Talk:Bush on the Couch

AfD

The article is an inaccurate summary of a nn 272-page book, written in early 2004. The article is POV. Joaquin Murietta 14:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't read no stinking books!

The author of the article in its current incarnation, now admits that he did not read the book! This is from the AfD discussion.

• keep Disclaimer: I wrote the text that another wikipedian has described as POV, and an inaccurate summary.

• I think the book is notable, even if it didn't make any best-seller lists.
• I think we need to recognize that there is a difference between an article that is POV, and an article that reports on a book, whose contents are POV. Articles on books that are POV are not necessarily POV themselves. If the article is NPOV it clearly belongs on the wikipedia.
• If a book is notable enough to belong on the wikipedia, but the contents are agreed to be POV, then surely the next step is to rewrite it, or to add a {npov} tag?
• The person who nominated this for deletion put a note in the talk page that the article was an "inaccurate summary" of the book. I haven't read the book. But I have read several articles about it. I believe the brief summary in the article accurately reflects what the articles and reviews of the book said the book contained. Here are some reviews from across the political spectrum.

• The inner W, Salon, June 16, 2004
• Book Review – Bush on the Couch, by Justin Frank, a review - Political Affairs, October 3, 2003
• Shrinking the President: A mind is a dangerous thing to psychoanalyze, The Weekly Standard, September 19, 2004
• Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, a review

• Wikipedians can differ on how much credibility they allow Dr Frank. But the book was widely reviewed and is regularly quoted and cited. And that, IMO, makes it worthy of mention in the wikipedia.
• As to whether the information about the book should be merged with the George W. Bush article... I think the wikipedia is better served with the information about this book staying in an article of its own. I gather that the GWB article is beset by unending edit wars. IMO the current contents are NPOV. And it will be easier to keep them NPOV if it is a standalone article. Or restore it to NPOV, if you disagree about it being NPOV now.
• IMO standalone ancillary articles make the wikipedia easier to use than huge, monolithic, omnibus articles. -- Geo Swan 21:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Amazing! Joaquin Murietta 02:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Review of the Review

• The current article needs cleanup because it was written by Geo Swan who says, I haven't read the book. But I have read several articles about it. I believe the brief summary in the article accurately reflects what the articles and reviews of the book said the book contained. Here are some reviews from across the political spectrum. For those of us who have read the book, the current article by Geo Swan is flawed. Joaquin Murietta 04:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If this article is flawed and someone here has read it, can one of you please write a non-biased, balanced review of the book? I am really interested in learning more about this book myself. From what I read of this article it focuses less on the political and more on Bush's family history. From what I read of the website reviews, the book is more focused on the political. I'm not sure which is right, but if those of you who have read it can clear this up, I would appreciate that. JJ4sad6 11:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I just ordered a copy for myself. Once I get it, and read it, I'll try to get back here and work on this article. DavidConrad 23:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Frank Responds to Critique in Interview

Added note re Frank's response to the common critique, as recorded in the World Internet News interview cited on main page:

"However, in interviews Frank freely admits his partisan affiliation, but claims his book is in a tradition of psychological assessments of leaders frequently undertaken, for example, by the CIA. Frank also claims that some of his readers have reacted to his book by gaining increased sympathy for Bush, for example, Joan Baez admitted this to Frank."

the {cleanup} and {accuracy} tags

The {cleanup} and {accuracy} tags were placed over six months ago. The wikipedia contributors who placed those tags have yet to start the sections in the talk page where they would explain why they felt the article should be tagged. I think if an explanation is not offered within one week then the tags should be removed. -- Geo Swan 01:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

I also do not see any explanation here about why the summary of the book I had brought over from Robin Bush was deleted. I am therefore restoring it. Daniel Case 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The book is politically charged...

I have been asked to explain why the fact that one of the author's critics is a prominent Republican is relevant.

I think it is relevant because discussion of the book is politically charged. Readers deserve to know an important factor like this critics political affiliation when judging his credibility.

Cheers! Geo Swan 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt being a failed candidate for governor of California makes one prominent in the republican Party (we don't even have an article on him). Now, if Charles Krauthammer, a prominent conservative pundit who also practiced psychiatry, criticized it, his politics would be relevant. Daniel Case 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning what is known about a critic's politics, as long as defensive and WP:OR speculation of bias is not indulged. However, "failed" is excessively disparaging. How about a psychiatrist and 1998 Republican candidate for Governor of California ? / edg ☺ ★ 22:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Was this critic was really a candidate?

Irwin Savodnik is not listed in California gubernatorial election, 1998#Primaries, either currently or in the article history. I'd make the change I suggested to this article, but I have no proof that this guy was really a candidate for governor.

The byline to the linked article only says Irwin Savodnik is a psychiatrist who teaches at UCLA. / edg ☺ ★ 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 edition?

I pre-pordered the 2007 update on the book. It was supposed to be published on October 10th, 2007. As of yet, the book hasn't come out. Anyone know why? --Nik 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia really isn't the place to ask this question. Daniel Case 15:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1) There is a 2007 edition. 2) It has been delayed. These facts are relevant to the article in question. I just don't have the time to do the research myself. --Nik 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, my book arrived recently. Maybe there was no delay in publishing, so much as just shipping problems with the publisher. The 2007 edition includes an afterward that wasn't present in the original edition, as well as a new introduction. --Nik 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging Robin Bush

The article on Robin Bush herself was just prodded and, CTTOI, what can you say about a not-quite-four-year-old girl who died? So I suggested there that we simply merge any other content from that article that could contribute to this one here and make it a redirect. Consensus anyone? Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)