Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 20

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 15

←

Archive 18

→

Let's split off the drug/alcohol section into a separate article

A huge amount of the NPOV controversy about this article centers around claims about Bush's alleged drug/alcohol use. It's a distraction from more important issues and it's caused a lot of unnecessary edit wars. Since deleting that section is not something I or most editors would support, I think it might be a good idea to split the content about drug and alcohol allegations into a separate article--George W. Bush drug and alcohol controversy, perhaps. That'll move all the inevitable edit wars to the new article and give the editors of this article more time to focus on other, more important issues. Szyslak 19:55, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but don't think that this would make the article accurate or neutral as there are many other points such as the elections, budgetary comparisons, and use of words and innuendo which would continue to plague this article. Furthermore, the only proof we have except silly jargon from dubious sources which discusses his "drug and alcohol controversy" is his own admittance that he used to drink a lot. A link to a controversy page using as it were the same poorly referenced and unsubstantive sources would be not much better than going ahead and leaving them in here.--MONGO 20:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The controversies about Bush's and Kerry's military service were spun off into daughter articles because they were so lengthy and detailed that they were cluttering up the main article. Each of those daughter articles, though, is far longer than the drug-and-alcohol material in this article. That section doesn't really need to be spun off. Furthermore, spinning off details to a daughter article doesn't mean suppressing the subject in the main article. There would still be a summary and a link. The necessity of reaching agreed-upon wording for the summary would just create a new problem. JamesMLane 21:02, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that simply wanting to shunt aside the troublemakers is not any kind of legitimate reason to split off a section. If anything, it seems strikingly like a means of hiding the Bush-embarssing stuff, which one must then go out of their way to find. I can imagine the response if someone tried to split off a list of things Bush has accomplished and been lauded for. If we're going to split up the article...and that's a good idea...it should be by size, not controversy. Kaz 01:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alcohol and Drug Allegations

I will continue to defend any at least arguable content in the Alcohol/Drugs section, but I'm wondering if it really should be the second major section in the article. Perhaps it could be moved to some later point. At least past the "personal life" section, since it sort of spans Personal and Early Career, chronologically. Kaz 15:23, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good point. It really doesn't warrant being section 1.1, especially since it's somewhat sizeable at eight paragraphs. Carrp | Talk 15:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where it is now is where it logically goes, by the chronological organization, since it relates to the early part of his life. Although some of it is appropriate for Carrp's suggested move, because Bush stopped drinking only well after he had begun his business career, it might convey a misleading impression if the references to his wild youth were carried along, too. One possibility that occurs to me, if the concern is the prominence because it comes early on, is that this article might adapt an approach in the Bill Clinton article: beef up the lead section with a few sentences about notable aspects of his presidency. I hesitate to suggest it, because the fur might fly over what's notable enough to qualify. Still, maybe people could take a look at the second and third paragraphs of the Clinton article and consider whether we should attempt something similar. (The selection of highlights for the Clinton section seems dubious to me -- omitting welfare reform, mentioning Northern Ireland mediation but omitting Yugoslavian intervention -- which I suppose illustrates the kind of dispute we'd face if attempting it here.)

Specifics on latest edits: Is there any basis for saying that the wedding video has been "widely circulated on the internet"? I was leaning toward removing it on the grounds that it's not widely circulated. (With attacks on controversial figures, my feeling is that it should be either from a source with some expertise or prominence, or something that got enough currency to be notable by that reason alone, so this question is relevant to the inclusion of a reference to the video.) Also, Kazvorpal has restored the van Wormer graf, apparently not noticing that I'd already done so, so it's now duplicated, but with some highly dubious additions about AA. What's the basis for claiming that van Wormer was relying on AA or any other religious views? JamesMLane 16:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The basic premise of the "dry drunk" is an AA assumption in the first place, and is itself in dispute, seen as a trait of that movement's cult-like religiosity. Follow the two links I included, the result of a very quick search on the topic. Kaz 17:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Kaz suggested the move, I was just noting that it does seem out of place in section 1.1. I agree with you that it does fit there chronologically, but it's almost too prominent being the second major section. What about having a summary in the personal life section and moving the rest of the information to a later section? I'm not really against the current layout, but I do think it could be improved. Carrp | Talk 16:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For comparison, I wondered how we treat other such cases (unflattering facts early in life). The first example that occurred to me was Hugo Black, and our article about him follows chronology, so the reader finds out about his KKK membership before his accomplishments on the Supreme Court are detailed. A biography generally follows chronology, so it shouldn't be assumed that what's first is most important. At least the Bush article has a TOC so that a reader who doesn't care about the DUI or the Texas Rangers can skip to the sections about Bush's campaigns or his presidency. JamesMLane 16:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed the second reference to Van Wormer. In my opinion the wording that you restored more accurately describes the piece (on the other and, I wrote quite a lot of it so I suggest others check and edit accordingly). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is bad reporting to even have it here to begin with, as are most of the other charges that depend on innuendo. Wormer uses the term Dry Drunk as though it were an actual diagnostic human condition when it isn't. She arrived at her conclusions without properly surveying her "patient" in a manner that would not be construed as fact by her peers, and she violated ethical standards by discussing it publically and even writing about it. She is just another Ward Churchill, using her freedom of speech and her position to incite discord for no other purpose than to bring upon us simpletons what she either construes as enlightening or simply to push a point of view. Regardless of all that, the passage becomes less neutral by calling AA a religion which it may be but who cares as far as this article goes. Unless we are going to find a fact that Bush stayed out of AA because he didn't agree with their religion. I understand that she advocates AA and hence, her utterance of one of their terms, when discussing Bush. She is well known as a bleeding heart and has made it clear that she dislikes Bush. I cannot see how her biased opinion and the manner in which it was diagnosed and then made public can be equated with good science worthy of this forum.--MONGO 20:31, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2004: "Close" or "Controversial" Election?

There seems to be a question regarding the wording of the 2004 election in the second paragraph. Here are two versions:

In 2004, Bush was reelected in a controversial election, defeating Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

In 2004, Bush was reelected in a close election, defeating Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Looking at some past discussion from Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 17, there seemed to be some level of agreement that after the Jan 20th inauguration, "close" was a more suitable word. It doesn't have the negative connotation of "controversial" but stills conveys that the country was split. Carrp | Talk 18:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "close" is far more accurate than "controversial". The amount of inconsistencies were no greater than a typical election; it's the closeness which put those normal variances within (if you really stretch hard and suspend a lot of disbelief) the realm of the winner being in question. Kaz 19:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pick "close" because of the possible negative connotations like Carrp said but don't even begin to tell me the inconsistencies were no greater. The fact that the CEO of an electronic voting company promises to deliver Ohio's votes to one of the candidates is A) factually correct and B) enough to make this more sketchy then many other elections. Even if only 10% of the elections controversy page is true, it would still have more inconsistencies then almost all other elections besides Nixon. But wait, obviously I'm just a crazy liberal who's just "stretching" to make myself happy. Please continue categorically denying any claim contrary to Our Glorious Leader. I wouldn't want you using too many brain cells. --kizzle 19:30, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I say that it should simply be stated that he was reelected and then confine the controverisal part or closeness part to the later discussion which details the elections...I don't think the reader must be subjected to redundancy unless that is what we are attempting to do...be redundant so that we can continue to push a point of view.--MONGO 20:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree. --kizzle 20:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kaz said that "The amount of inconsistencies were no greater than a typical election". This is a case in point of why it is important for people to read the controversies articles. The amount of "inconsistencies" (FWIW, the politically correct term is "irregularities") were greater than a typical election. They were enough to lead to the first congressional contest to certification of electoral votes on the grounds of election irregulaties in American History, and the second contest in American history (the first being in 1877, when the contest procedure was born). Also, the irregularities led to the first legal suit that contested the outcome based on a claim of sufficient irregularities to, beyond a reasonable doubt, change the outcome of the election. Neither of these events are at all "typical", or indicicative of a "typical election".

On the contrary, these are important historical events, unprecedented in American History, and should be noted in the record. Kevin Baas^talk 20:07, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Actually, what's unprecedented is one party being willing to use lawyerly tricks and nit-picking to try to reduce the credibility of the other party's winner. Even Nixon (shudder) and Ashcroft (double shudder) had the decency to not do this, despite having actually been likely robbed of their elections. What you link to is not an unusual amount of irregularity; it's simply an unusual amount of havoc about it. In fact, one can see some evidence of this in the article itself, as where it points out that there is /normally/ a significant undercount, which in this case it concludes would have made Kerry the winner. Kaz 20:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm also wondering why the article doesn't cover the Democrats' efforts to disenfranchise voters, like keeping Nader off the ballots and trying to disqualify military votes on technicalities.Kaz 20:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Read the irregularities article. There are precincts in Ohio with less than 10% voter turnout. this is not a "normal" undercount, nor is it consistent with the voting trends of those precints or their demographic, nor is it believable. It is these anomolous discrepancies, and unbiased and conservative compensations for them to a statistically more plausible and more believable figure, that, which, when all anomalies favoring either candidate are accumulated together, total enough votes to change the outcome. (see the depositions in Moss v. Bush)

Regarding "keeping Nader off the ballot", lawyers were trying to make sure that people followed the law in determining whether nader should be on the ballot. Primarily, where the state required the candidate to be that of a national party to be filed other than as an independant, and if filed as an independant to collect enough signatures, that, since the Reform Party is not a national party, Nader must file as an independant and collect enough signatures to be on the ballot. The court must rule the same way every time: according to the law. To rule otherwise would be injustice.

In Florida in 2000, Democratic lawyers fought against the law, saying that the law requiring voters to competently and clearly mark their own ballots should be ignored, because it disenfranchised voters...yet in 2004, they argued that laws should not only be kept to the letter, but should be interpreted as strictly as possible, concerning ballot access and counting the votes of military and other typically-Conservative votes, though this would disenfranchise even more people. They don't give a rat's ass about counting votes; they just want to help their cause, using any means. Kaz 22:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're very opinionated and don't support your opinion. If the voter's intent is clear, the vote should be counted. That does not favor either candidate, that favors people, and powers derived from the consent of the governed. Kevin Baas^talk 23:34, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was quoting Florida state law when I said that the vote should be counted if the voter's intent is clear. The court appointed Bush in 2000 purportedly because of this law, arguing erroneously that it violated the Equal Protection Ammendment because it was subjective. I have a book by David Boies, the lead litigator in Bush v. Gore, that goes into detail about the case, Florida law, and the legal proceedings. Kevin Baas^talk 00:02, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Regarding "disqualify military votes on technicalities" - required fields on ballots not being filed out is not a "technicality". People not filling out their birthdate on provisional ballots, which is not a required field, is. (refering hereto kenneth blackwell in ohio.) The proper, unbiased, unhypocritical solution, would be... (use the integrity of your own mind here) Kevin Baas^talk 21:27, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Really? So why didn't they do the same thing in 2000? Why'd they insist that technically illegal votes -- those with errors on them -- be counted anyway? Kaz 22:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Republicans did the same thing in 2000 as in 2004 with regard to ballots, and so did Democrats. Kevin Baas^talk 22:59, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Kaz, have you even read the irregularities article? --kizzle 21:45, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it...but more importantly, I've closely followed the irregularities in each election since the eighties, thus I know that this is all normal. Perhaps you should do more research into what's typical for a presidential election. It's normal for there to be a similar list of irregularities, out of the hundred million or so possible votes. Did you ever bother to examine an exhaustive list of irregularities for 1996, or 1992? I'd say the main difference is that, whatever else their shortcomings, the Republicans aren't as unethical about trying to throw an election they've lost. Kaz 05:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So enlighten us with all your research as to what was so egregious in '96 and '92. --kizzle 18:55, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

RE: "pushing POV": this is not POV, this is factual. Kevin Baas^talk 20:10, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Intro to FDR:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-01-30–1945-04-12), often referred to as FDR, was the 32nd (1933–1945) President of the United States. He was elected to an unprecedented four terms, and died in office — he remains the only U.S. president elected more than twice, and he will remain so due to the Twenty-Second Amendment.

It would be inconsistent to include this historical note about abnormalities with FDR's election, and not those for Bush's election, or Viktor Yushchenko's. Kevin Baas^talk 20:35, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was saying that the controversial or closeness aspects of the elections should be left out altogether. I was simply attempting to suggest that this can be covered ad nauseum in the later section, not in the introduction. I think the irregularities need to be discussed ad nauseum but later.--MONGO 20:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was significant fraud in the elections of FDR, as well as Kennedy (who won only because of the "inconsistencies")...are their elections cited as "controversial" at the first point where they're described in their articles? Kaz 20:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of problems in the election of FDR. The biography I have of him by Conrad Black doesn't mention this. Kennedy, however, I'm aware that his father, Joseph, was the type of person who would do that, had the connections, and that john kennedy himself believed who owed his election largely to his fathers "behind-the-scenes" work. Unfortunately, we did not have the resources then as we do now, in the "information age", to get a more in-depth view of that election. I've read five biographies of Kennedy, and haven't found much detail about this, but I do believe that his father did have a significant effect on the outcome, one possibly meriting mention in the introduction. I found it historically interesting, and I think others would as well.

However, there were many differences between kennedy's election and bush's, for example, in kennedy's election:

The election problems were not well-known
They did not lead to a congressional contest
They did not lead to a lawsuit

This is precisely my point. They didn't lead to a contest and lawsuit, because even that slimeball Nixon was less willing to screw with the election through petty means...even when he was entirely in the right and did really win...than the suing Democrats. And he did know about them in time, by the way. Kaz 05:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think JamesMLane has a good point below. I wanted mention the "how kennedy won hawaii" article linked to in Moss v. Bush, as an example of nixon's good-naturedness regarding "petty theft". Kevin Baas^talk 20:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

There is not a substantial amount of info about them
Kennedy was not as unpopular as Bush (according to polls); his election not as implausible.

Actually, the race between Nixon and Kennedy was as close as the modern ones, which is why Kennedy could steal it. Kaz 05:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no credible claim that Kennedy stole the election (a charge that suggests his personal involvement in misconduct). There are credible claims that Democratic Party leaders in Illinois engaged in various kinds of fraud that swung the state from Nixon to Kennedy. There are similar allegations that Republican Party leaders in California managed, by dint of fraud, to swing that state from Kennedy to Nixon. I'm sure one factor Nixon considered was that a demand for a full investigation of the Illinois situation would have been countered by a demand that California be included. JamesMLane 08:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was not "controversy"

Yes, because Nixon wasn't dirty and corrupt enough to try to steal an election through legal means. Hmmm...and yet he was quite dirty and corrupt. When it comes to the rainforest of ethics, Nixon might have been the Sahara, but these current guys are Death Valley. Kaz 05:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"steal an election through legal means"! That's like stealing a watch by paying for it, right? How dirty and corrupt! Now the false analogy, where did that come from? In any case, can bias be more blatent? Kevin Baas^talk 20:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

There was no evidence of "irregularites", nor where there allegations.

Kevin Baas^talk 22:17, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Actually, there is evidence of irregularities in every single presidential election. You just haven't been faced with this kind of uproar about it until Bush, since the Democrats don't complain unless they lose. Kaz 05:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Since the democrats don't complain unless they lose." excuse me? This is not reason. This is not rational thinking. This is not logic. This is ad hominem circumstantial and appeal to ridicule. This is a personal attack and does not belong here; it is inappropriate. (And as an argument, absolutely worthless.) Kevin Baas^talk 20:36, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

I agree. I would be quite against going into any kind of detail about it in the introduction, I would be quite against anything more than a passing mention of it in the introduction. Kevin Baas^talk 20:50, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

I think the main difference is that FDR's intro includes objective notes:

Four terms is unprecedented
He did die in office
No other US president has been elected more than twice
The 22nd amendment now limits presidents to two terms

None of these statements can be challenged. They are 100% factual and only their inclusion or exclusion can be challenged.

On the other hand, both "close" and "controversial" are subjective. Many people consider the 2004 election to be close while many others do not consider a 3 million vote margin to be close. There's arguments on both sides, but neither can be proven to be 100% factual. The term "controversial" is even more subjective. How many controversies does it take to make an election "controversial"? 1? 100? 100,000? The point is that use of the term is something that can be challenged. Thus, the Bush intro is not similar to FDR's intro. Carrp | Talk 20:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point taken on the phrasing "controversial": I was wary on this myself, struggling for a more objective phrasing.

(On a side note: i would say that nationally, Bush recieved about 3 million more popular votes than kerry, but not that the election was "determined" by about than 3 million votes, because of the electoral college. I would also say that this constitutes an uncommonly small percentage of the popular vote. The word "close", refering to an election, is interpretated statistically, and would thus logically refer to the percentage. Insofar as "close" is psychologically interpreted this way - insofar as it is "put in perspective" and proportion - it is factual to refer to the election as relatively "close".)

Personally, I would, as Carrp does, prefer a more objective wording, if possible, and am open to suggestions. Kevin Baas^talk 21:08, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

It seems to me that even advocates for "controversial" agree that it's not really the right word. At least "close" is technically, almost indisputably, true, while "controversial" is more a matter of big noise from the B-list Democrats, not actual controverseys...hell, Kerry conceded the next day, and all real Democratic leaders avoided any dispute from that point on. While we're trying to come up with a third word, it really should be changed back to "close". Kaz 23:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you're argument is based on "Kerry conceded" (which is completely irrelevant) -- which he did, according to him, because he was told by his political advisors that, based on the nowledge they had at the time (which as we know now, was quite incomplete) the circumstances were such that he should concede, and he took what they said in good faith -- if you're argument is that, then perhaps that should be stated plainly, instead of confusing it with things that are logically independant of it, such as "controversy" or lack thereof.

The statement "all real Democratic leaders avoided any dispute from that point on." is verifiably false.

While the discussion is ongoing, before a consensus is reached (which does not mean unaniminity, or that if one person disagrees, then that person's version is right, and everyone else is wrong, as a previous contributor VV strongly believed - we don't want that again. (thanks, arbitration committee!)) - before a consensus is reached - I'm bound by reason to accept the opinion of uninterested parties (parties not involved in the dispute) as a stop-gap. That is, I will refrain from editing that part (with the exception of vandalism) so long as progress is being made in discussion, and would expect others involved in the dispute to do the same. Kevin Baas^talk 23:32, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Kaz - Let me consolidate my responses to you right here, because something has become very apparent: You should simply recuse yourself from editing this article. Your argumentation is so strongly POV that it doesn't seem possible to reason with you, and I can't imagine that, if you can't have unbiased arguments, you'd be able to make unbiased edits. I assume, though, that you aren't aware of your bias/POV and that is why it shows up so strongly in your argumentation. Please don't take offense. An example is that you called challenging the result of an election on account of irregularities unethical, when in fact, it should be clear to most people that failing to do so would be unethical. It is not the candidate that loses, it is the voters. To not investigate problems in an election, and correct those problems by due process, is to disenfranchise voters. That's wrong; that's unethical. And yes, I'm arguing from a POV: the POV of the voter. The POV of an American citizen, representing the idea that "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed" and that "the right to vote for representatives is the primary right by which all other rights are protected". This is sacred ground. And you're stepping on it. Step off. You obviously don't know the facts, I can only assume from the strongly biased way you write that you are unable or unwilling to see them because of your bias. If you are unable to put your bias aside in your argumentation, then there is no way to correct each other's errors or make any progress in ideas. That is the problem I am faced with; I have not the clay of reason to work with, but the brick of opinion disguised as reason to butt my head up against. Kevin Baas^talk 19:44, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

After my most recent edit these are the last sentences of the second paragraph. I obviously support this wording:

Bush later went on to become president after defeating Vice President Al Gore of the Democratic Party in a controversial and extremely close election. Bush was reelected in 2004, narrowly defeating Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Any thoughts? Do people have issues with this wording or can we reach a consensus? Carrp | Talk 19:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My only contention is there is no mention or allusion to the problems with the 2004 election, which were in fact more severe, widespread, and diverse, and accounted for more votes, than the 2000 election. The only difference that might suggest giving problems with the 2000 election more attention than the 2004 election is that it got more mainstream media coverage, and neither of the candidates conceded. However, this does not - cannot - effect the election system (in a way significant for this section) or the problems that existed with it before concession and/or media coverage. That is, it is irrelevant.

In sum, keeping the 2000 election coverage in the intro where it is (which we all agree to), the 2004 coverage should be greater in proportion to the degree that the problems were greater. This means at least that, in the intro, the problems in the 2004 election should be given more attention than those in the 2000 election. Kevin Baas^talk 19:53, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

I gave it a shot, but I think this is too long. Just to give people an idea of what direction I'm thinking, in the context of the above, recognizing that a) 2004 problems were more severe than 2000 problems, and prompted more (thou less reported by MSM) response, and thus merits more mention, b) the word "controversy" is not fitting - used "election irregularities" instead:

Bush later went on to become president after defeating Vice President Al Gore of the Democratic Party in a controversial and extremely close election. In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, Bush faced Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. After Kerry conceded the election to Bush, numerous election irregularities were discovered in Ohio and elsewhere, prompting investigations and legal challenges.

Kevin Baas^talk 21:09, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

MONGO Violating Wiki Principles

We've been having a discussion on here regarding three different not-Bush-flattering things MONGO would like to censor from the article. Unfortunately for him, the consensus has gone against him...even he has admitted this.

So his solution, apparently, has suddenly been to mass delete all three segments, himself.

This is absolutely unacceptable. Kaz 20:56, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I would not say that I suddenly deleted the items I did. I have deleted them REPEATEDLY off and on for over a month now. As someone that understands what is and what isn't evidence, what quantifies as substantial (enough to be authoritative), what constitutes medical and forensic ethics and what is fact, I explained in detail why the link to the wedding video and the issues of van Wormer's opinions are here solely to push a point of view. I don't care how many links there are to her opinion. She is an unreliable witness because she is vehemently opposed to Bush and Republicans in general. She was backing up the premise of one of her books. She used terminology which is not recognized as a medical, psychological or physiological disorder by any professional in those fields. She never conducted her research in a doctor(therapist)to patient standard which would constitute a fair diagnosis of the alleged condition. She used her position "of authority" to bias others perceptions and broke a code of ethical standards expected from someone in her position when she belched her opinion publically. The condition Dry Drunk is a slang term used by an organization to describe those that quit drinking without following their one and only methodology....which is not universally approved as the only way to correctly quit drinking. I believe that the majority of folks here will vote against my editing, regardless of the unethical innuendo and falsehoods I try to eliminate. I disagree with the premise that it is okay to state facts about opinions if those opinions are hopelessly biased and without a basis in fact. I also disagree with the idea of a consensus or vote on the matter in terms of this article because I feel that there is quantifiable evidence that there is a leftward bias more strongly represented here than my politics. However, if the consensus is to continue to utilize this type of character assassination that is not worthy of the standards I previously respected in Wikipedia, then I will not edit it out again. I see an effort to equate editing with censoring and fail to grasp that point. Not once, has any one of my edits attempted to eliminate all or even the majority of bad evidence against Bush. To do that would constitute censoring. Arguments from me do not end in this article with van Wormer or silly video or the poor referencing. I have never argued that van Wormer didn't say the things she did, or that it isn't her opinion or that she isn't entitled to that opinion. Her opinion is unreliable for all the reasons I stated above--MONGO 09:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You say Not once, has any one of my edits attempted to eliminate all or even the majority of bad evidence against Bush. Of course not. But what you are doing, and what people are describing you as doing, is eliminating a negative opinion of Bush, apparently on the grounds that, in your opinion, only validly held opinions should be included in Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wish to see zero opinions in this article negative or positive.--MONGO 12:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is supposed to have opinions, as long as their status is clearly indicated. A great percentage of human knowledge starts out as "opinion", and it's through the availability of those opinions, so that people may decide for themselves, that the truth is determined. This is not some court of law, where the goal is to establish who is better at documenting their lies and silencing their opponents. Kaz 19:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If those opinions are derived from falsehoods, innuendo and or bad judgement on the part of the person or entity providing the opinion, and we are aware of their dubiousness yet knowingly recite them anyway, then our inclusion of said opinion is malfeasence and is a mirror of that distortion. I have serious reservations how supportive you might be had I inputed a positive item about Bush here that was based on a dubious or questionable source. Your continued twisting and play on words in an attempt to slander me as a censor is reaching an unacceptable level. If anyone here is attempting to perpetrate lies about Bush it is most definitely those that wish to see perverted, inaccurate and illusionary items and opinions such as those that permeate this article continued. I suggest you need to resort to an quid pro quo application of assuming good faith and make a serious effort to stop lecturing.--MONGO 21:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any good faith in your tendency to bring matters to discussion here, and then preemptively go against the consensus in the discussion just because it's not going your way.

I also, like most ethical people, have a problem with people evoking lawyerly standards when the question of truth and information is at hand. One might as well cite gangsta rappers as proof of how pacifism should work. The only examples I can come up with of systems or professions more bent on distorting or hiding truth for their own agenda than lawyers are those frequently occupied by lawyers, like the judiciary/judges and government/politicians. In fact, aren't weasily lawyer types supposed to be Clinton apologists, not Bush backers? Kaz 23:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lucky for you I am not a lawyer. However, I do know the difference between what is fact and what is fiction. Twice I ceded to the consensus in terms of the Pet Goat picture and on the issue of budgetary comparisons so it is again rude of you to distort that reality. As far as my edits, I didn't see a consensus either way on the issue of the Wedding video or the van Wormer hype. It is your unethical attempts to silence me and thereby censor me by declaring that I am violating Wiki principles which is no doubt singling me out because I am the most vocal detractor of the content and context of this article. Being not fond of the law profession myself, spending most of my time on the opposite side of that table, I will remind you that your continued assumption of my expertise, coupled with slanderous boasts against that assumption are going to end.--MONGO 07:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I agree with Tony Sidaway. The heart of the problem is this statement from your last comment: "I disagree with the premise that it is okay to state facts about opinions if those opinions are hopelessly biased and without a basis in fact." Your contrary premise is that the article should state facts about an opinion only if it's an unbiased opinion (a strange concept), or has an adequate basis in fact, or is suitably reliable. The policy you espouse is not current Wikipedia policy. Obviously, one component of neutrality is that we apply a single general standard to all articles about controversial political figures. If you want the current generally applicable standard to be replaced by the one you propose, you should stop trying to give Bush a special exemption from criticism. Instead, you should go over to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and propose a change in the general policy. JamesMLane 11:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he kept it up for days on end I think it would be unreasonable. He won't. But I think MONGO is probably new to Wikipedia editing so he has yet to learn a healthy respect for consensus. Remember: please do not bite the newcomers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to go on record saying unless someone can show that the Van Wormer piece has been discussed prominently in the media or anywhere else in the public record besides "The Irish Times", I do not want it included. --kizzle 21:57, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a quick Google, 1,100 references to "van wormer" bush drunk...that's definitely "discussed in the public record". [1]

Oh I can do much better than that. Apparently Fidel Castro himself cited Van Wormer on Bush in a speech. When your op-ed piece is cited in a speech by the President of a nation of some eleven million people, you're pretty firmly on the public record. I'll try to chase this one up and get a better cite for the speech. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony, Castro is hardly a reliable reference on being neutral about an American President.--MONGO 09:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your statement is perfectly correct. However the criterion for inclusion of a source isn't that it should be NPOV (very, very few such external sources are) but that it be encyclopedic. Both positive and negative expressions of opinion of a person should be included where significant. Kizzle further says that he personally wouldn't like to see the source quoted unless it's been discussed prominently in the media or anywhere else in the public record besides "The Irish Times". Well a speech by Castro would put it unequivocally in the public record.

However it seems I was misled. Castro does not appear to have cited Van Wormer, but another American writer, Justin A. Frank. clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center and a teaching analyst at the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. Dr Frank authored a book, "Bush on the Couch", from which Castro quoted extensively in a 26 July, 2004 speech at a ceremony commemorating, it seems, the fifty-first anniversary of the first attacks in the Cuban revolution [2]. I think this should be included in the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:13, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I cannot believe that you would think that this is neutral. Do you have any idea how many anti Bush speeches we could find? Should we link into them too? Should we also link in Rush Limbaugh speeches and rhetoric to counterbalance. This article is becoming less neutral all the time.--MONGO 13:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

His point wasn't just to link to the Castro speech, per se, but that this illustrated another professional analysis of Bush, which is similarly valid for inclusion. In fact, I'm beginning to think perhaps we should consider a section on prominent psychological analyses of Bush. And, since I recall it happening back then as well, one of Clinton. The simple fact is that these are credibly arguable pieces of information. They may be wrong...but they also may be correct, and they're not entirely obscure, despite the best efforts of the censors running the given white house' PR efforts. And since they may be correct, and are reasonably well covered, they belong, so that people can decide for themselves.Kaz 19:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

His opinion is the same arm chair quarterbacking technique employed by van Wormer. It is not illuminating or factual and the only reason you could possibly want it here is because it fits into the scheme of things pervasive in this article which is to cast Bush in as bad a light as possible. I have yet to see you make one argument in favor of a positive aspect on the man. As far as me being a censor running the white PR efforts I think that is about as rude as you can get. If you think it is only necessary to make your detractors follow the rules of ettiquette here while you slander them, then you have a very distorted view of reality as far as this forum goes.--MONGO 21:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

His opinion, nonetheless, is semi-professional, and might be correct, as with Wormer. And my insistence on including the AA disclaimor with the analysis certainly must be annoying to the people hoping it'll have maximal impact. The problem here is that I don't have an "you're either with us, or with them" attitude, but simply a "the truth is found in information, not silence" type. Oh, and when I have time, I'm going to go check out the Clinton page, too, and considering the whole pro-censorship Defend Our President mentality, the odds are that Truth will be on the side of uncensoring information there, too.

And regarding your theory that I was accusing you of being a white house censor, you're being way too egocentric, there. I was referring to the tendency of the last two (and probably all previous) administrations' tendency to lean on the media, with threat of lost White House access, lost contracts and other financial favors in spending bills, as well as nonsensical claims of "national security" (something being internationally embarassing is no qualification for being a state secret), lawsuits, and even the same bogus arguments you're giving. Kaz 23:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and note that I'm on the side that pro-Bush types would take regarding close vs controversial. The anti-Bush types are insisting that it should say 2004 was a "controversial election", in the first paragraphs of the article (instead of simply talking about it down in the detail section), whereas the original "close election" is far more accurate, most of the "controversey" just being the current Democratic tactic of trying to undermine elections they can't win honestly. Kaz 23:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Google search result is a little iffy in determining public worth, as there are so many worthless blogs mentioning the most random stuff whose readership is in the tens... any major news media coverage, major newspaper articles, anything like that? --kizzle 23:20, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, van Wormer had a different version of the article in the San Francisco Chronicle: [3]. Perhaps we should substitute that link, although it doesn't have the same exact quotations as are in our article now. I'm inclined to think that we should drop the quotations anyway. The point is worth including but that doesn't mean we have to give every detail about it. JamesMLane 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to drop the quotations too as long as we don't use the "dry drunk" phrase which would trigger the insertion of another wordy and, in my opinion, beside-the-point screed about AA. Van Wormer is a Quaker, and hardly likely to be any friend of AA. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then I suggest she not borrow their terminology and both you look long and hard at the worth of putting this entire treatise in here.--MONGO 13:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think "dry drunk" is OK. In each article, van Wormer clearly identifies it as a slang phrase, a point that's conveyed in our article by putting it in quotation marks. Even if it's slang, if it's a widely used term and it captures her thinking here, it's appropriate. I don't think that going off on this side excursion about attacks on AA is relevant, though. The contention by van Wormer is that there's a particular personality type that exhibits certain characteristics, that this type is referred to by the slang term, and that Bush fits the description. None of that relates to whether AA is overly religious or whether people can quit alcohol through a purely secular program. Those are interesting topics but they're too far removed from this topic. Of course, whether or not we include the detailed quotations from her article, the unsourced and unattributed statement that certain arguments "lead many to dismiss her conclusions" is against our policy. JamesMLane 12:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One learns, quickly, that it's necessary to quote anything that some guy with a PoV agenda is going to try to censor, so he can't just claim it's the editor making up their own material. This is a prime example.

As for the AA disclaimor, you guys are not understanding the point...the entire "dry drunk" premise is an AA concept. Even the quasi-scientific interpretations of it are based upon that foundation. If the basic assumptions of AA are wrong, then the entire version of "addictive personality" they're outlining, like that long list of AA-descended alleged symptoms, may be wrong. So it's essential to acknowledge that fallibility of the premise covered, to that it is presented NPoV, not with a biased slant. Essentially, the Wormer stuff is given an overly positive presentation, biasing the article, unless its context is explained. Kaz 19:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by Gazpacho

This edit removed the qualification that Van Wormer "also employs terms such as "dry drunk" which she acknowledges as colloquialisms" and inserted "uses terminology not recognized by the pychiatry profession. This, plus the fact that Wormer has not personally examined Bush and the perception that her political prejudices influence her choice of examples, lead many to dismiss her conclusions." The sense of this edit seemed to me to be using some Wikipedia:Weasel words to insert some editorial. I would accept a suitably sourced quotation where the author of the piece was criticised for:

using colloquial terms in a piece in the Irish Times (!)
giving an opinion on Mr Bush's psychology without conducting a clinical examination
exhibiting clear ideological bias

It would also be nice to see a source for the claim that this leads "many to dismiss her conclusions."

Unsourced, it appears to me that the edit was original research. They may well be true, but they are nevertheless personal observations rendering a judgement on the Van Wormer article, disguised by weaseling using the term "many". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a reasonable concern. I'll see what I can do. Gazpacho 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS. Something funny that came up during research: [4] (the quote has some of my words in it)

I see that, but am concerned about the date it claims it was last modified...the Irish Times connection was established after that date if I am not mistaken.--MONGO 16:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For the ideological bias, I would not be surprised if some Bush apologist by now, perhaps Fox News, has dug up any political affiliation or donation habits on her part. Somewhere there's probably an article saying "she has donated ten thousand dollars to the Democratic party" or something. Should be easy to find.

Dismissal of her conclusions, of course have to be easy to find...everyone who tends to categorically defend Bush must have weighed in on it by now.

On the other hand, Tony, are you seriously claiming you think she may have given Bush a clinical examination? Because it's clear, otherwise, that she has given an opinion on Bush' psychology without conducting one. THAT seems like you just don't want a reasonable caveat to offset the effect of the Wormer reference.

Wormer actually implies that she's not using hard psychology terms, in her own article. The lists of traits she cites are not from objective psychology texts. Ironically, the two links that were deleted when someone once again censored my AA reference actually point this out. I'm going to re-add them. The simple fact is that AA's premises, like the "dry drunk", an AA invention, are not objective psychology concepts, just part of their religious stance. The premise of the "dry drunk" itself is that if you don't use AA methodology to quit, it doesn't count. You can't quit gradually, you can't quit without surrendering your will to a higher power, you can't believe you've permanantly overcome your poor behavior and no longer an alcoholic, you can't believe you're a strong person who doesn't need outside help to alter your behavior, et cetera. Many psychologists disagree with all of those premises...in fact, I don't know that any of them are even widely accepted, outside of acceptance of AA. Note, too, that AA's own numbers say they're no more successful than quitting drinking unassisted...which leaves little credibility in the claim that it must be done their way, or else one's a "dry drunk".Kaz 15:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Splitting Bush

You know, the perfect way to split the article, because of its size, would be to simply make a page called The Bush Presidency, or something like that, and put the presidential years in it. They, for good reason, constitute half the article, and are the most significant segment of his life, deserving their own page.

This would even work for presidents in general, especially recent ones where their non-presidential life and time in office are well documented. Kaz 16:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This would work in theory, but in practice I think the article would be too large if it combined both the first and second terms. --BaronLarf 16:22, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, in absolute terms...but it'd be half the size of the current article, and is a lot simpler and less controversial than other splits which we keep talking about and never accomplishing. Perhaps it could be done as an interrim measure...Kaz 16:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree - this is a noncontroversial split that could put things back to a workable size. And is a good policy for future and other past presidents. Trödel|talk 16:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So how about we do it? Without adding or deleting anything, so that there's no controversey; simply move the Presidency stuff to its own article, with a summary and a clear, obvious link in the main article. We definitely shouldn't take that moment to alter what we're moving, so we can keep any other motivations clearly absent on a controversial topic like Bush.Kaz 22:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that the huge amount of ink devoted to Bush's past drug use, etc, should be moved to its own article, much as Bill Clinton's impeachment has its own article. I'm not against "the Presidency stuff" being moved as well, but the article shouldn't consist merely of criticisms of Bush's past. --BaronLarf 06:21, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

election 2000 controversy

I notice there is a wikipedia article for the controversy surrounding the 2004 election. Where is the wikipedia article for the controversy surrounding the 2000 election please? As far as I was aware it was the 2000 election that had the greater amount of controversy, so surely there is an article for it. If there is, it could be wikilinked to the word "controversy" in relevant paragraphs. If there isn't an article, then why isn't there? There've been many books written on the subject, so surely there's a wikipedia article for it! --Rebroad 21:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You'll find it at U.S. presidential election, 2000. I suspect that the reason there was a separate article for controversies in the 2004 election, and with far more detail, was that by then Wikipedia was recording a current event and there were willing eyes and ears amd fingers to obtain potentially significant information in realtime and record it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:54, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Find a better source or eliminate this innuendo

Bush has also been accused of using cocaine in the past. In the summer of 1999, many news organizations received an email alleging that Bush had been convicted on a drug charge, but that the conviction had been expunged in exchange for Bush's performing community service at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston. The email included the contact information for the director of the Community Center, but she responded, "I've never heard of him doing community services here at this agency, and I've been the only director for 31 and a half years." [14] (http://www.salon.com/people/col/reit/1999/08/25/geob/)

Request that the above information as found in the article be further investigated and collaborated as I consider it to be innuendo. Why would we have this here as a self discrediting source unless it was deliberately placed here to cast Bush in a bad light. Furthermore, all the references from Salon as found throughout this article are conjectural and provide little if any solid evidence or factual basis. I say that this passage be eliminated unless some actual proof can be provided that Bush did in fact use cocaine. "Many news organization"...which ones? Who sent the email? This is a serious charge and it needs to be substantiated or thrown out. The reference provided is just plain silly.--MONGO 21:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I do know that the cocaine issue for Bush was discussed very heavily in the media for a while, hell even Dave Chapelle talked about it, so I think there should be some mention about it. Whether or not that is a sentence or a paragraph concluding with allegations of skipping community service is up to you guys. --kizzle 21:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Given that we're constantly being accused of left-wing bias, it should be noted that the passage MONGO cites includes a report of the statement from the agency director, a statement that contradicts the criticism of Bush. If there are any notable facts that are relevant to this subject that are omitted from tis article, whether they be pro-Bush or anti-Bush, let's hear them. JamesMLane 22:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, how about the fact that Bush is one of if not the most physically fit Presidents we have ever had. How about the fact that there has never been any proof, much less a suggestion that Bush has ever cheated on his wife. How about since we seem so eager to cite Bush's GPA in college why not compare that to Kerry who's GPA was lower...we are so eager to compare budgetary items between Bush and Clinton...but is that okay, since it makes Bush look bad? The only fact I know as far as this cocaine baloney is that there are no facts...that is why we don't have to be the National Enquirer...that is why we strive to set up a better set of standards.--MONGO 09:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

over one-hundred thousand google hits for "bush cocaine 1972". 1972 is the year of the alleged use, which is included to avoid spurious hits about drug policy. There is no doubt at all that this rumour was widespread. As such, it deserves mention. Same as we mention that Clinton was accused of all sorts of slime that was never substantiated. Wolfman 22:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

fascinating, the count went down to 60,000 between the time i did the search and posted it. i've got the link open in 2 different browser windows right now, with different numbers. anyway, at 60,000 hits i'd still say it was a notable rumour. Wolfman 22:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And there are two million hits for Bigfoot. The cocaine allegations should be included, of course, but not this nonsense. - Calmypal 22:35, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. I thought the issue is whether the cocaine allegations should be included. What other "nonsense" is there. And of course, we do have an article on Bigfoot, which is exactly my point. Wolfman 22:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alright, better example: about 65,000 hits for "Bush=Hitler". - Calmypal 23:07, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. If that many people feel such animosity toward the man that they compare him to Hitler, then that intensity of loathing should be recorded. As should evidence of fanatical admiration by large segments of the population. Certainly if you look at Bill Clinton you will find that public attitudes towards him are well documented. I suspect however that a large portion of those links are referring to the illicit business ties between his grandfather and Nazi Germany, which would properly be covered in the Prescott Bush article. Wolfman 23:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, it's not implausible that Bush's response in 2000 (1999?) to the cocaine allegation may have contributed to winning the election. By refusing to engage tabloid questions beyond a certain point, he showed a markedly different approach from Clinton in the you-know-which affair. That would be a reason to keep the cocaine allegation, even for someone sympathetic to Bush. Gazpacho 23:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But that's my point..where's the beef? It is a self discrediting innuendo. I would like to see proof. I want someone to do the research and prove it...not just quote some tabloidish document. At the least, let's get a quote of a quote from the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. the one that is here now looks ridiculous because it is ridiculous. I agree with James Lane...I want to hear the notible facts about this cocaine issue...not some childish National Enquirer dribble. If it's true, lets find it! How can we consider ourselves researchers with this type of silly stuff being quoted?--MONGO 06:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Proof of what? That there was wide-spread speculation and rumour? See the google search I linked above. That he used cocaine? You won't find it. But the article doesn't say he used cocaine. You also won't find proof that John Kerry lied his way into 5 combat medals, that Reagan was a rapist, that Bigfoot exists, or that Iraq had WMD in 2003. But, we cover the existence of rumour, speculation, and accusation for all of those. Wolfman 07:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well then, I would have to say that this is not encylopedic, unless you consider National Enquirer to be encyclopedic. What are we stiving for here....sensationalist mumbo jumbo or an authoritative piece of reference? Besides, the entire passage proves nothing, but it alludes to the possiblity without anything to collaborate the premise...zero evidence. For now I am concerned about this article...if this one can be made neutral, then they all can. I say get rid of this passage...all it is is suggestive.--MONGO 09:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that we seek to be an authoratitive reference in a broader way. We cover not just what is known about Bush, but also what is known about how people view Bush. This is an essential part of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Sure if only a handful of people thought that Bush was a cokehead, it would not be worth mentioning. However, the belief is quite widespread among those with a negative view of Bush, as evidenced by the google search above. To omit that fact would be to censor true and important information about the public perception of Bush. It's also an important point that Bush himself sparked the rumours by his carefully parsed denials. However, the text absolutely should not imply that the charges have been proven true in any way. Quite the contrary, it should forthrightly state that no credible evidence of cocaine use has been publicly produced. Wolfman 16:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of Jewbacca's edits

I've restored the wording "controversial and extremely close election" for 2000 and "in 2004, narrowly defeating...". The reason given for removing the words "extremely" and "narrowly" are inadequate in my opinion. Bush had the lowest percentage lead in decades in 2004, with the exception of the 2000 election for which the psephologists had to go scrabbling in their records of nineteenth century elections. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The way you have it looks best. It is a fact that election 200o was controversial and extremely close and it is a fact in 2004 that Bush, regardless of the 3 million vote spread in the popular vote, would have lost if only one state (Ohio) had gone for Kerry who was therefore, narrowly defeated.--MONGO 11:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous....

What is the following passage doing in this article?

Katherine van Wormer, a professor of social work and writer on addiction treatment, claimed in an Irish Times article on 6 May 2003 that Bush seems to display "all the classic patterns of addictive thinking" She bases this view on her perception that he exhibits "the tendency to go to extremes," a "kill or be killed mentality," incoherence while speaking away from script, impatience, irritability in the face of disagreement, and a rigid, judgemental outlook. (See also [6] (http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info/a/aa081397.htm), [7] (http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020924Bisbort.html), and [8] (http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy1019.html).) Her analysis draws on her own addiction treatment experience and writings, but also employs terms such as "dry drunk" which she acknowledges as a concept of Alcoholics Anonymous, and not necessarily supported by psychology as a whole [9] (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-drydrunk.html) [10] (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Cult_Called_AA.html). Justin Frank, a clinical professor of psychiatry and former Salon magazine writer, has incorporated similar, though apparently independent, observations into a book about the president, Bush on the Couch ISBN 0060736704 [11] (http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2004/06/16/bush_on_couch/), which was quoted extensively in a speech by Fidel Castro [12] (http://www.counterpunch.org/castro07302004.html). Note that Frank personally endorses AA [13] (http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0622-05.htm).

I mean look at this ridiculous passage! You have got to be kidding! I look at this and I want to laugh...and to top it off...one of the last of the leftist thugs (Castro) even quotes some of the "evidence" in one of his speeches...as if his opinion on an American President can be trusted to be unbiased. The fact that he quoted only proves to me how ridiculous it is...not how substantive it is. Besides, her judgement calls on the President can be applied to almost all of them because they are all a bunch of egocentric vainglorious people. I just love the link to the article with a cartoon of Bush looking like a bum, wine bottle in hand....how preposterous can we get?--MONGO 09:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The opinion by Frank is notable. That Castro took the chance to dump on Bush isn't particularly notable; I don't see what that reference adds. The point isn't whether Castro is unbiased, because, as MONGO never seems to understand, we don't report opinions on the basis of their being well-grounded. The issue is whether it's noteworthy that Castro has criticized a U.S. President on this particular basis. I'm fairly confident that Castro has criticized every U.S. President since Eisenhower, on multiple grounds. Castro's opinion would be notable on a topic that had some connection to Cuba, but not on the question of Bush's personality. While we're pruning, the whole excursion into AA doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of Bush. JamesMLane 10:19, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that little of the passage adds anything to the reader's understanding of Bush either. I do understand, facts about opinions...ah huh...why is it so easy to always stand by that so long as the opinions are outrageously slanderous? If you take out the stuff regarding AA, then all you have left is the original slap. The whole thing is inconclusive and poses more questions than it answers, especially since the part about AA was inserted.--MONGO 15:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the fact that Castro quoted from the book adds to the book's notability, but I'm not wedded to that part. I agree with you that the AA stuff is out of place; an encyclopedia article should not make debating points about the origins of a colloquialism, the status of AA, or whether the opinion of a professional is or is not mainstream. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it adds (slightly) to the book's notability, but the article should include facts that are informative about Bush, not facts that are informative about our editing choices. For example, we might include something based in part on its number of Google hits, but that doesn't mean we'd include the Google count in the article. Castro has no particular expertise on Bush's personality. There's also no reason to believe that his conduct, as a world leader, was affected by anything from Frank's book. JamesMLane 10:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

James, Justin Frank doesn't have any expertise on George W. Bush either...no more than you or I. That is the point...these are evaluations done from afar...not in the setting of a typical doctor/patient relationship...both him and van Wormer have biased opinions based on their political affiliations anyway. They have further motivation to stand behind their opinion because they want to sell their books. I think this is a case of wanting to think badly about Bush as some here do, and going to extremes to ensure that all the negative things they can find are put in here...so long as there is some obscure, vague reference to cite. Best leave the AA stuff in there...if you folks insist on citing these questionable unscientific innuendos, then the FACTS that Dry Drunk is a borrowed term from AA and that Justin Frank is an advocate of AA, have just as much right to be here as the original ridiculousness.--MONGO 15:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While I don't totally buy the very narrow view of the article that you promulgate above, I broadly agree with your argument. We can snip Castro, it's just background information that doesn't really belong there and, as you say, didn't have any real effect on foreign affairs, even if Castro did use it to make a jibe at Bush. It's a bit like the AA stuff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's ironic that the Castro stuff was added as a natural result of MONGO's attempts to rationalize his censorship efforts. People whose goal is to hide information, instead of simply to produce a good encyclopedia, will come up with one requirement after another which they claim the embarassing information does not meet. When people honestly trying to balance the article then alter it to meet the requirements, it's ironic when the same guy turns around and pretends the requirements he presented are now a reason to delete the very same information.

In this case, MONGO was claiming that some Bush-unflattering info was not sufficiently covered or acknowledged by important people/sources. Castro was cited, along with other things, as proof that this wasn't some guy off in a corner making up crank slander which was mostly ignored. And now, of course, Castro is cited by the same MONGO as a sign the whole thing should be censored. Kaz 22:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yawn.--MONGO 08:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you tired? I, for one, was very interested in what Kaz said. The first paragraph is a good description of a phenomena that I, and I'm sure other Wikipedians besides me and Kaz, have become quite familiar with. It doesn't bore me at all. I find it impressively lucid. The second paragraph points out an inconsistency in your method of argument, which casts reasonable doubt upon your neutrality, and remarks that you used this inconsistency for the purpose of censorship, as described in the first paragraph. I find that paragraph interesting, too. You must have had a long night or something. Kevin Baas^talk 05:54, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

My response was all he deserved. He equates editing with censorship and describes it as pushing a POV. I say, leaving in unfactual innuendo serves no purpose other than to push a POV. It is ridiculous to say that I censor out all bad things about Bush. I have conceded numerous times. In fact, since the recently announced tapes of Bush have surfaced I supported passage even though it was purely a negative treatise on Bush in relation to his substance abuse...I have yet to see you contribute one positive aspect on Bush...so who has a POV? Castro citing a negative about an American President is a given and it doesn't add weight to the argument, it detracts from it...Now if say a foreign political fan of Bush such as Tony Blair had quoted Frank's opinion, then it would have given it more substance, not less. As far as the AA stuff, I didn't put it there and never supported it. Claiming it was a natural reaction to my argument to balance things out is ridiclous. The point here is to create an article that remains as factual as possible, not sit there and come up with some counterargument to every single negative or positive thing that have no basis in credibility to begin with.--MONGO 11:32, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A compromise?

I think clearly the information MONGO contests belongs in Wikipedia. The question is in what form. One possibility is to take the precedent of the Bill Clinton page and write somewhat longer separte articles on the various controversies such as the dry drunk/drunk driving, cocaine/party boy, insider trading/influence peddling, etc. Of course, a brief summary would be included here under a Controversies/Scandals heading or the like. We have already done this for the TANG/AWOL controversy. Alternatively, we could follow the precedent of the Al Gore controversies page and just lump all the minor ones together in one article. Or, leave it as is. Purging the information entirely as requested by MONGO is simply not an acceptable option. Wolfman 17:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What some consider information, others such as myself consider to be misinformation.--MONGO 08:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I concur that the information should be moved to a separate article, will Bill Clinton as a precedent. --BaronLarf 18:21, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but what belongs split off and what belongs in the main article?--MONGO 08:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Long

Man, this article sure is long. 72 KB? I mean, we don't need to treat 32KB as a strict limit, but we ought to at least not exceed 50KB. Why not break some stuff out into subarticles? Everyking 22:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We would, but we're too busy arguing over whether "close" or "narrow" are more NPOV terms to describe Bush's elections. ;-) Szyslak 02:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

missile defence

There is a fairly extensive discussion of the flaws of the missile defense system being pushed by the Bush administration as a replacement for the ICBM treaty with Russia; it seems not only to violate NPOV but to be irrelevant. Perhaps it should be deleted, or at least moved to an article on missile defence?

Opinion pieces

I find Neutrality's assertion that this section is "impossible to maintain" to be inaccurate. This section has remained quite stable since the three-link-limit comments were added. --Xaliqen 09:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Narrow, close, controversial.

Constant and ongoing reverts back and forth about simple wording regarding Bush's first and second term election analysis are ridiculous. Can we all agree that the first election in 2000 was indeed controversially close based on the fact that it was decided by the Supreme Court? Can we also agree that Bush was reelected in 2004, narrowly defeating Kerry?--MONGO 18:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's a ridiculous dispute. There are far, far more important issues. Szyslak 03:53, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, some people are unable to edit without pushing their POV. Most people will agree that the 2000 election was very close (in terms of judicial involvement, how the concession was played out, popular vote, electoral college, and the critical state (Florida) as well). However, by each of the measures of closeness and controversy in 2000, the 2004 election was merely close, narrow, whatever, not "very close". There is a difference in magnitude that is clear and difficult to argue, unless, of course, you are pushing a somewhat silly POV. Daniel Quinlan 05:49, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I looked the situation over with the reverts back and forth and decided that some people, such as myself, would like it to state for the 2004 election that simply Bush was reelected. However, since the margin wasn't a great one, and one or two states that were very close could have given the election to Kerry, and since some argue that in one of these states (Ohio) that there may have been some errors, I conceded that it was best to state that Bush narrowly defeated Kerry as I felt this was the only way to satisfy to some degree the truth. In all liklihood, there is no way to to make it neutral 100 percent.--MONGO 08:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, but some of the statements have a notable logical flaw, and some do not represent empirical events or data in a faithfull or neutral manner.

The logical flaw is this: the difference in the number of votes counted for the candidates, and the discursivity and severity of problems with the election (errors is a POV term, and I would go so far as to say is indicative of the bais of the commentor. To call them "errors" is to say there was no will involved, whih is a judgement of legal value that is unsubstantiated.) the vote-count and the amount of irregularities are two separate issues, not to be confused (that is, fused together) in thought or in the article.

Misrepresentations: to say "may have been", and "some" misrepresents, as it is certain beyond a reasonable doubt that there were, in fact, irregularities (which may or may not have been "errors"), and to say "some" is to make a POV qualification, namely that the number of irregularities was small, which by any statistical comparison is a false qualification. again, bias of the commentor.

Taking these corrections for POV and misrepresentations, we return to the original status, in which the matter is: does the degree of the election irregularities (not errors), known with certainty to exist in some quantity (It is absolutely ridiculous to think that an election can take place without any irregularities whatsoever), not assumed to be "small" or any size, for that matter, but judged, without bias, according to the information available, meet or exceed the precedent threshold for inclusion in the intro set forth (by consensus) in the 2000 election irregularities?

I call attention to the information contained in the respective articles for the 2000 and 2004 election, and state that it is indisputably clear to any person comprehending the information in said articles in good faith, that the severity of the known irregularities in the 2004 election indeed exceed those in the 2000 election, and therefore, upon their merit, deserve as much as, and indeed more, mention in the intro to this article, than those of the 2000 election. Kevin Baas^talk 05:39, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Kevin, I don't know what to say to all of that. I was trying to keep it neutral and not make a mountain out of an anthill. I thought that the use of the term narrowly when applied to the election in 2004 would be a compromise. Regardless, esentially the 2004 election was narrow victory/defeat, whereby the 2000 election was controversially close to the extreme. In an effort to be neutral I didn't see any reason for this introduction to be riddled with a redundant discussion which is covered elsewhere. No doubt, the media, the public and each political party were looking for every single irregularity they could find after 2000, hence the placement of teams and lawyers all over those states expected to be close due to poll results. In light of this heightened vigilence, I see no reason that an increased number of reported irregularities are out there due in no small part to this extra vigilence. In a nutshell, I feel that the term defeated without the terms narrowly or close was best, but conceded to narrowly. What others do as far as this I can't control. I have bigger qualms about much of the rest of the material anyhoo.--MONGO 10:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your comments indicate to me that you haven't read the article. The irregularities were not discovered during said period and scope of vigilance. Therefore, your argument regarding increased vigilance=increased reports does not apply. The MSM media clearly were not looking for every single irregularity, esp. after kerry's concession - this is in fact a topic in the article. All but one, very significant party, were looking for irregularities, said party was looking away and denying that there were any, (see the videos of the congressional challenge). Said party also refused to participate in any investigation.

And again, the lawyers and all that were not there because the election was expected to be close; because the polls were close. There were many elections that were (and were expected to be) much closer, and did not havw any more or less lawyers at the poll than usual (that is, none.) You're confusing two disparate issues again. I don't know why the republican "challengers" were there if not to do what some of them did, but the lawyers from the other parties were there as a response to the "challengers" - to prevent them from intimidating voters. It's a good thing they were there, too, as documentary footage in the election irregularities article shows. In any case, the lawyers wre there to watch activities at the polls, not the tabulation of votes, the distribution of voting machines, procedures, etc. You know, the attack points. There was not increased vigilance there.

So did reports from said sources, any soure for that matter, with increased vigilance, lead to the efforts of the GAO and The House Judiciary? No. Both organizations stated that there efforts began as a response to individual statements by citizens. Individual statements by citizens. What does that mean? It means the media, the lawyers, all that jazz, take it away, double it, quadruple it, invert it, swirl it around.... doesn't make the slightest difference whatsoever, because joe smoe in california, regardless of all that, did not make a phone call to rep. conyers office, or any government office for that matter. Nor did pat smat from iowa. But those phones were ringing off the hook, and it wasn't lawyers and reporters on the line.

I could go on, but I think my point should be well made by now. The part said "extra vigilence" played in this all was not only small, but negligible. Kevin Baas^talk 18:23, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

Individual statements by citizens. Exactly...extra vigilence...and the media was constantly bombarding everyone with those polls. The polls had shown a close race especially in the last month or two...with the reminder of 2000 looming over everyone's thoughts that indeed every single vote really does count...especially in states that were polling a dead heat. The media did have an impact on voters as they always do...to think otherwise would be incorrect. There has never been a time in my life that there wasn't some controversy over the Presidential election results in one manner or another dating back to 1960. However, the issue of argument here as this section began dealt with the use of terminology to compare 2000 with 2004 and as far as the proven election results show, the results were narrowly for Bush this time around. I think he won it without question, but agreed to the use of the terminology of narrowly due to an effort to remain neutral. hat was the only thing I was trying to point out and that I think if you want to deal with the what if of the situation then address all that in the controversy section.--MONGO 05:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now I do not deny that there was "increased vigilance" on the part of indivdual citizens due partly because of the problems with last election, partly because of actions considered by many to be partisan, unethical, and threatening (such as "challengers" (some successfull), attempts at changing election laws (by Kenneth Blackwell), and resistance to reform measures such as using certified voting machines (which is the law, in the first place)), and partly because of the contentiousness of the election, or what some call "the divided electorate": those who are enraptured by bush's charismatic rhetoric vs. those who are angered by his policies - or however you want to call it. Those things all contributed to increased wariness during the election. However, my point is:

that the degree of irregularities rose disproportionately to this increase in vigilance
increase in vigilance does not affect the skew of who the observed irregularities favored, which is astounding. (and the survey of irregularities is not partial, it is comprehensive)
118,000 votes, in the scope of things, is not a lot, when one is talking about irregularities.
- that number is easily surpassed, by an aggregate ~260,000 vote misallocation alleged with substantial and meticulous evidence that has not been disputed, in Moss v. Bush.
the observed irregularities, in sum, are greater in the 2004 election than the 2000 election, regardless of vigilance. The improbability of them favoring one candidate over another, which is not affected in the slightest by vigilance (sample size, that is), is much greater. The severity is greater, all across the board, with many things that would have been seen in the 2000 election, as well, had they occured then.
- and thus, all thats considered, all probabilities conditioned, the irregularities in the 2004 election were more siginificant than those in the 2000 election, and insofar (and even further) as there is a link to the irregularities in the 2000 election in the intro, there should be one for the 2004 election in the intro. ka-peesh? Kevin Baas^talk 17:58, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)
- eww.. i'm not done (this is fun because it's easy!) how about congressional election challenge? there wasn't one in 2000, there was one in 2004. so ask the congressmen which was more severe. I think they wrote a report on it...
  - And you apparently didn't get a point i made in my earlier response: if the reports are due only to increased vigilance, than they should be evenly distributed throughout the u.s., but this was not the case, reported/known problems in ohio were anomalously high compared with the rest of the nation. how would that be explained? Well, ockham's razor: there were many more problems in ohio than the rest of the nation. (duh.) Ohio had problems that were outside of the norm. (contrary to what you prostelytize) (thank goodness that's not the norm!!) okay, i'll shutup now. coda the ka-peesh para. Kevin Baas^talk 17:58, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

Kerry lost, Bush won. It really isn't any more simple than that. I read the reports numerous times, and I say it isn't the exhaustive review you would like to claim.--MONGO 08:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't claim the review to be exhaustive. That's what investigations are good for. I do, however, claim the review to be unbiased. By comprehensive I meant that those aspects examined where examined in full (to be more precise, all data publicly available, not all data existing.)

I wouldn't even argue regarding "simplicity" in response to your statement "kerry lost, bush won." - it simply does not apply. It's quite off-topic. This discussion is about the significance of the 2004 election irregularities, not who won and who lost. Kevin Baas^talk 15:34, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Again, while I respect your efforts at information gathering, I cannot agree that the Ohio irregularities are enough to have swayed the vote overall for the Democrats as was absolutely the case in Florida in 2000. You must be looking at this from a very different angle than many others, as it hasn't been big in the media to the same degree as Florida 2000....and I would think that since the media has a prevelence to see things from the left, they would have been all over this issue. Furthermore, the issue is a controversial one which would make it prime fodder for the media. However, when was the last time you heard anything about the biggest natural disaster in years, good or bad, (the tsunami) which killed something like 300,000 just two months ago....how fickle the media is. So perhaps since it has been almost 4 months since the election, the media thought all of this wasn't big enough or controversial enough to keep banging a drum about.--MONGO 17:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is an argument from authority, and, as such, has no logical validity. And I, like many others throughout the nation, are completely sick of hearing it. Argue based on merits. (and while your at it, use your own mind.) Kevin Baas^talk 19:11, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

You state, "I like many others", what others?...I see no one else arguing this case to the degree you are...are those that don't use our own minds to believe that there really is any comparison between the situation in Ohio in 2004 to be in any way comparable to Florida 2000? As I stated before, the media tends to have a leftist bias...why aren't they all over this? They thrive on this type of stuff....it is what sells, it is the engine of their steamship....are we to believe that since Bush is still the President that the media has adopted a pro Republican stance to appease their customers who only voted "narrowly" for Bush? Wanting something to be true and having it actually be so are different things. The level of conspiracy theory you espouse here just doesn't equal the numbers and I think you are reading too much into it. Again, I think your contributions are strong and hope you keep the fires of dissent going.--MONGO 09:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Others on the internet (some of whom i have encountered), not neccessarily here on wikipedia. I would be dissappointed if anyone were to simply believe something merely because it was suggested by someone, or not suggested by someone else. They can look at the information that the other person or people did, and come to their own, independant (and ideally, unbiased (not assuming the conclusion or using ad hominem arguments (such as your opinion that the mainstream media, which is big business highly centralized, owned in overwhelming majority by a handfull conservatives, and lobbying the government for things such as deregulation, to which predominately republican congressman respond to and give them what they want) is biased to the left) to condition probabilities, or any of the logical fallacy jazz)), simplest explanations. In fact, they have a civil responsibility to do so. That is my point. Kevin Baas^talk 18:39, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

Others on the net...leftwing blogs? I know I am not an ultraconservative and in some ways I am very liberal, but I know that anyone that assumes that the media in the U.S. is not left leaning, must view that deception from a far left perspective.--MONGO 08:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can say "the media" leans one way or the another. Faux news is definetely conservative, PBS is probably left-leaning, the rest of the media is biased towards profit... whatever stories will help expand viewership. Just because CBS ran the Killian piece does not make it left-wing, every reporter wants to be the one to expose a story like that (except Brit Hume) if it were true, and not because of their personal political background. In addition, MSNBC has Scarborough, Pat Buchannan, Keith Olbermann, and Ron Reagan, I'd say that's a pretty good mix of both sides of the spectrum.--kizzle 20:35, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add an official logical fallacy to the philosophy vocabulary: Appeal to Mainstream Media - Assuming that because an event did not get press coverage, it did not in fact happen. --kizzle 22:17, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

What Classmates?

I find this paragraph not factual and irrelevant - "In a New York Times article in June, 2000, "Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's" (http://www.dke.org/bushyaletimes.html), senior Times journalist Nicholas D. Kristof, author of the chapter on George W. Bush in the reference book The Presidents, concluded that "For all the buffeting that late-night television has given Mr. Bush over questions of drug use, he was in most respects a very conventional young man, and classmates say they do not recall him ever using marijuana or other illegal drugs."

The article does not give names of the classmates who backed the statement that he never did drugs. If I went to Yale in the sixties, I could say I never saw him do drugs - even if I never saw him at all! What has been referenced is the taped recording of the President stating he did marijuana but didn't want to admit it to protect the children.

Having two paragraphs about the same subject is unneccessary. I believe, we should just use the presidents own quote. Any reasons for keeping it? I am open to suggestions. unsigned comment by 67.38.242.58

Please place new comments on the bottom of the page and please sign you comments, which you can do with four tildes (~). Gamaliel 17:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bush's self-serving denial is less credible than a third party's statement. Therefore, to be fair to Bush, I think we should include the information. Although the third party is unnamed, we can reasonably rely on a reputable newspaper to be quoting actual classmates.

Nevertheless, we could convey the information without using the full quotation. Maybe something like:

According to a New York Times reporter, several of Bush's college classmates said that they did not "recall him ever using marijuana or other illegal drugs." [5]

JamesMLane 02:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Were Van Wormer's and Frank's opinions based on AA dogma?

The big difference between people who want to create a good encyclopedia and people who want censor to force their PoV is that the former fixes delivery of information to meet objections, and the latter just deletes it, because they don't want anyone to see it at all.

Sidaway seems determined to cut out the clarification of the Wormer/Frank references entirely, even though their claims have a very specific, non-scientific basis which needs to be stated for the readers. The entire premise of the "dry drunk", including the list of symptoms/traits listed by the two authors, is entirely an Alcoholics Anonymous invention. It is not adhered to by the psychology/recovery community as a whole, outside of those in it who specifically believe in AA, which is has been found by the US court system to be religious organization. It is essential that everyone reading the claims understand this. It's as important as the information itself.

One cannot make an informed decision on their analises unless one knows its foundations. If someone were to conclude that Bush is a potentially murderous psychopath, but it was based on the theory that everyone not engaging in Transcendental Meditation will probably be dangerous, should the conclusion be cited without explaining the religious foundation for it? Of course not...none of the Christians would agree with it, to say the least. And the same is true, here. Those two authors believe that one will probably show symptoms of being a "dry drunk", if one does not follow the twelve steps program. And even the list of symptoms itself is purely an AA premise. If the TM people had a list of symptoms for being "unrested", would citing matches to the list...without mentioning that it's purely a TM theory...make the entry objective? Of course not. Same here.

I don't know whether Sidaway's obsession with entirely deleting any reference to the sole, unscientific foundations of the "dry drunk" hypothesis is an attempt to slander Bush, some abject dedication to AA, or some other bias...but it's certainly not a sign of dedication to encyclopedic coverage of Bush.Kaz 16:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've read Van Wormer's article, and some significant parts of Frank's work, but I'm not convinced that their opinions are based on "their belief in the absolute need of alcoholics to follow the "twelve steps" of the religious organization Alcoholics Anonymous in order to recover from alcoholism." The evidence simply doesn't seem able to support this statement.

By the way, do you think we could have a decent discussion--one without making accusations against one another and using words like "slander", "obsession", "force" and "censor"? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Time to chime in. I think again, the entire passage is POV. It is just purely the opinions of these "Doctors/Therapists/Whatever". I repeat...if a known diagnosis based on a doctor to patient relationship existed then that would be testimonial. But when the verdict is reached without the use of standard methods of evaluation, then it is not factual and the only reason it carries any weight at all is because these people have credentials. I say they blaspheme those credentials by discussing the matter publically and that in itself destroys the credibility of their arguments. As far as this Kaz character is concerned, he seems to take more delight in arguing with everyone here...and accuses everyone of censoring when in all liklihood, most of us are committed to creating a neutral argument which sometimes equals deletion of passages and innuendo that is self denying, uncredible, lacking encyclopedic merit or downright ridiculously POV. van Wormer and Franks opinions are purely POV...not scientifically accurate and simply do not belong here.--MONGO 11:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly pointed out, the of "dry drunk" criteria they use is purely an AA one to begin with. Which is somewhat inevitable, since the very concept is purely AA. This is necessary, since it's based on the idea that you must follow most of the twelve steps to actually be "recovering" instead of "abstaining". You might as well be denying that claiming someone isn't born again because they haven't taken Jesus into their hearts doesn't require that one be Christian. Give me some purely non-AA examples of the "dry drunk" scenario, especially with those little lists.

And, of course, you're still simply deleting in wholesale. That's censorship, there would be plenty of room to work here if your obvious goal wasn't simply to hide the info. Which is the PoV you're protecting? You a devout AA guy? Bush hater? Kaz 20:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though admittedly, I haven't been deep in this discussion, on the surface it appears to me that "dry drunk" is a phrase used by AA to describe people who deviated from the course significantly, who are said to have a number of resulting symptoms. Whether the latter is empirically substantiated or not is an unanswered question.

I removed the statement "..not universally accepted" because it is irrational to assume that something is universally accepted, therefore putting the statement in is overemphasizing, and thus POV. However, I think it's ommission left a lacuna. IMHO, something respective to my first paragraph here would be more fitting. That is, something regarding correlations or lack of correlations with "dry drunks", people who have been thru the program, people who followed the steps, and people with said symptoms (whether in or out of AA, whether at anytime alcoholics or not, etc.). That is, a statement regarding empirical causality, from a bayesian pov. Kevin Baas^talk 23:15, 2005 Feb 22 (UTC)

Van Wormer makes clear that "dry drunk" is a slang term. She's talking about a certain type of personality; she describes Bush's characteristics that fit the pattern. She mentions in passing that this type is referred to by the slang term but that doesn't mean she's relying on AA in her analysis.

The earlier version included some external links with more on the subject, but they've been deleted. The problem is that we don't want to clutter the Bush article with an excursion into a collateral issue. I suggest that the term "dry drunk" deserves an article of its own, which could be linked to from here. That way the back-and-forth about whether it's dependent on AA analysis could be developed at length. JamesMLane 02:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Kevin Baas^talk 05:14, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

I agree with JamesMLane. The section I removed seemed to claim that Van Wormer and Frank both based their conclusions on a bit of AA dogma, and I still think that is unsubstantiated. They did both mention the term "dry drunk", however, so it's a good idea to have an article on the subject. I hope this would be acceptable to Kaz. I absolutely am not interested in censoring this article, only in trying to find a version that, to the best of all our abilities, is the most NPOV and accurate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bush & Putin ...and the SK conection

Can somone please tell me why we're not keeping this page updated? President Bush has been on a European tour for the past 4 days!(2/21-2/24) He's meeting every prolific politician on the continent - his trip concludes in Bratislava Castle where he'll attend the Slovakia Summit 2005 -- becoming the first sitting U.S. President to visit Slovakia -- to hold a private conversation between Russian President Putin. I have made minor additions in the 2nd term page but it is receiving no attention... can we please produce somting productive (i.e. and not hate to cause rv wars). PEACE ~ RoboAction 00:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we want the main article on Bush to include an account of every foreign trip he makes or every world leader he meets. Such a chronology would be very lengthy and would be too much detail. We reserve that kind of treatment for Ashlee Simpson. :) JamesMLane 05:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Many here support a protracted detail on Bush's oil company and Texas Rangers dealings, along with, in part, opinions (and in some cases facts) about Bush's drug and alcohol abuses....or would the discussions such as his visit with Putin and Schroeder and their reaching agreement that Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons not be a negative enough? In light of the fact that Bush is one of the least travelled Presidents in my lifetime, I think the recent trip to Europe deserves some mention.--MONGO 08:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that information needs to be presented in representative proportion in order to mantain NPOV. If he's one of the least travelled presidents in your lifetime, then the article on him should include among the least about him travelling of all the presidents in your lifetime. Anything else is pushing POV by means of deception - trying to make him sound more or less travelled than he actually is. Kevin Baas^talk 16:45, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Being unmotivated to travel has in my opinion made him less popular than he may have been in places like Europe...sort of like the rejection some feel in the U.S. when a President fails to visit their state...ever! The recent agreement between Bush and Putin that Iran was not to have nuclear weapons and then, less than a week later, Russia agrees (under the auspices that the depleted nuclear fuel will be returned to Russia) to give Iran the fissle material they need to get their first reactor up and running. I would say that Bush was very diplomatic and correct in attempting to reach an agreement with the Russians on the issue of Iranian nukes, and that Russia basically turned right around and snubbed it...a brief mention of the issue of the meeting and an unbiased mention of the quick change of direction by the Russians should be here I think...John McCain wants to ban Russia from the G8...and I think Bush has made at least some effort to find a commonality with the Europeans...which I do think he also did before the invasion of Iraq....[6]

Yeah, only Ashlee gets that level of detail. I wouldn't object to an article something like George W. Bush foreign visits or something less ... goofy? Rick K 08:09, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Public defender....asleep?

In the section discussing the death peanalty in Bush's home state of Texas...I see this line...."even though these briefings failed to mention critical factors, such as the fact that a condemned man's public defender slept through much of his case." I would like anyone to substantiate this claim or I vote to edit it out. I have found nothing to support this allegation...but hope that there must be a reference available to substantiate it.--MONGO 08:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly surprising about it, to anyone who's familiar with how the death penalty is administered in the U.S. (not just in Texas). I've added a citation. Here's a passage from the cited Washington Post article:

Another appointed lawyer with a disciplinary record--whose client, Anthony Ray Westley, was executed under Bush's watch--was arrested in the courtroom during jury selection in Westley's trial, charged with contempt of court for failing to file legal papers in the death penalty appeal of an earlier client. The lawyer's subsequent performance in Westley's case was so poor, according to a judicial report, that it resulted in a "breakdown of the adversarial process."

But Texas's highest criminal court, the conservative Court of Criminal Appeals, rejected the report's recommendation that Westley be given a new trial. The court, which has one of the lowest death penalty reversal rates in the country, also rejected requests for new trials in the sleeping lawyer cases, saying an attorney who slumbers at the defense table is not necessarily ineffective.

Picture that -- the lawyer's screwing up of Westley's defense is temporarily interrupted so that he can be arrested in court in connection with his screwing up of an earlier death penalty defense. You can't make this stuff up. It would be truly hilarious, except of course for the fact that some poor guy got fried as a result. JamesMLane 00:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it doesn't surprise me...one of the endless rationals for my objection to the death penalty. Would it be possible to insert the link to the Post article and tie it in?--MONGO 07:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops! I see you've already done that...sorry James.--MONGO 08:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I inserted the link to the Post article. If you mean we should add some of this information, I think it's too much detail for the article on Bush. The Post article is very informative and should probably be linked from a Wikipedia article about the death penalty, but I don't have time to figure out where to insert it. JamesMLane 08:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Belgian and European links

I removed a link to a left-wing blog that took various potshots at Bush. (I seem to recall that at one point we had a link to a Democratic National Committee page taking potshots at Bush, which I think is an appropriate balance to the White House link, but I saw no reason to link to some random blogger just because he's anti-Bush.) My change was reverted with the explanation that the link was "Essential to understand the article above." The "article above" was a link to a March 2003 news story about problems for Bush under Belgium's war crimes law, but that law was repealed later that year. [7] The issue of whether Bush has violated international law is a legitimate one to address, but this pair of links isn't a serious discussion of the point. I've now removed both of them. JamesMLane 21:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I note down that you removed the following link.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/442/

My only remark is that you don’t seem to understand that it is IN FAVOR of the President.

But there is no problem. If the argument of a humble blog is enough for you to remove this so annoying article , I will give you another link and this time to the Weekly Standard about the same subject. And that’s a magazine to which the President took a subscription himself! http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/276vsdtv.asp

I also add out of the same Weekly Standard the very eluding response from mister Y. Mollard La Bruyère - Directorate General for External Relations - European Commission, see letter 4

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/280sklbw.asp?pg=2

It’s interesting to understand the evil/opposing forces in Europe that try to damage the President. But it’s not because they failed up to now, that they don’t exist.

--Jvb 28 Feb 2005

As I understand it, you want to include three external links for the purpose of developing the story about the distribution in Belgium of urinal stickers for people who dislike Bush. The article already has information about formal public-opinion surveys assessing Bush's (un)popularity outside the U.S. Those data make clear that many people in Europe dislike Bush. That some people in Belgium made up urinal stickers is much less enlightening about the subject, compared with scientifically designed surveys. JamesMLane 09:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

These three articles make multiple things clear:

The Belgians, at least red Wallonia and their small Flemish socialist allies who have together a majority, wanted to shape the conditions to issue an international arrest warrant against the President for the case he would not be re-elected. This seems crazy, but it illustrates their blind hatred.

Even now there is absolutely no understanding in the European Commission for the President’s external policy towards Iraq.

French influence in the European Union’s administration is very strong.

--Jvb 28 Feb 2005

The first point fails in light of the repeal of the law. To cite an article about Bush's possible exposure to prosecution under a war crimes law, without disclosing that the law has since been repealed, is actively misleading. The second point doesn't follow at all from the cited links. That some Belgians disliked Bush enough to disseminate urinal stickers is logically independent from the merits of Bush's policy toward Iraq. The third point is about France's role in the EU, which isn't relevant in the article about Bush. I've deleted this rubbish three times already, though, so I'll see if anyone else wants to take a swing at it. (Perhaps I'm being too cautious. Only my last edit removed all three of these links. Nevertheless, it can't hurt to get other editors involved.) JamesMLane 13:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Belgian war crimes law has indeed been revoked meanwhile, but it was not done by the Belgians out of their free will. Tough American pressure was needed. America threatened otherwise Belgium to withdraw the NATO siege out of Brussels. So it would rather be misleading to give the impression that the President’s indictment happened by accident.

As far as the Belgian “piss off campaign” is concerned. There is also something extraordinary that should be discussed. Extremist cells exist everywhere, also in America. But in Belgium they dwell in the vice-prime-minister’s cabinet, were the sticker was conceived during working-time. And (Flemish) socialist president Stevaert refused to distance himself afterwards from the action. Is something of the kind conceivable in the United States? No. Therefore it is information.

--Jvb 28 Feb 2005

Jvb, I just skimmed over this discussion, and I'd like to give you my impression, for what it's worth: You don't give me much confidence in your ability to address the issues objectively. Your use of the word "evil", the sentence "This seems crazy, but it illustrates their blind hatred." (clearly POV, derogatory, and doesn't hold water - if saddam hussien was deposed, Bush would still want to try him. he is. What does not being in power anymore mean? Does that recuse of the crime?; does it make it so the crime never happened or one was never guilty of it? does it change the law? anyways, onward...), and calling a view that is pretty much the world norm an "extremist" view. (see the public perception section), doesn't give me much confidence in the objective accuracy of anything you have to say, or your ability to see things clearly (through an undistorted lens). Thus, it makes everything you say less credible. If you want people to listen to you, it's generally best to stay away from blanket characterizations, appeals to emotion, and the like, and stay close to raw facts, principles, and logic, making arguments founded on solid and verifiable premises. Kevin Baas^talk 06:09, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Kevin, I must apologise that my fellow-countrymen insult/tried to harm (in the long run) your president and that he got involved in our internal affairs and also that I don’t seem to have the ability to be objective. But this says less about me than about the source from where everything originates. Belgium is a country of big stealing, cheating and lieing.

But I even have more bad news for you. The Flemish neocons (in Belgium/Europe) have serious problems and objective judgment is far to search at home. But now even The New York Times is involved in the ranting at the other side of the pond, see Flemish Interest.

It’s not precisely that I am one of those neocons, but my fear is that our mighty neighbour France might once abuse certain prejudices for its territorial appetite. --Jvb Mar 16, 2005

Alcohol and drug use

The only arguments in the article heading under alcohol and drug use that are encyclopedic are the following and would like to see the dismissal of the rest of the opinions which are here solely to push a point of view. The following abridgement would suffice to both show that Bush did overindulge in the past and that he essentially admits it. I see no reason to continue to use the remainder of the items as I believe they are uncreditible in their referencing, without sufficent basis in fact and, in some ways, are tabloidish in character. My abridement would read as follows: Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth". Bush admitted to drinking "too much" in those years. He said that although he never joined Alcoholics Anonymous, he gave up drinking for good shortly after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham ([46], [47], [48] ([50] Bush reported that he had not used any illegal drugs in over 25 years. Taped recordings ([51], [52] with old friend and author, Doug Wead, however imply he did use the illegal drug marijuana at some time in his past. In the taped recordings Bush essentially admits to marijuana use. “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” Bush says. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Mr. Wead reminded Mr. Bush that he had publicly denied using cocaine, he replied, "I haven't denied anything."--MONGO 10:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That charges made against Bush are, in your opinion, "uncreditible [sic] in their referencing" is not the standard that Wikipedia applies to the reporting of divergent points of view. If you think we should change the general policy, make an appropriate proposal, presumably at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Your continual attempts to give Bush special treatment are just not going to go anywhere. JamesMLane 12:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider that what I propose to be special treatment, only an attempt to be encyclopedic. I continue to say that this argument to continue to utilize the kind of referencing, the innuendo and illusionary unmedical and unscientific analysis of antiBush "doctors" attempting to sell their books or opinions and rendering their opinions outside of the accepted norm expected from persons in their fields, and the use of sensationalist sourcing known for it's typical antiBush rhetoric, all mean that the continued use of these items will ensure that I will not allow this article to be labelled as anything other as POV and it will forever remain as as such. Hence my replacement of the neutrality tag.--MONGO 09:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I characterize your approach as special treatment for Bush because the standard you suggest is not the one that's applied generally in Wikipedia. The article accurately reports statements that have been made about Bush. We don't suppress such statements just because we disagree with them or consider them inadequately referenced. "Do not mention ill-founded partisan accusations against public figures" would be a plausible policy but it's not our policy. As for the NPOV tag, if a truthful report of charges that have been against Bush, accompanied by truthful reports of facts on the other side (such as Bush's denial), strikes you as unfair to Bush, I'd consider that reaction to be very telling. Whether an article will "forever" be labeled as POV because one editor relentlessly tries to suppress such accurate reporting is another issue. JamesMLane 20:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Continued use of poorly referenced, sensationalistic, "junk" journalism is not encyclopedic. Just because some pervasively biased sources of reference were used to continue to build a case against Bush to fit left wing dogma and incorporate it into this article doesn't mean that our continued inclusion of these items makes us good editors. Knowing what is and what isn't "news" or noteworthy is how one makes a case. I stated before that this article isn't encyclopedic because it is not neutral. When chilidish innuendo and unnoteworthy opinion make up the bulk of some sections of this article, then I can see no reason to not continue to call this article POV.--MONGO 06:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of MONGO's earlier criticisms, I agree with the point that there's no value in referring to Castro's comment. With regard to Van Wormer and Frank, the current text simply asserts that their analysis depends on their support for AA. No one has presented any support for that assertion. I don't see how either the endorsement by Castro or the unsourced criticism based on the AA tie adds anything to the report, so I'm deleting both. Also, the material logically belongs in its chronological place, much earlier in the article. I assume it was moved down because someone thought that material unfavorable to Bush should be given less prominence. To avoid an edit war, I won't restore it to its natural place in the chronology, but there must at least be an internal cross-reference. JamesMLane 23:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I say again to delete the entire opinions of both van Wormer and Frank for the same reasons I have said before....not to mention unencyclopedic innuendo of the video of Bush drinking something, and other sensationalistic mumbo jumbo from biased sources such as Salon. I'll concede to the video and some of the rest of the jargon but cannot see how van Wormers and Franks opinions, which only carry weight because they are accredited, can be construed as encyclopedic when their formulation was arrived at beyond the scope of recognized standards normally employed to reach such verdicts. Had they reached these conclusions under the standards accredited by their peers and performed an actual evaluation accordingly and then reached the conclusion, then I would say that their verdicts would be noteworthy. Otherwise it is only here at some insistences because it continues to smear Bush.--MONGO 12:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If van Wormer, while an accredited authority on the subject, is allowed to express her medical diagnosis of Bush without meeting him, doesn't this open the door for anyone with a Ph.D in behavioral psychology and an opinion on Bush to be included in this article? --kizzle 20:21, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. I am sure I can dig up actual evaluations on Bush that show him in a favorable light and they would be factual and noteworthy of recitation, regardless of their favorableness tyo Bush because they would be actual medical diagnosis's, not opinions rendered from afar outside of the scope of normal medical standards.--MONGO 20:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sure his arm is not broken and that he has a healthy liver. However, I'd dispute that his good physical health is anything unexpected, and thus would be significant enough to include. Furthermore, if it is significant, then for purposes of consistency, the same information should be put in articles about the other presidents, unless there is a particular reason that it is significant for Bush and not the ohter presidents.

But let's keep in mind that this is about psychology, not internal medicine. Also, until the distance of rendering, or the scope of standards within the relevant context has been established, no statements based on such premises, not established, are substantiated, by definition. Kevin Baas^talk 02:19, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin that we don't need to report a physical exam unless it yields unexpected results, or addresses a point in controversy. I'd make an exception, however, for restoring the information that he's 6'0" or whatever the number was. It's not hugely important, obviously, but some people would be interested to know his height. (I think the earlier version gave a few different versions, but haggling over a fraction of an inch is going too far.) Is there any reason not to restore this information? JamesMLane 09:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both of you missed my point in it's silliness. I was attempting to suggest that the inclusion of medical and or psychological "analysis" rendered from afar and not done so in a standardized manner typical of "analysis" of such a nature, are silly innuendos that are not encyclopedic, and instead are slanderous leftist POV. I stated that I could find actual Doctors/Therapists reports that say that Bush is this way or that, but they are silly....the van Wormer and Frank jargon are not significant as some might wish them to be, and this is because of the nature under which the evaluations were performed, and the manner in which they were communicated....this isn't really that hard for everyone to understand is it?--MONGO 13:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One possibility is that it's hard for us to understand your point. Another possibility is that we understand your point but that it's hard for you to understand the response. We apparently won't reach agreement on general principles, so we'll just have to go case by case in considering any particular proposed change to the article. JamesMLane 14:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be as simplistic as possible...we have this van Wormer person and this Frank person and there they are, perhaps independently watching some speeches by Bush on t.v., or in person...they look Bush over and based on their background, see similarities between Bush's behavior, his choice of words and a slang term for someone who never "correctly" recovered from alcoholism known as a dry drunk. Okay, that's fine...they have their opinion. Their opinion carries weight because they have credentials in social work, psychiatry or similar. The problem is that these opinions are not founded on an accepted mode of evaluation normal to their fields...ie: standard patient to doctor/therapist evaluation, usually performed in confidence and privately and unless mandatory, not disclosed to the general public. In light of the fact that neither opinion is based on a standardized method of evaluation, their opinion is not scientifically accurate and is unencyclopedic except to those that wish to deliberately portray Bush as having this condition in an effort to cast Bush in a bad light...it is POV. Additionally, van Wormer and Frank have are Democrats and have either made money on publishing left wing jargon of an anti-Bush nature or have written for left wing periodicals that have tendencies toward sensationalism and anti Bush rhetoric. Their opinions are not worthy of Wikipedia standards and are one of the three or four reasons that their continued inclusion will ensure that this article continues to be POV.--MONGO 04:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You say, "Their opinions are not worthy of Wikipedia standards . . . ." Might I trouble you to cite and quote the Wikipedia standards you're invoking? The article doesn't present their opinions as fact. Instead, it gives an accurate report of the undisputed fact that they hold those opinions. I realize that such a truthful report isn't worthy of the MONGO standards, under which the existence of certain opinions is to be suppressed if they are deemed "uncreditible [sic]". I'm not asking you to reiterate the MONGO standard yet again. I'm asking you to justify your assertion concerning the Wikipedia standard. JamesMLane 07:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But, to include something that would be proBush, based on the same unscientific standards would not meet the JamesMLane standards and would be argued against by you and folks of your political persuasion. You state plainly that you are hostile to the right...how can anyone expect you to be neutral here? Wikipedia standard...an effort to be neutral...what part about that can you not understand, James? So what about van Wormer's and frank's opinions...they aren't scientific or accurate due to how they were arrived at...so they are not encyclopedic.--MONGO 04:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me catch up in my responses here. I don't want to distract from the present course of discussion; I find it more productive. I'd just like to note some problems I had with some things MONGO said since my last comment here, just so he understands how what he says is coming off onme, and why.

re: "slanderous leftist POV" I can understand how they were be slanderous if they cannot be substantiated (frankly, I don't know enough about this topic to give my opinion either way). I can also see how it can be considered attributed POV, and no-one is pretending that it is not the POV of the source being attributed. However, the "leftist" part, I don't really understand why that was put. Why is it neccessarily "leftist"? Would it be any different if it was "rightest" or "eastest" or "southest"? Does it being x-est make it more or less POV, or make it POV or not? Does something being POV depend on circumstantial support for a given set of ideas, however indirectly, and irrespective of the merits of those ideas? In sum, why was the word "leftist" used? What role did it have in the argument?

Regarding "and the manner in which they were communicated", that may be hard for me to understand, or maybe I do understand it, and you don't understand why I don't acknowledge this idea. In any case, there is a lack of understanding or misunderstanding somewhere. Let me tell you what I don't understand here: how does the manner in which something is communicated affect whether it is true or false? If someone writes to me "my foot hurts", if they say it out loud, if they just say ouch immediately after hurting it, if they point to it and frown - it doesn't make much difference to me, under all of these circumstances, I will consider it equally likely that their foot hurts. (With the possible exception of pointing and frowning, only because this signal is somewhat ambiguous.) If someone writes to me in morse code, if they publish it in a journal, or if they write it on a crumpled up and dirty napkin in the worst handwritting, I simply don't see how that affects the accuracy of what they communicate. I understand that their could be noise - if it was a loud room or something, or pieces of the paper were missing, and that that could affect the accuracy of the message recieved. But you don't seem to be arguing noise - what are you arguing?

And finally, let me point out that you argued ad hominem circumstantial in perfect form. Kevin Baas^talk 23:59, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

So, does that give me a 10 from the Baas judgement panel..do I win the Gold? Of course, people who edit here that have a pervasive political leaning to one extreme or the other are going to support sensationalistic dogma and wacky innuendo that support their attempts to either uplift or deflate the image of Bush. Naturally.--MONGO 10:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, for your most recent comment, that is more what I'm looking for; that comment has more usefull content to me. (i.e. a lot more of it passes through my bullsh%t filter) I know little about the standard norms and practices involved here, and have heard very little regarding them on this talk page. Thus, so far as I'm concerned, that matter remains unresolved. In any case, I concur with what JamesMLane says: inclusion/exclusion needs to be based on wikipedia standards, whatever those are. If anyone has a problem with those standards, then that should be addressed on the relevant pages. That way, the larger community determines the standards, rather than the local (immediate) community. Kevin Baas^talk 04:13, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

MONGO offers this assertion:

But, to include something that would be proBush, based on the same unscientific standards would not meet the JamesMLane standards and would be argued against by you and folks of your political persuasion.

I note that this personal attack on me is unsupported by any example of appropriate pro-Bush material that I've tried to delete. The unjustified charge prompted me to write a stinging response. Having written it, I've now deleted it. I'm certainly not neutral on the subject of George W. Bush, but I've spent a year on this project trying to improve this and other articles within the NPOV framework. MONGO, if you want to believe that I'm not consistently applying a single standard, you go right ahead and believe it. JamesMLane 06:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is what you wrote above and hence my reason for writing back in kind.... I realize that such a truthful report isn't worthy of the MONGO standards, under which the existence of certain opinions is to be suppressed if they are deemed "uncreditible [sic]". I'm not asking you to reiterate the MONGO standard yet again. I'm asking you to justify your assertion concerning the Wikipedia standard.--MONGO 08:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cited the basis for my criticism (namely, that you're expressly following a personal standard that differs from the Wikipedia standard). You responded with an unsubstantiated assertion. That's not "writing back in kind". JamesMLane 13:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Public Relations

How about a section on how he and his administration interacts with the media? This is always an important part of the presidency, and it's always a good idea to examine the lens as much as those things that one examines when looking through the lens. We could put it in the public perceptions and assesments section. Perhaps we could rename the title PR. And the media relations could replace the alcohol and drug abuse paras (and possibly go at the top instead of bottom), which we seem to agree are disproportionately covered. Kevin Baas^talk 22:22, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Election controversy in the lead section

I moved this discussion from my talk page since this is where it belongs. -- Rhobite 14:25, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

What is your threshold for something being significant enough for mention? Is it based on the empirical world? Is it applied consistently? Is it static?

If it is empirical, static, and applied consistently, then if the 2000 electoral process was irregular enough, in percentage of disputed votes (which would be the relevant empirical measure), to say the 2000 election meets this threshold is to say that the 2004 election meets this threshold, because it was more irregular by that measure (and quite a plethora of other measures).

What is the most factual (i.e. not biased) measure of "significance"? Should it be based on the real, actual, phenomena, or the quality and quantity of reporting of the real actual, phenomena, by select reporting institutions? You say it is not significant enough, but imply be default that the 2000 irregularities were. This seems backwards to me. I am asking you to substantiate your position. Kevin Baas^talk 06:29, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into another argument with you. We're four months down the road and it's time for you to relax your grip on the election controversy article. Wikipedia gives far more placement to this than other mainstream sources. You say this is a deficiency of other sources, I say your accusations against Bush are relatively minor.

I don't recall making any accusations against Bush. And what do accusations against Bush have to do with deficiency of coverage or lack thereof?

The 2004 controversy isn't even close to significant enough to make the lead section. Iraq isn't in the lead section. Social Security isn't in the lead section. Not even September 11th is in the lead section. Yet you manage to shoehorn your little pet theory into the lead section again and again. Please give it up. Rhobite 06:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any theories. I don't know what you are refering to when you say "pet theory".

None of the things you mentioned are in the lead section, not because of their relative significance, but because of issues of relevancy. If they were relevant, then significance would be a factor to consider.

I hope this goes without saying, but we're talking about the lead section of an article about a two-term president. A presidency is an immense, complex topic and it is a disservice to focus on minor details in the lead section. My threshhold of significance for a piece of information to make the lead section can be described in this way: "Pretty damn significant". Rhobite 06:47, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this paragraph completetly. So you consider the fact that the 2000 election was "controversial" (for instance, a court case to try to stop a recount) "Pretty damn significant"? What makes it significant? Was it the recount? Was it the court case? Was it the hanging chads? Was it the infamous florida purge list? There were many irregularities in the 2000 election (though not as many as in the 2004 election), what combinations of irregularities make it significantly different than other elections, so as to warrant the use of the word "controversial", linked to a list of irregularities? Kevin Baas^talk 07:02, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Stop making assumptions. I'm not sure if the 2000 controversy should be there either, although it does have the notable distinction of a Supreme Court case and about 10,000% more media coverage. Unlike you, I'm not making up criteria as I go. Media coverage is a much more reliable indicator of significance than self-invented measures of irregularities and amateurish Excel spreadsheets. Rhobite 07:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy, thaaaaaank you...I love that response.--MONGO 09:45, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have distinguisged between de facto and de jure acceptance. Well then yes, if you're hand is held away from removing the word "controversial" from the section by the implied threat of force, then I can't very say you consider it meets the threshold, and the question of consistentcy doesn't come in to play. It would more be a question of sufficient degree of implied threat of force, than a question of reason. I stand corrected. Perhaps the question would then be regarding the yugoslavian election. Do you consider the irregularities in that election sufficient enough to merit mention in the lead of the articles to the relevant people? (As I understand, the dispute was primarily grounded on the discrepancy between the exit polls and the vote count.)

I think you are using appeal to mainstream media logical fallacy. (j/k -it's a fallacy kizzle just invented to describe the primary appeal to authority logical fallacy used by people who are uninformed about the irregularities or are somewhat informed but don't believe that they happened because the media was silent about them.)

Really, if you want to talk about media coverage, then write an article about media coverage. If a bomb explodes once, and the media plays a tape of the bomb exploding, and repeats that tape five thousand times, the bomb still only exploded once. Likewise, if a bomb explodes five thousand times, but the media only shows it explode the first time, the bomb still exploded five thousand times.

If the media tells me 5,000 times that 5,000 votes are disputed in Florida one election, and, searching for the truth, I discover about 25,000 votes disputed in Florida, then the next election, the media tells me 5 times that "everything went fine", and, searching for the truth, I discover that over 100,000 votes are disputed, I'm going to believe that the first election, at least 25,000 votes are disputed, and the second election, at least 100,000 votes are disputed. Why? Because the media can show you some things, but it can't show you everything. Academics don't watch the local news to do their research. They look in books and browse online internet journals. And if one book says "the back of a lion has a tail, another says the front of a line has a head, and the man on the television says the bottom of the line has 4 feet, they're going to conclude, and rightly so, that a lion has four feet, a head, and a tail.

Do you understand? Kevin Baas^talk 07:34, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

I completely agree with Rhobite — this definitely doesn't merit enough significance to be in the lead paragraph of the article. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but the currently phrasing is blatantly POV anyway. Neilc 08:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You got that right...a vast bulk of the article is POV...as far as the math displayed above... 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 10...and sometimes it only equals 2...the reason is that journalists, researchers and investigators oftentimes cover each others territory and in failing to collaborate, create a bigger number than there usually is. The whole thing about exit polls being even a portion of the argument about irregularities is silly...so what...the exit polls in a number of other states also showed, and in some cases even larger, discrepencies in favor of the the person who actually ended losing the state. Sorry, had to chime in.--MONGO 09:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's the first example, where one bomb explosion is covered 5,000 times. Kevin Baas^talk 07:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I also agree with Rhobite; this is already addressed in the main part of the article. It does not merit being listed in the first paragraph. To me, this is an attempt on the part of Kevin Baas to get increased traffic to his pet 2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities article which, in my humble opinion, is rather NPOV.--BaronLarf 13:19, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf, I have responded on your talk page, as most of your comment is off-topic. Kevin Baas^talk 07:47, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

My comment was posted on Rhobite's talk page, which he then moved here. I think it's quite on-topic; I stated my agreement with him that the 2004 elections controversy does not belong in the opening paragraphs. If you want to cry foul that I have supposedly created an ad hominem attack by speculating on another user's about your motivations for repeatedly re-inserting something that most wikipedians on this talk page don't want there, then go ahead. I did not originally bring up the other article on this talk page, nor should I be blamed for steering the subject off-topic.

Cheers.--BaronLarf 12:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

You have denigrated me, accusing me of pushing POV. I find that offensive. It is an accusation of impropriety, and a circumstantial one at that, and is a violation of the Wikipedia:Civility policy. The first two sentences you wrote were clearly on topic. I did not say that every thing you wrote was off-topic. I claimed that some of what you wrote was, and that was the portion I was responding to. (Obviously, there is no need to respond to the first two sentences, which is simply a statement of your position.) Since we are not discussing me (that kind of discussion would belong on my user talk page, if anywhere), your opinion about me or my motivations, nor are we (in theory) making accusations, and we are not discussing the 2004 irregularites article (any such discussion belongs on the article's talk page. I could move that part of my response there, if you prefer.), and since those parts of your response do not have any logical affect on the issue being discussed (i.e. are non-sequitur), they are off-topic. We are, as the title of this section clearly elucidates, discussing (or trying to discuss) the mention or lack thereof of election irregularities (not controversy, btw - see earlier discussion) in the lead section. Kevin Baas^talk 20:39, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

This has not been discussed. A few people have stated their position and/or made accusations, and I have stated my basic case, and asked people to state theirs. However, no one else has stated their case. They came back with statements of positions and circumstantial accusations. (Which are boringly redundant by now!) Sometimes they even make some petty attacks like "People can use spreadsheet software to examine the canvass reports." Good for them! That's exactly what the D.O.E. does! What the hell is your point? That's what I'm asking. That's what I've been asking for months now. I know each person's positions, and I'm aware of all the accusations we all can make at each other. But you see, I really am not interested in those kinds of things, and I highly doubt the reader would be interested in these things either.

Although I can imagine it is all very fun for some of you to spew invective, this really isn't the appropriate place to do that. This is a forum for serious discussion regarding the content of the article.

So are you ready to have a discussion? Are you ready to substantiate your position with empirical evidence? (This is an encyclopedia, after all.) Are you ready to discuss the facts based on their merits, and make arguments based on sound and valid premises, or do you intend to continue applying logical fallacies and pointless ridicule, ad nauseam? Let me know when you're ready to have a serious discussion. I've been ready for months now and I'm tired of waiting.

I asked a question earlier, what are the empirical criteria? (not media coverage, that's logical fallacy!) Kevin Baas^talk 07:32, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to let you drag me into another pointless political debate. Please respect the consensus we've established here. Thank you. Rhobite 07:38, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've never dragged you into any political debates. I have, in accordance with wikipedia policy, opened a discussion regarding the criteria for inclusion of content on a page, empirical facts, and how they correspond in a particular case. However, as discussed above, I haven't had any takers on the discussion. Being that there has been no real discussion, there cannot be a consensus. Remember, wikipedia is not a democracy. (see what wikipedia is not) Kevin Baas^talk 07:45, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

It's also not a forum for you to spout patronizing bullshit and lecture everyone else about how they are not arguing properly. We did have this whole argument four months ago when I took you to task for several erroneous and opinionated statements you were adding to one of the election controversy articles. I'm not one to go in circles - pick up the archive and start reading. Rhobite 07:53, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you are refering to regarding the articles. I think you are making it up to attack my character (ad hominem abusive) - I think this because I am confident about my memory, I do not remember engaging with anyone in that manner on those articles, and because you appear to be putting it in a place where an argument should be, and using it for rhetorical purposes. In any case, it's also logical irrelevant, besides being logically impossible - how could we have a dispute about the content of one article, when that dispute is about the content of another article? In any case, please stay on topic. I would really like to discuss this. Kevin Baas^talk 08:02, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Let's say you're wrong Kevin...how can you explain why, with the media hoping for a controversy so all the little journalists can go around and make a name for themselves by finding the big story, have yet to make this primetime fodder plastered all over the television? Logical falacy is ridiculous...the facts are that if this was true, the traditionally left wing media would have eaten it up and puked their guts out all over our televisions and the newspapers...but they didn't! I say we now have a consensus again against your incorporation of this mythology.--MONGO 07:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, let's look at your premises. Firstly, you're calling a speculation a fact. Secondly, you're using that "fact" to purportedly disprove a whole plethora of empirical facts that, although supposedly disproven, are still as present and universally verifiable as ever. Then you assume, if I am getting you correctly, that the media, such as FOX news is biased to the left - not substantiated. There are a few media sources that are "traditionally left wing", if you want to use the dichotomy left-right, such as Air America Radio, who reported the sh*t out of this. There was CSPAN, which reported all of the public congressional hearings in ohio and congressional vote objection, but I wouldn't call that left wing media. Bla bla bla... There's a little tidbit in the timeline section where some political dude (I forget his name) gave his opinion why the media wasn't reporting: he felt it was most likely because kerry conceded. This makes a lot of sense to me. In any case, there's a section in the article about the media not reporting this, which is a significant thing in that it demands explanation. However, the explanation that the stuff in the article didn't happen, sorry, just doesn't hold. They don't cancel each-other out like protons and anti-protons. So, can we talk about what actually happened, or do you still want to talk about television? Kevin Baas^talk 08:20, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Ah, here it is. Look, you snidely told me to "see logic"! Tsk tsk, Kevin, that's an ad hominem attack. Someone with such a penchant for reciting lists of logical fallacies should know better. I'm really done with this argument this time, I swear. Rhobite 08:12, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I admit it was patronizing. I was getting quite frustrated with communicating with you, I wasn't able to get you to acknowledge a simple logical argument that I made rather explicit. I apologize for this comment. It's not a logical fallacy, thou - the "see logic" is not even logical argument (for instance, it doesn't have any premises or a conclusion). Well thank you for pointing that out to me. How could I have better communicated my argument to you? Kevin Baas^talk 08:20, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Seriously, is anyone ready to discuss this? Kevin Baas^talk 19:07, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

What else is there to discuss? You said that media coverage was not a valid criteria for figuring out what to feature in the lead section. So I demonstrated that the claims of election controversy theorists are not statistically sound. I think I've shown both rationally and empirically that this controversy shouldn't be in the lead section. I guess at this point we could take a vote, if you insist. I can't think of anything else. Rhobite 23:49, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Creation of Section on Iraq War

The Iraq war is the main reason Bush is disputed internationally. Some people think it justified and necessary for the security of the world, others simply call it a crime. I propose to create a special section on the war, treating it in greater detail. As the article stands, the war seems to be just a feature of Bush's foreign policy. That means that its importance is totally ignored. It led to an international crisis unprecedented for decades, and split the world (continues to split it, I think). The war is certainly one of those points which will always be discussed in regard to Bush's precidency. That makes it much more important than any minor topics of legislation, alleged drug abuse and stuff like that, which tends to be seen as trivial by later generations. --Fountaindyke 01:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The current article has four paragraphs on Iraq, including wikilinks to 2003 Invasion of Iraq and other articles with more detail. It also characterizes the war as "extremely divisive", noting the opposition of U.S. allies and the condemnation by Kofi Annan. That seems to me to be about the right level of detail for this article. We have to cover Bush's entire personal biography plus a summary of key points of his presidency. If you want to elaborate on the international crisis, the additional detail should go in one of the other articles. JamesMLane 11:24, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The topic isn't treated adequately, however. And other topics aren't, either. The Iraq war (as well as some other decisions of the Bush administration, like the Kyoto protocol or ABM treaty decisions) might well turn out to be decisive for world history. That certainly can't be said for the question if Bush drank alcohol which is discussed at utmost length in this article. The questions mentioned belong to Bush and his presidency, and that's what this article's about. They shouldn't be delegated to another article.

Let me state my case clearly: A lot of people in the U.S., Europe and the entire world think that the Iraq war was a severe crime. They certainly might be wrong; my own opinion is more differentiated, too. But they really think it and argue it. Their opinion cannot be totally ignored. In this article, it is ignored because their arguments are not given. It's not enough to state that there was opposition to the war and to cite Kofi Annan. The legal status of the war itself has to be determined, and the question if Bush is responsible for it; if he was, it could make him a criminal before international law.

--Fountaindyke 15:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You say a lot of people...a lot of people also think it was the right thing to do. As far as being a severe crime that's a big stretch...if the "rest of the world" believe that the continued empowerment of a murderous dictator is okay, then they are short sighted. I think the best thing that has happened to Iraq in at least 50 years was the invasion...war crimes...it would have been a crime of humanity to allow Saddam to continue in power any longer. I think that these issues have been covered well in associated articles that are linked to this one but add whatever you wish of course.--MONGO 20:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, you are a case in point of the divisiveness. Some people would look at the divisiness and claim they're right. Some people would look at it and realize that everyone in the world has an equally valid point of view. Some people would be interested in learning about those povs, and what facts and principles they are based on. Some people will take it a step further and reconcile the different facts and principles, and make statements, firstly, that don't offend. (For instance, they would not call an entire population of people "short sighted", even if that didn't violate the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy.)), and secondly that actually address the premises, instead shouting off the same concerns and appeals to emotion that have already been heard and fully understood. They would make statements that cohere with the facts and with valid principles, even if it doesn't support their pov, because they realize that things aren't really that simple, but they are very serious, and that its therefore an imperative of responsibility that they search for the facts, irrespective of their pov. Each person has a piece, the task is to put the pieces together. "No stream is large and copious of itself, but is fed and guided by so many tributary currents." -Nietzsche

Kevin Baas^talk 22:07, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

We were discussing whether there should be more information on the Iraq Warin this article or in a separate article..I agree with the separate article and obvious link from this article...but to create a section here which details this polarized subject matter would, in all liklihood, keep this article from ever becoming neutral. As yours and mine viewpoints would be on opposite sides of the debate.--MONGO 12:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It would take too much time to go over all the problems I have with your argumentation, so let me just put it this way: I see no reason why something that is presented in a NPOV manner in other articles cannot be presented in a NPOV manner here. Kevin Baas^talk 22:58, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

With all due respect, Kevin Baas I believe that MONGO in this instance was just replying with his opinions, just as Fountaindyke gave his. Let's try not to descend into personal attacks here and deal with the question at hand.

I think that both MONGO and Fountaindyke would agree that a discussion on Bush and the invasion of Iraq is far more important than the lengthly paragraphs on drug abuse allegations, national guard records, etc. (I disagree with Fountaindyke's assertation that legislation is minor, however.)

This article, I believe, should be basically a summary of other articles which should be written (and some that are) about specific aspects of Bush's presidency and life. There is no way that it could be comprehensive and still be a manageable size. Creating an article about Bush and his role in the Iraq invasion shouldn't be seen as relegating the information to a seperate article; rather it should be seen as allowing more space for a lengthy and fair description. I agree with JamesMLane.

In summary, I am in favor of creating a seperate article dealing with Bush and the Iraq invasion, with a prominent link from this article.--BaronLarf 22:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

As there may be people in this forum that are of the pov that he called "short sighted", and they are likely to be offended, or "not appreciate" that statement, it violates the policy. Personal attacks are usually part of someone's pov; they generally believe them. With respect to that comment as a pov, I reserve the right, and do not consider it indecent, to not respect aspects of a pov that disrespect other people and/or other pov's. If nothing else, let it be for the benefit of MONGO's knowledge that that aspect of his pov is not respected by me. In all other respects, I agree without comment with what BaronLarf has written. And FWIW, I agree w/what he thinks MONGO and Fountaindyke agree on. Kevin Baas^talk 22:49, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Creating a new article is appropriate when there's material that can't reasonably be incorporated in an existing article. Further detail about Bush and Iraq doesn't belong in this article, but I'm not convinced that it needs its own article. Why isn't 2003 Invasion of Iraq an appropriate place? The POV that the invasion was a war crime and that Bush (under the Nuremberg precedent) is guilty of waging aggressive war, and the POV that the invasion was the best thing to happen in Iraq in 50 years, could both be reported within that existing article. JamesMLane 05:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree with JML. It would seem that this new proposed separate article would be duplicating a significant amount of the material in 2003 Invasion of Iraq. --kizzle 07:56, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the section on Iraq in this article, I've found that it does not proportionally represent the information in the Bush foreign policy and iraq-related articles. Kevin Baas^talk 23:38, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

I disagree that I just gave a pov statement, as is implied in some commentaries. In fact, the only sentence that was pov was the one where I spoke about my own opinion. It's not pov to point to the fact that there are people who make some allegations, and that the validity of these allegations should be checked.

Legal status is something which is clear-cut and simple. Of course, no law is "right"; it's always man-made, so that we can't determine some absolute (moral) truth, just the status of Bush, the government and the war in question before international law. My suggestion was just that we deal with the facts. Additionally, of course, there may be as much opinions on the matter as anyone likes! I'm all for that.

Also, I'm really not sure as to the legal status of the war. But whatever it is, it's not just a further opinion. MONGO should not argue why the war was good. He should argue why the laws, if they forbid the war, are bad. It's a strange opinion that somebody can do everything he/she wants just because a case can be made for it! For most things that ever happened a case can be made, if you look at them from the right perspective. The death of 50.000 - 100.000 people is not just one of those small violations where common sense tells us we can ignore the law, like crossing the street without waiting for green when no car is coming.

--Fountaindyke 10:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My point was that I see that you would possibly argue against the war while I would argue in favor of the war and that litigation would make this article less neutral. However, if you wish to link to an outside article, then we can go there and discuss the moralities, legalities and full implications on the events.--MONGO 12:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No original research, No point of view. (morality is a pov.) "Full implications" is also speculative and pov. I don't how statements regarding the law can possibly violate NPOV policy. If all of what you say is really your point, then you are on the wrong website. Please read the policy pages thouroghly. Kevin Baas^talk 20:56, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Discuss is what I said, and that would mean that this would occur in the discussion pages, not in the body of the article on such a topic. Kevin, you write the book on POV! We were discussing whether there needs to be more information in the article about the 2003 liberation of Iraq etc....I say no. I say fine to putting it elsewhere and linking it from this article...my goal is to get this article to be neutral...a lofty challenge I might say at that.--MONGO 08:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly resent the statement "You write the book on POV!". I do not appreciate it. I have written much on NPOV in the talk pages. I have not expressed my opinion in any articles. I have done my best to use objective criteria for filtering and protecting against POV, and have encouraged others to do the same. For example, I have and will continue to insist that information must be proportionally represented, significant and relevant, strictly factual, etc. When these mechanisms are applied consistently, they filter out a lot of POV. If these mechanisms appear to favor a POV at times, or do not produce material that supports a given POV, that is by no fault of their design. I have expressed and used these criteria quite frequently for the long time I have contributed to Wikipedia, and have never encountered any disagreement regarding them, though I have encountered support of them.

However, I agree with BaronLoft that we should not descend into personal attacks. It is unproductive. You are free - you are encouraged - to address any reservations or qualms you have with any of my edits and/or arguments based on their specific merits and logical premises(pl?). That is productive, and will more effectively reveal to me any consistent flaws in them.

Re: "my goal is to get this article to be neutral...a lofty challenge I might say at that." I think everyone here has that goal, and recognizes, as you do, that it is, and will always be, a lofty challenge. As it is often a challenge for us to understand each other here, and to reconcile our different knowledges.

We all seem to be in agreement that the current size of the Iraq section in this article is roughly proportional. We also seem to be in agreement that it should, as it is, be linked to a more comprehensive article or articles. And I'm sure we are all in agreement (as I know both you and me are), that we need to put our heads together to try to make it more npov.

To me, this means that it should proportionally represent the significant and relevant facts. For instance, assuming that the more comprehensive articles are proportionally representative, one might take every fifth sentence from it, string them together, and do some semantic fixes to make sure it still flows and coheres, and that the concepts are preserved as clearly as the original. That is, to isometrically "compress" the information, such that the section in this article is a maximum cross-entropy simulation of the full content. Kevin Baas^talk 22:58, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with what Fountaindyke has just said. In fact, I feel that he has clearly and articulately expressed exactly what I have been struggling to find a way to express. Kevin Baas^talk 06:35, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

And regarding "I'm really not sure as to the legal status of the war.", the relevant international laws are Article2(4), 2(7), 51, and Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, and the relevant U.S. law concerning international law is Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. The nature of any reaonable law is to be unambiguous, as Norbert Weiner has elaborated on in his book "Cybernetics and Society", so that no individual may be decieved as to their rights or the just protection of them. Also, American law is based on Roman law, esp. Cicero, the most influential Roman lawyer. Also relevant is the philosophy of law. Kevin Baas^talk 11:44, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Oh, and the relevant U.S. law regarding the president and laws in general is listed under the duties of the president in the Constitution, Article 2, Section 3: "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." (emphasis added). Kevin Baas^talk 21:04, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this whole section? I see no reason for removing it. At least it should have been stored in Archive 19. --Fountaindyke 21:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for a summary

As a fanatical supporter of Wikipedia, but someone who's had nothing to do with this article, here is my perspective. It seems a shame that such an important article (one which must be one of the most popular on the site), in the biggest encyclopedia project on the net, should be disputed in its neutrality. This might lend an air of unreliability to the whole project (though I concede that it might do the opposite, by being open about neutrality problems). I'm sure that there are many valid issues raised in these (many) pages, but short of taking the next two weeks off work, I won't have time to read through the whole lot. So could someone perhaps sum up the outstanding major issues which prevent the neutrality tag being removed? Martpol 09:40, 18 Mar 2005

Here are my issues.

1)The entire article seems to focus on the negative, or negative allegations.

Here is seriously how the article reads to me:

Bush drinks and drives, Bush's military service controversy, Bush allegedly commits insider trading, Bush kills to many people, Bush tiptoes out of revealing drunken driving, Bush wins in 2000 but victory is "disputed by many," Bush hurts the environment, Bush puts up illegal steel tarrif, Bush invades Afghanistan but the elections there are flawed, scientists criticize Bush's new missle defense proposals, Bush says there are WMD in Iraq but there aren't, Bush invades Iraq and the world protests, Bush stubbornly refuses to admit he is wrong, Bush's political ideology (please see (link) this article for a critics view of it), Bush hates gays, Bush snubs blacks, Bush's tax cuts cause a huge deficit, Bush spends too much on defense, Bush's No Child Left Behind Act doesn't do anything, Bush's stance on stem-cell research, Bush hurts the environment, Bush appoints war criminals and likes nepotism, Europe hates Bush but Nigeria likes him (and don't forget Poland), Bush likes alcohol and drugs.

Where are the perceived positives?

2)The article spends 8 sizable paragraphs discussing Bush's alleged alcohol and drug abuse. Is this much really necessary? Why isn't all of this in a separate article, like the military allegations?

3)The Pet Goat picture

4)The sources throughout the article, which include Counterpunch, Salon.com (at least 5 times) House of Bush, House of Saud, The Nation, "Superannuated Pedagogue" (an anti-Bush blog), VDare.com, Fortunate Son, etc. These are all horribly biased, anti-Bush sources. And I'm not leaving out biased conservative sources (like National Review or the American Spectator) — they are not there.

That's a quick summary of my NPOV objections. --BaronLarf 16:10, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

The pet goat picture was discussed not so long ago and it was agreed that it should stay however I had deep reservations about that one...it was discussed as to where the picture originated and some linked it the film Fahrenheit 9/11 and some didn't...if it isn't from that movie, then why the heck is the same picture displayed in the article about the movie??????Fahrenheit 9/11.--MONGO 12:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's the problem, do we throw out substantiated evidence simply because it comes from a source that has a pattern of taking one side? House of Bush, House of Saud while coming from a liberal author, should not be simply dismissed. Please, if you would like to either add information which would help the reader view Bush in a better light without concluding it yourself, or find sourced critques of the current information, then it would help this article out a lot. And btw, I'm going to copy that paragraph summary of Bush's term into my AIM profile, I couldn't have said it any better ;) --66.27.65.41 23:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Craig Unger's book is distortion to an extreme...it may not need to be dismissed, but it certainly doesn't qualify as educational or worthy of a full paragraph of recital in this article.--MONGO 12:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you're objecting under the assumption of what's called "the gray fallacy". Kevin Baas^talk 19:02, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I think some of your specific objections have merit in-and-of themselves. Kevin Baas^talk 19:05, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Labeling my objections does not make them more or less valid. I'm not stating that we need to look for a wishy-washy article, just that both sides need to be represented fairly and, in some cases, shouldn't be represented to such a great extent at all.--BaronLarf 20:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean to "label your objections." My first response was a response only to your first objection, and fine, I'll accept the term "labeling" insofar as I was labelling it "the gray fallacy": assuming that a NPOV presentation of the facts is going to make each pov seem equally valid. The facts more be percieved as more flattering than unflattering, or vice-versa, but this is no objection to them. And you are right, my labeling does not make that objection more or less valid. The relative validity of it does.

In order to circumvent the gray fallacy, we need to examine the article in it's particulars. (like Plato) Examples of this are the objections that follow your first. The first two of which (2 & 3), there has already been some discussion about. I, as you, would like to see more discussion about these objections. I feel that they are legitimate. Kevin Baas^talk 20:54, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding "What are the percieved positives?" - Frankly, that's something that I'm rather curious about, myself. Kevin Baas^talk 20:55, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. I'll see what (if anything) I can contribute. -- Martpol 22:05, 18 Mar 2005

The discussion of the "disputed" tag often went in the direction of things being deleted. In my opinion, this would be very contrary to Wiki principles. Why don't the people who dispute the article simply add what they think should be added? The article would maybe get much longer, but then, everyone could judge for himself/herself what to think! No information and no opinion which is considered informative by SOME should be left out, even if others don't like it.

That being done, the "disputed" tag could be removed. --Fountaindyke 13:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)