of action. Kevin Baas | talk 00:39, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
The U.S. and supporting nations (such as Japan) favored the interpretation that past UN resolutions were adequate. As I said, "at best ambiguous" is quite generous to the opposition, as it implies that this interpretation is, well, very ambiguous. V V 22:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Think about this, vv: The adminstration tried to sell to the public the legal grounds for the war as "imminent threat" and "authorized by the u.n." at the same time, when in fact the two legal grounds are mutually exclusive. Why did they do this?

The fact that prominent members of the Bush Administration and leaders of other governments "favored the interpretation..." - that simply cannot be construed from the resolutions by any stretch of the imagination - for whatever purposes, does not affect the legal standing of the matter. The fact is the U.N. did not approve. The few nations whose interest and political stature are at risk will no doubt say whatever they can to defend their position, but everyone else in the U.N., including the secretary general, say that it was not approved. If you think they gave their approval, don't you think they would know about? Don't you think that they'd be the ones to ask to see if they gave their approval, whether in the past resolutions which did not authorize war or in a resolution specifically to authorize war, which was never written and does not exist? The fact of the matter stands that there is no legal document ratified by the U.N. which authorized the war, despite what certain influential political figures would like great masses of people to believe. It doesn't matter how certain influential political figures would like the masses to believe - have used media excessively to pound the idea into people's heads - that the u.n. resolutions could possibly be interpreted as giving the u.s. some kind of legal grounds for war, that does not in the slightest bit effect the fact that there was absolutley no legal ground for the war; that the U.N. simply did not approve. Kevin Baas | talk 16:45, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
Look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." I'd say the official positions of several major countries counts. V V 23:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If the U.N. were wikipedia, maybe... Kevin Baas | talk 13:23, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
The influence claim re the PNAC is stated without any qualification whatsoever, so I don't think simply saying "many argue" over the second point is overly strong by comparison, since it still distances the opinion. Both argue and claim (as well as believed to be, regarded, etc.) serve this NPOV role.

~~I have to go, but I'll get back to this later, and look at what you tried for number 1 later, too. Kevin Baas | talk 00:39, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)~~ I think that the "influence" claim is substantially justified. If anything, it is too weak, because the people are not merely "influenced" by the people who hold the beliefs of the people in PNAC, they are those people. One does not "influence" oneself, rather, one acts according to one's beliefs. I also think that the phrase "many argue" does not proportionally represent the people who feel this way - I think it is too strong. Kevin Baas | talk 22:33, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
argue vs. claim: A "claim" is different from an "argument" in that an argument, by definition, has "supporting premises", whereas a claim does not. Thus, pending supporting premises, the word "claim" is accurate, while the word "argue" is not. Kevin Baas | talk 21:11, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)
"Significant minorities" means significant for a minority. It is not an oxymoron. What precedes this phrase is so negative to Bush that it's important to state plainly that there is an other side, especially since the Anglo countries are lumped in. V V 23:45, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that the degree of negativity or positivity compels a countervaling response in an impartial factual survey. That would be like saying that whenever a scientist measures a high or low temperature reading on an instrument, they must accompany the recording of the reading with something that discredits the accuracy of the perfectly accurate temperature reading, in order to be "scientific", to the consternation of other scientists.

Furthermore, I think it goes quite without saying that not everyone in the world is critical of Bush, and that fact is made quite clear by numbers that are not either 100% or 0%, and the lack of any statement to the contrary, making the entire sentence completely superfluous, which is reason enough that it's unneccessary. But on top of superfluous statements, by definition, being unnecessary, they add superfluous emphasis, which is a subtle form of pov/slant. Kevin Baas | talk 00:39, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Having no mention of supporting views gives a POV slant, as it simply makes the paragraph into an anti-Bush fest. Populations are divided everywhere on virtually all issues. It is important to notice the two sides to this issue as well, so as to not make it seem like it's monolithic. The fact that Bush has a solid batch of support in (e.g.) the UK and Australia is relevant. V V 22:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then write that. Kevin Baas | talk 16:14, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

The amount of mention of supporting views in the paragraph, without said sentence, is proportional to the amount of supporting views, in comparison to the amount of opposing views. i.e., the paragraph is proportionally representative, i.e. not slanted. Some examples of what you call "supporting views" (though i don't understand what they're supposed to "support" or how they are "views") are the mention that bush is popular in isreal, and to a lesser extent some other countries. Also, as i said before, the fact that the numbers are not 0%, but say 15%, clearly informs the reader that there are people who approve of Bush. However, when a statistic is presented in greater proportion or with greater emphasis than it exists in the actual world, then the paragraph is statistically misleading, i.e. slanted. If you want to add that in the UK and australia bush is popular, and cite a credible poll that supports this claim, then go ahead, this mantains proportional representation (provided that the sample of countries to list statistics of is not a biased sample).

The concept of neutral pov or balance does not mean that every concept gets equal representation, regardless of how few or many people believe it. We're not going to have a section on this article that bush is a space alien come to invade our planet, or do you think we should, because it's an idea and each idea deserves the same amount of space in the article and emphasis, regardless of the distribution of opinion in the world? No, the distribution of information in this article should be proportional to the distribution of belief in the world, as the goal of this 'pedia is to simulate social reality, and doing so maximizes information entropy; useful information conveyed per unit sentence; accuracy and informativeness. If bush is very popular outside of the u.s., then the paragraph should damn well make people think that bush is very popular outside of the u.s. when they're done reading it. If the reader is given conflicting messages of equal intensity, as you suggest should be done, then the reader leaves as confused as before they started reading. If the number is 75%, lets call it high, if it's 50%, lets call it medium, and if it's 25%, let's call it low, okay? It is ridiculous to dispute that this is not neutral. No one doubts that that 25% isn't neccessarily homogenous, but that there are in fact pools of high concentration. But people don't need to be told this, it's common sense. Kevin Baas | talk 20:03, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

latest edit

can we get a citation of the bush vs. clinton differences in military spending? Also, I don't have a problem with what's there, but maybe should be in a new paragraph? --kizzle 03:14, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Bush/Clinton Defense Spending

Here's a few references: Hill News: [18], Cato [19], Washington Post [20]. Maybe we ought to head up a new paragraph as "Bush Vastly Increases Military Spending and Starts Feasting on Children"?

OK, umm, the Hill compares Bush spending to *Cold War* spending, not Clinton... Cato doesn't seem to me much of a neutral source as it is admittedly right-leaning, and the Washington Post article was written in 1999 thus it was written BEFORE Bush was even elected. --kizzle 05:16, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

And I don't understand the "feasting on children"... not in the subtly polite "I don't approve of it" as I'm all for occasional partisan humor, i just don't think it's funny. --kizzle 05:31, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

The Office of Management and Budget annually publishes the Historical Tables volume (it's a PDF file). While dense and incredibly wonkish, I think it provides the data we're looking for.

Clinton's defense spending is shown on page 84 (or 88 of 308 in Acrobat Reader). You can look at either Function 050 as a whole (which includes the Department of Defense, plus a couple other miscellaneous items), or, if you're just interested in DoD spending, sub-function 051. Clinton's administration covered fiscal years 1994 through 2001 (because of the way the US budget process works). Bush-43's administration covers fiscal years 2002 through 2005. While most of the 2005 budget is still being worked out in Congress, the Defense appropriations bill (one of the 13 appropriations bills that composes the discretionary budget) has been passed by Congress and signed by Bush.

Anyway, defense spending (Function 050) under Clinton was $251 billion in fiscal year 1994, increasing annually (more or less) until it reached $319 billion in fiscal year 2001 (the final fiscal year budget enacted under Clinton). On the next page of the Historical Tables volume, we see defense spending under Bush. Bush's first fiscal year (2002) had $362 billion for defense spending, increasing annually to $460 billion in fiscal year 2004. The numbers in the fiscal year 2005 column are from Bush's budget proposal to Congress in February 2004, but since they're only proposed numbers they may not be the best to use in this context. I believe the defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 contained something like $417 billion, but I'm pretty sure that the bill doesn't contain all of the US' defense spending. Military construction, for instance, is contained in a separate appropriations bill.

Is that the info you're looking for? Let me know if it doesn't make sense. - Walkiped 16:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of course, maybe the most accurate way to portray defense spending would be as a percentage of GDP.... I'm at a loss for that data. - Walkiped 16:29, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MUCH MUCH better than those other sources Walkiped, GDP comparison along with inflation-adjusted dollars would be really nice too, unless people are against it being too accurate. The only thing I would want included in such a section is why each president spent the way it did rather than simply stating the numbers. --kizzle 17:53, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

But getting into the specific "why" of defense spending levels would involve attempting to analyze motives behind each President's funding levels. Saying something like "because they wanted to improve national defense" would be too vague and wishy-washy to be useful. On the other hand, assigning specific motives to funding levels would be too speculative.

One must also consider that Presidents don't get to decide on their own what the funding levels will be. Presidents propose funding levels to Congress, Congress passes a budget resolution (over which the President has no veto power), and then Congress passes appropriations bill (based on the budget resolution) which the President can either sign or veto. There is not always congruency between the funding levels the President proposes and the actual enacted funding levels.

And keep in mind that I'm not proposing that we state defense funding levels in the actual article. I don't care much either way. I saw a question on the talk page and I provided what I believe to be an accurate answer to that question. Take it or leave it, I'm just trying to be helpful. - Walkiped 18:22, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Walkiped, i appreciate the effort. I'm not too partial either way. --kizzle 05:43, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

So what is this about "Bush also significantly increased spending on military weapons systems."? Is this as opposed to civillian weapons systems? After cancelling several expensive programs such as the self-propelled howitzer project, it's hard to point to any new procurement programs other than ballistic missile defense, a program that was started under the Clinton administration. It is a pretty blatantly editorial comment, and unless there's some basis for this it really puts NPOV into question. Are we talking Stryker here? What is this "significant" increase, and what was it spent on?

The Apache helicopter and Crusader super-artillery projects were also cancelled under Bush. Defense spending overall has gone up significantly, but I'm not aware of any high-cost procurement programs started under the current administration (I could be overlooking something, though). - Walkiped 01:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I just would like to know when we say the level that clinton spent and that bush spent, what primarily they spent it on. --kizzle 01:42, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Major new WashPost article out today has some info on weapons systems spending (msnbc link). Wolfman 14:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Kizzle, I found some data that partially speaks to your question. According to the OMB Historical Tables data (see my link above in this section), between the fiscal year 2001 budget (last budget enacted under Clinton) and the fiscal year 2004 budget (the most recent enacted budget under Bush), "military personnel" spending increased 53%, "operations and management" increased 46%, "procurement" increased 29%, "research, development, testing and evaluation" (under which missile defense falls) increased 55%, "military construction" increased 10%, "family housing" increased 4% (although this account apparently saw a big increase in 2002, a smaller increase in 2003, followed by a reduction in 2004 - possibly indicating periods of increased construction), and "other" (dunno what means) decreased 99% (2001 was a abnormally high year for "other", and 2004 is abnormally low, so maybe it's just miscellaneous crap?). Those components make up Department of Defense spending. Non-DOD defense spending (which apparently includes "atomic energy defense activities" and other items) increased 17%. As far as the reasoning for those increases... one could speculate that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have pushed up certain accounts (military personnel and operations and management, I would think). But that's just my speculation. - Walkiped 00:27, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Shrub"

To the sentence that Bush is sometimes referred to as "Dubya", an anon added "or, more derisively, Shrub, a reference to his status as the priviliged son of George H.W. Bush. His opponents also refer to him as the 'smirking chimp.' [21]." After I deleted it, Golbez restored "Shrub". I thought about leaving "Shrub" in while deleting "smirking chimp". "Shrub" was first used or at least popularized by Molly Ivins, and in our article the "Further reading" listing includes her book with "Shrub" in the title. I decided that mention was enough. Although the term is more common than "smirking chimp", it's not all that widespread. If others agree with me then we should delete it again. JamesMLane 18:38, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yep, that's where I got it. :) You're probably right, the reading list might be sufficient. --Golbez 18:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Cabinet notes

Would it be okay to add in a note in the cabinet part of this article that Bush's cabinet is also the richest cabinet the US has ever had? - Chewyman

The article on John Kerry includes this information: "Today, the combined net worth of the Kerry-Heinz fortune is estimated to be around $1 billion, making Kerry the wealthiest U.S. senator." I don't see why comparable information about Bush's cabinet should be excluded. If you have a source for this (quite plausible) assertion, go with it. JamesMLane 15:05, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see something about how the tax restructuring would impact them financially. (Note than any such financial comparisons over time must be done in dollars adjusted for present value, to be meaningful)Gzuckier 15:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That bit of information was in the article, until VV removed it. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike ∞Storm]] 22:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See discussion above, for those interested. If Mike Storm read it as he claims to have, he is being disingenuous here. V V 23:13, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, but I couldn't find the discussion. Anyway, I think if the piece of information about the most ministers to be members of ethnic minorities is included, this fact is viable as well. - Chewyman 14:07, 29 Sep 2004 (NZT)

See Talk:George_W._Bush#Ongoing_Edit_War_between_VeryVerily_and_Others, Mike Storm's list (this is point #15), and my response to the list as a whole, which Mike Storm claims to have read. V V 10:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, found it. But, I believe that, in fact, it isn't pointless trivia. The idea of Wikimedia is to create a source with all human knowledge. If we omit certain bits for being "trivial", it's not complete, and cannot be. What's more, how come the article is allowed to have the "trivia" that the cabinet is the most ethnically diverse, but not the point about it being the richest? Chewyman 23:53, 29 Sep 2004 (NZT)

I've decided to put it in, seeing as it hasn't been disputed again. But I'm quite happy to discuss it further. Chewyman 13:35, 2 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Insider Trading allegations...

Current paragraph:

"Bush was accused of using insider knowledge when selling stock while serving on the board of directors of Harken Energy Corp. in 1990. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ended a 1992 investigation with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading", but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result."[4] (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/03/bush.stock/) Critics allege that the investigation was influenced by the fact that Bush's father was President at the time, although no action was taken during Bill Clinton's presidency either. As President, Bush has refused to authorize the SEC to release its full report on the investigation."

At the time, the chaitman of the SEC was Richard Breeden, a former lawyer in James Baker's firm and who had been nominated to the SEC by George H.W. Bush. If this wasn't enough, the SEC's general counsel during this investigation was James Doty, another attorney in the same law firm, who had represented George W. Bush in his purchase of shares in the Texas Rangers (although he later rescinded from the investigation). Even worse, Bush's own lawyer in this case, Robert Jordan, had been law partners with Doty and Breeden at, you guessed it, the same law firm (Baker Botts) and who later was appointed as George W. Bush's ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

This is paraphrased from a book, not taken anywhere close to verbatim, I can't get the source because it's a pay-site but it's: Bennet Roth, "Clerical Mix-up Blamed in Bush Stock Sale FIling," Houston Chronicle, July 4, 2002 p. A1 --kizzle 01:34, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Source for Jordan's connection is different:

Allen and Lardner, "Harken Papers Offer Details on Bush Knowledge," p. A1 --kizzle 01:36, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

UN approval/nonapproval

Proposed NPOV: In 2002 Bush turned attention toward Iraq, claiming that the only way to guarantee its compliance with United Nations disarmament requirements (barring a sudden reversal by its government) was to remove Saddam Hussein forcibly from power. Other UN members (including Russia and longtime US allies France and Germany) took the position that, while some kind of intervention was needed, an invasion was inappropriate. Bush's insistence on the military option met with record citizen protests worldwide. After reaching an impasse in the UN, Bush went ahead with an invasion with the support of an independent "coalition of the willing." Gazpacho 02:00, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If he reached an impasse in the U.N., then he didn't get their approval, did he? Kevin Baas | talk 13:28, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

The most important and relevant issue to be discussed in the article is the legally significant decision of the U.N. body: whether or not they gave their approval. (which is not an ambiguous thing) Kevin Baas | talk 13:36, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

It would be an easy question if it weren't incomplete: approval for what? The last resolution passed said "serious consequences" but didn't spell them out. I'm trying to neutralize the paragraph, not pick a side. Gazpacho 00:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why not settle on "without explicit approval from the UN"? If 1441 did approve it, it was implicit, so this does not take a side. Dbiv 00:33, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That implies, however, that there was implicit approval from the UN, which is part of the edit war here (whether it was "at best only ambiguous", or it was absent). Personally, I like "at best ambiguous approval" (at best only ambiguous approval is a bit redundant), but I don't know all of the facts, and it's quite possible that the UN gave absolutely no approval whatsoever. ugen64 00:37, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

This edit war is typical of the people I have to work with on this article. Saying it's "at best ambiguous support" concedes virtually the kitchen sink to the opponents of the war, sparing them the need to flood the article with their personal theories about how the US (and Japan, etc.)'s position that 1441 meant war was okay is totally wrong. But instead they edit war to enforce their POV that the US is wrong, period. V V 01:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will repeat here my last response to Kb, since it's lost above amidst the sea of comments: V V 01:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties." I'd say the official positions of several major countries counts. V V 23:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although I am personally completely convinced that the war was illegal and that Bush, Blair, Howard and their fellows are therefore war criminals that should be tried like Milosevic, I see no reason why anything else should be noted here than what we already had once, the facts that the extra resolution for the war was retreated when it was obvious that it would not pass and that Bush and his allies claim that older resolutions were a sufficient legal basis for the war while others, including Kofi Annan disagree. Although most legal experts outside the US, as well as most diplomats, share the view of Annan, I do not see how this could be neutrally expressed without a study - that will never be published. Get-back-world-respect 01:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Having a more thorough explanation in the article might be usefull. To get to VV's point: as I said before, the U.N. is not wikipedia. In the U.N., if some approve and some dissapprove, then the U.N. as a body whole (unity) disapproves. i.e. approval in the U.N. requires consensus. There was not consensus. Therefore, the U.N. did not approve. Kevin Baas | talk 19:09, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

To GBWR: Then if you feel the Iraq war was illegal because it didn't have explicit UN support, how do you view the Yugoslav War? Milosevic, the person whose country was attacked unilaterally by NATO is in the docket, and you want Bush and Blair. etc., there. How about Clinton and some NATO leaders that went to that war with great enthusiasm, and without UN approval? -- Cecropia | Talk 19:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

@Cecropia: This isn't a discussions forum for whether it was moral or not. It is to discuss to relevance of facts. Chewyman 20:04, 3 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Assertions that the war was illegal do not exist in an historical vacuum. If UN approval is what makes a war legal, than there have been only two legal wars since World War II, Korea and the first Gulf War. I was responding to an assertion made on this page. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not once does this article claim that the war in Iraq was illegal. Chewyman 22:06, 3 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Didn't Kofi Annan comment uppon the iraq war recently right out stating that he considered it a breach of international law? P.S. 09:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, which belongs on the War in Iraq article, not necessarily on Bush's. Chewyman 23:44, 3 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Considering that Bush was very much a driving force behind the war (and that it's both one of his largest political assets and problems) I thought it would be interesting. But I guess it would be considered POV when it's election time in the USA. P.S. 15:38, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PR

What I find troubling is the wordings "war was launched against Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein" - that interpretation was a relaunch after the weapons of mass destruction PR gag had done its duty. Furthermore, there were not just allegations of forged documents, the Niger uranium documents was proven to be forged, and the British had to give in they had presented an old work by a student as "intelligence". Get-back-world-respect 02:06, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, furthermore, the disputed statement is quite contrary to the statement that Bush repeatedly broadcast on national television in the days leading up to the war: "We have conclusive evidence that Saddam has WMD's.", which, after this statement was no longer politically feasible, morphed into "We have conclusive evidence that Saddam is developing WMD.", and when this statement, too, became "politically unfeasible", it morphed into "We have conclusive evidence that Saddam has the capacity to develop WMD's.", and once again, when this statement was no longer "politically feasible", it morphed into "We have conclusive evidence that Saddam has the capacity to give technical assistence to other countries about developing WMD's." It might be informative, in fact, to do a chronology of statements and events regarding the purported justification for the war. Perhaps on the war pages. Kevin Baas | talk 18:38, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

Republican Party Presidential candidates

Hi. When and if this article ever gets unlocked, could someone insert the following into the article. I assume nobody's disputing that George W. Bush was the Republican nominee in 2000 and 2004. MK 06:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Preceded by:
Bob Dole

Republican Party Presidential candidates
2000 (won) - 2004

Information sites

http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/U_S__Government/Executive_Branch/George_W__Bush_Administration/Bush__George_W____President/ or http://search.looksmart.com/p/browse/us1/us317828/us317851/us4225550/us1141249/ are better than the existing http://dmoz.org/Society/History/By_Region/North_America/United_States/Presidents/Bush,_George_Walker/

Bad wikilink to South Africa

Hey all. Perhaps someone with the power could fix the broken wikilink in the article which refers to South-Africa Instead of South Africa. Thanks! MDCore 10:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done and Done. And I mean done. Chewyman 20:34, 2 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Incumbent

Why do people keep changing the the Successor part of the President table?

It is not known for sure Bush will be re-elected and the information not be biased based on one's political preference.

It also is non-sensical because one cannot be suceeded by one's own self. Sooner or later that will be changed to someone elses name. It will never be "Succeeded by George W. Bush"

--Apollo2011 15:27, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

66.93.166.174

both VV and I have reverted a fairly large rewrite by this anon. to me, several of the changes are pretty clearly not in keeping with npov, see for example the section on cocaine use. i'm not interested in getting into a revert war myself, can somebody else have a look at the edit history and give their opinion? thanks. Wolfman 19:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily, what's up?

Looks like you have reverted this page 8 times in 24 hours.

If you are so enamored with Bush that you are willing to so carelessly disregard Wikipedia rules (you are allowed 3 reverts max), perhaps you should do yourself and others a favor and take a break (it may be a good idea to use that time to reread NPOV.) Thanks in advance for your understanding and community spirit. FactumDictum 23:13, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe the rule is 3 times on a single issue; the reverts against the anon I mention above seemed legit to me. Can't speak to the other reverts, though. Wolfman 23:31, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if such provisions exist, but I know the rule is not enforced, at least against anyone who's every revert-warred against me. See, e.g., [22] from April. NPOV is also a Wikipedia rule, which I am enforcing, and this is unrelated to any "enamoredness" I may have for Bush. (By your citation of it I assume you are siding against me?) The issue here was discussed in the section "UN approval/nonapproval" above, and even GBWR seems to agree with my wording. V V 00:16, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC) [edit conflict with below comment]

Well, the page after his last revert looks pretty much the same as the page after his first revert. Seems to be a single issue: nobody touch VV's page or else. FactumDictum 00:09, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, so you do seem to be biased after all. For those curious who are objective, Gzornenplatz has been pushing the same wording for days. Certainly I am not claiming ownership; I am insisting on neutrality. V V 00:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be determined to out-bush Bush. Even Bush didn't claim that he had UN authority.

From repeatedly replacing facts on the page with spin to now claiming everyone who disagrees with you is biased, you are on the right-wing track. The bad news is that this is not a scripted prez debate. Show us the proof that the UN authorized Iraqi invasion or quit reverting the factual statement that it did not.

FactumDictum 02:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV means putting in both sides of the argument, not making Bush appear neutral. For example, you wouldn't expect to write an article on Hitler and refuse to mention the allegations of him killing 6 million Jews just for the sake of remaining neutral, would you? Let's just calm down and have some nice chocolate cake. Chewyman 10:10, 3 Oct 2004 (NZT)

POV and Fluff Objections

1. "Bush was a businessman".

True. But, he was also a failed businessman in 4 of 5 ventures. Even his "success" in the Rangers business is disputed (favoritism, other's people money, traded Sossa). Now, if he was a successful businessman, it is fairly certain that VV and other fans here would insist that it is fair to call him a "succesfull businessman". Therefore, it is also fair to call him a "mostly unsuccessful businessman", because that's a factual statement, is it not?

2. "he joined Delta Kappa Epsilon (where he was president from October 1965 until graduation)".

Fluff. Does it really matter that the "leader of the free world" was once a prez of some obscure fraternity? Didn't think so. (And we can only hope that fans are not planning to also add that Bush was, say, a prez of his K-2 class.) Since needless fluff is both POV and cluttery it should go, or be balanced somehow (what about the fact that this and the other frat were secret?)

3. Guard service

This is pure pro-Bush propaganda, his mom couldn't have come up with a more unadulterated POV.

4. Cocaine abuse

POV ("on principle"), clutter ("addressed" sentence), burying a simple fact ("denied use in last 7 years") into a long 4 part sentence feels like spinning.

5. Business and political career

Mostly POV propaganda.

No mention that his oil ventures were financed by others.
Attributing all failures to external causes.
More laughable fluff (eg: "positive reputation for bipartisan leadership").
No mention of his main promises in campaign (and that he broke them all).
The Florida paragraph is spun into POV, by both omission and commission.

6. Foreign policy and security

The Iraq war part has a number of POV (and even outright false) statements.

(I'll add more objections later.)

The verdict: This page looks like a fan page or an authorized biography, not an encyclopedia entry. Let's talk. FactumDictum 00:05, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This biography is no more a fan page than the one for John Kerry, and in fact far, far less. Whereas Kerry's page rarely talks about criticism of him, this page is little more than a forum for everone with at least a minor quibble to provide their opinion and editorials. Can't there be a guide that each statement should be backed-up up by a reference to a major media story or authoritative reference at least? Some standard has to be established!

Guys, guys, please don't use Wikipedia as a means of trying to convert people! Mostly because it won't work, and people will begin to hate you and your candidate. Let's go through each point.

1. I don't know about calling him a mostly unsuccessful businessman. If you look at Richard Branson's article, it's only his ventures which are described in terms of success.

2. It's not fluff, really. Bush is quite an important guy, and therefore we should have more about him than others. After all, the Kerry article talks about how Kerry once met John Lennon, and that he likes cake.

3. I see what you mean. Perhaps a mention of the allegations that he went AWOL, and that his parents allegedly used their influence to keep him out of the war should be mentioned too.

4. I disagree here. All I would say is that the phrase, "on principle", should either be in quotation marks (if it is indeed a quote) or preceeded by the word, "allegedly."

5. I don't know all the details here. But from what you have said, it sounds like they should be included, just by someone neutral, so as to avoid too much POV. The Florida thing, though is in a different article, and there is a link to it.

6. Actually, I think this part's quite NPOV. It can't contain everything, and, although you or I might consider the War in Iraq to be an absolute atrocity, we have no business saying so in an encyclopedia. It can't have all the facts, as that would be too long, and also there is a separate article on it, with a link from that section.

I think this page has a lot more criticism on it than Kerry, simply because there's a lot more to criticise. After all, he did start two wars and he is the president of the USA! -Peace. Chewyman 20:34, 3 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Thanks for your comments. On point 3, I want to note that that information is collected in George W. Bush military service controversy, which is why it only receives sketchy mention in this article. Note that is linked to from the text for the reader seeking further information. V V 09:37, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily, you seem to be confused about what's at issue here. The problem is not that your text is short but that it is highly biased and does not fairly represent the subject. FactumDictum 00:43, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

One other thing about the way the controversy is introduced is that it's claimed that "political opponents" of Bush's administration began to question his military record. While this is true, It shouldn't be attributed to any one group, because people other than his political opponents questioned it. Chewyman 15:16, 6 Oct 2004 (NZT)

Suggestion

This section is flawed, (innapropriate counterpoint):

"1)The difficulties in the occupation and implementation of a democracy, the failure to find Saddam's alleged weapons, and claims about information having been allegedly spun or distorted to support the war have all been used to challenge the Bush administration both domestically and from abroad. These claims have been corroborated by investigations and reports by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

2)Nevertheless, Bush states that he still believes it was the right decision, and that a demonstrably brutal tyrant has been overthrown and can no longer threaten the world. See 2003 invasion of Iraq for full coverage"

Some of the points in the first section are facts (no WMD, no functioning democracy), and the spinning allegation is a popular POV - not much bias in overall sentence. The counterpoint is a quote, by the presdient, who has an interest in justifying his actions. Removal of Saddam is a good thing, but should be stated as a fact, not a quote. I suggest for point 2: "Nevertheless, the invasion led to the removal of Saddams dictatorship". Also no need for language like tyrant and brutal - he was those things, but the readers already know that, and they can make up their own minds. 209.197.155.120 05:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My take on this is Bush should be mentioned as stating that he believes it was the right decision, because the first point reiterates assertions by critics and the second is Bush answering to the critics. -khaosworks 06:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, saying what you proposed, 209.197.155.120, would imply that Saddam is evil, and that removing him was a good thing, which isn't fact, it's opinion. Therefore, I agree with the current version, but it should have quotation marks, I think. Chewyman 20:10, 8 Oct 2004 (NZT)

I agree, quoting Bush seems good, avoids any assumptions. 209.197.155.104

vi:

Could someone add vi:George W. Bush to the list of interwiki links once this page is unprotected? Thanks. – [[User:Mxn|Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog)]] 03:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)