Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Slight modification in article

I changed the link for "Fortunate Son" into a more specific link, so as not to confuse the Bush biography with the Lewis Puller autobiography or the CCR song. Wikipedia user Orville Eastland

Vote on Drug and alcohol section

I believe that the following passages are sufficient for identifying that the subject George Bush did, in all liklihood, abuse alcohol and participated in drug use at some time in his past. The remainder of the items in the section seem to me to be poor choices for this article as they fail to provide anything other than opinions. I won't futher detail my reasons for why I think the items I wish to see eliminated should be so as I think I have and others have made this clear. This is all I think the section should read....unless other more factual issues come to light.

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 ([36] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bushtext072599.htm), [37] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072599.htm), [38] (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/)).

Bush spokeswoman Mindy Tucker reported in 1999 that Bush said he had not used illegal drugs at any time since 1974 [39] (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/08/19/president.2000/bush.drug/). Taped recordings (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/) of a conversation with an old friend and author, Doug Wead, however, suggest Bush did use the illegal drug marijuana at some time in his past. In the taped recordings, Bush explains his refusal to answer questions about whether he took marijuana. “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 Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."''

Those who wish to see only the abovementioned passages vote below:

--MONGO 05:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Those that wish to see the Wormer, Hatfield and Frank passages included vote below:

These proposed edits are a fine with me so long as there is a link provided to a subarticle with any further details on writing on this topic from less-known/unknown scholars. Because if the pattern of the subarticle isn't established, this section will just start snowballing into a potluck again as it apparently did over the last month or two.--67.101.67.167 14:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Structuring a vote

A vote is usually unhelpful unless there's some prior discussion of the alternatives being voted on. The trouble with asking people if they want "to see the Wormer, Hatfield and Frank passages included" is that there have been multiple versions of those passages. It appears that what you don't care about the differences among those versions; you want all reference to any of those three critics and their views removed (including, presumably, references that don't name them). If that's your view, then a poll might usefully be along the lines of: Alternative 1 - remove all such references; Alternative 2 - present those views in NPOV fashion, i.e. without adopting them. That would leave open the question of how the points are to be presented if they're included. JamesMLane 06:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't that what I just did? If the vote after a few days is in favor of including the Womer, Frank and Hatfield stuff we can then discuss that then. Please start a new heading for anymore lengthy commentary, just vote yea or nay. It was nice of me to invite you though wasn't it?--MONGO 06:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not biting on this either. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not...what are you afraid of? I am just trying to find a way to get a consensus..once that is reached, I'll shut up. Please vote...every vote counts.--MONGO 06:30,

16 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: alchy and drug, I've been satisfied with that section, though I haven't seen any recent changes to it as of late if there have been. After a brief perusal of the above, I don't see anything objectionable, thou i haven't compared it with the current. Perhaps a "side-by-side" comparison might work better?

Re: psychology: Though IMHO, the info in the psychology section provides explains a lot of odd things in Bush's behaivor as president, the 2003 invasion of Iraq being no small part of what I'm refering to. It all makes a lot more sense to me, given these analysies, and I haven't seen any other analysies that do a comparable job at making sense out all of this, nonetheless any other analysies whatsoever. Frankly, I haven't seen a better explanation for what's happened in the past 4 years. In any case, I've laregely stayed out of the discussion because I haven't been able to form a strong opinion on the matter. But I can say this much: I haven't seen a presentation of this that I have ben satisfied with, and I'm not convinced that the info we have is substantial enough to merit inclusion, though I am keeping it in consideration. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 06:30, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Kevin, vote yea or nay and discuss down here not up there. Thanks.--MONGO 06:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes are not a viable way to break a deadlock. Articles should emerge from consensus, that is a situation where everyone finds the version acceptable (ideally, mostly everyone in practice). Voting has the negative effects of polarising the dabate, is subject to filibustering, and is generally a way to enforce a solution which would not achieve consensu, leaving sometimes huge minorities of the users frustrated. If everybody is not agreed with a version, it means that either it should be worked on more, or that some people need to be explained the reasons for it. Rama 07:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes are a viable way to establish a consensus...--MONGO 07:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously not. There would be a consensus ony if everybody voted the same thing, the what would have established the consensus in such a case is the preceeding negociations, not the vote. Rama 07:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached as evidenced by the edit wars over the issues...a vote would allow a baseline from which to then proceed. If, the voting favors the inclusion of the POV opinions, then we can begin to discuss how to make them as NPOV as possible. So far the vote is one to nothing in favor of deletion.--MONGO 07:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"were less impressed"

I like the change from "were less impressed" to "disagreed with his analysis". This was a case of my British taste for rhetorical understatement leading to ambiguous wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you...none of it would be necessary if the original passage didn't exist to begin with.--MONGO 08:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That argument could be applied to any piece of editing. Delete the piece that needs editing and you solve the (or at least a) problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I've tried that but instead requested a voting consensus...you were even invited dispite my knowing that you will vote against my proposal.--MONGO 08:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, how many times was this goatsed?

Well?

Not very often. Hitler seemed to get much more of a workout than goatse. I confess, though, that I haven't paid much attention to the exact content of the vandalisms. JamesMLane 00:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen goatse used on this page. James is correct that Hitler has been a vandal favorite, and Mao ranks a close second, I think. 95% of the time, though, vandalism in this page is just text that is simply anti-American or suggests that Bush is something unpleasant (a Nazi, not intelligent, etc.). It would be an interesting statistic to collect if somebody was bored enough. – ClockworkSoul 00:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Van Wormer II

I objected above to the inclusion of the Van Wormer para, and none of my objections have been addressed by the inclusion camp. I will reiterate and expand here:

(1) the argument is misattributed to an Irish Times piece in 2003, this reference predates that by 1 year: [1] (October 11, 2002). (2) while she may be an expert in addiction and recovery or social work, she is not an expert in diagnosis of post-addiction syndrome in people she hasn't examined. (3) her argument itself is preposterously illogical, as noted above (a) begging the question, (b) making assumptions about his traits that are not objective or universally held, (c) totally nonspecific & subjective criteria to begin with, (d) implying some basis for causality between alcohol use and the traits she claims he has.

Finally, here are the traits she ascribes to GWB in the Counterpunch article- she says he has them, I say he doesn't. (Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity Grandiose behavior A rigid, judgmental outlook Impatience Childish behavior Irresponsible behavior Irrational rationalization Projection Overreaction) I also say I have them, and TonySidaway has them, and Kizzle has them, and MONGO has them. And JamesMLane has them. And frankly, Van Wormer seems to have them too, so maybe we should add "By her own criteria, Van Wormer also exhibits 8 of 8 of these traits, making her equally likely to be a dry drunk." So I guess that proves we're all recovering alcoholics, right? And don't bother denying that you have them. It's my expert opinion that you all show these traits. If you want to disagree, you can add a sentence saying "some people disagree that (your name) exhibits these traits, and Kaisershatner has never actually met (me)."

I think the compromise offered by MONGO makes a lot of sense. Not even the GWB supporters here are arguing to delete mention of his admitted alcohol/drug use. The article should (and does) cover that. The VW piece adds....nothing but the opinion of someone who doesn't like him.

Cheers, Kaisershatner 13:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If the piece had just appeared on CounterPunch, I would not support its inclusion on the article (I questioned it when I encountered it several months ago). I only support its inclusion because it was published in the Irish national newspaper of reference. I don't agree with Van Wormer in the least, I think she's out to lunch, but hers is a significant prominently published opinion made by a published professional qualified in the field. My opinion of her doesn't count; by purely objective criteria her opinion should eb included. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

While Van Wormer may deserve an article of her own, I don't believe the actual public impact Van Wormer's piece had (which is extremely small) justifies inclusion in Bush's main article. So anyone who got a degree and published their opinion in any newspaper worldwide should be on Bush's page? --kizzle 16:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your objection is. I've clearly identified Van Wormer as a published professional who had her opinion of Bush's behavior, based on her professional experience in her field of competence, published in a national newspaper of reference. This is a very, very unusual thing, though there have been precedents, such as the campaign against Goldwater (which resulted in Goldwater successfully suing the American Psychiatric Association, and led to the APA rule that says Justin Frank's book is unethical).

There were also similar statements about Clinton's philandering and untruthfulness ("The Clinton Syndrome: The President and the Self-Destructive Nature of Sexual Addiction,"), and Clinton's biographer David Maraniss consulted psychiatrists, amongst others, to try to understand Clinton (In Clinton, a Past That's Ever Prologue). Now inasmuch as the existence of such pop psychology works licenses laypeople to think in terms of a sex-addicted President or (in Bush's case) a President who is an "untreated alcoholic" or "dry drunk", they do have an impact on public discourse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand his objection. And I agree; put it in a subarticle. A whole paragraph on this in the main article is contributing to the rambling nature of this beast. As a matter of fact, I think this entire discussion, about this same report, was carried on several months ago. Ultimately we decided to take the details out of the main article. Give Van Wormer a sentence and then leave the rest for a detailed article specifically on Bush's confirmed and alleged substance abuse tendencies. --67.101.67.167 18:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The Van Wormer piece is about *BUSH*. This is the article about Bush. Therefore the Van Wormer piece belongs in this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are missing the argument. Is anyone saying the piece is not about Bush? No. The point people are making is that it's a fairly unknown and in any case weakly backed writing, so it doesn't merit a whole paragraph in the main article. It *might* merit a sentence's worth with a link. Do you understand now?--67.101.67.167 01:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it should all go away. The article is POV in a lot of other areas as well...I see no reason that POV opinions based on diagnosis from afar have any relevance here. I don't even agree with a link...a seperate article perhaps, but not a link to it. I think, with all due respect to Sidaway that he was the original editor that added all three items I question and he doesn't want to withdraw his edits...along with, of course, a number of other people.--MONGO 23:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, we've been through this a number of times before. Reporting the *fact* that a person has a negative opinion about Bush or claims to have evidence that casts Bush in a negative light is *not* POV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And on a factual point, I did not add any of the three pieces. And it's not as if they're kept there because of me either. I went away in late February and come back in mid-May. All three were still there, over two months later. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong...I even removed the NPOV tag when I saw that someone had deleted them...I also distinctly remember you stating that you were not going to put them back in a month or two ago. I repeat that the incorporation of them is POV and the issues why should be clear to a man of your intellect.--MONGO 01:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying is wrong. I really, really don't understand why you think incorporation of the pieces in their current form is POV, so don't appeal to my intellect--either I haven't got one or you're wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to start thinking the former may be true.--MONGO 03:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

TMorrow05: Why is it that when I tried to access this page through the "Search" function it led me to an entry marked "Terrorist"? And another thing, why is it that all the books in the "See Also" version are all anti-Bush and are mostly if not all hearsay and slander?

A vandal had deleted the entire contents and replaced it with a redirect to Terrorist. You happened to try to access the page during the four minutes or so from the time of that vandalism to the time it was reverted. Welcome to one of the most frequently vandalized articles on Wikipedia. The New York Times even ran this article about the phenomenon. As for your other question, there are no books in the "See also" section. You probably mean "Further reading", where I see several pro-Bush books. Also note the huge number of links to Bush's speeches. At some point, the "External links" section was completely purged of anything except what came from Bush or his handlers. JamesMLane 01:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote For Drugs! - 1 week limit

If any of these pass, we'll then discuss whether to limit to a sentence or a brief paragraph. --kizzle 23:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

3 days left. Anyone else who has an opinion, please participate in the summarization. And be aware that the discussion and voting so far has definitely trended towards removal/relgation to subarticle for some of these items.

Is this poll advertised anywhere? A total of 5 voters will never give you any worthwhile result. - Tεxτurε 21:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Keep Hatfield in some form (paragraph/sentence)

Yes

--kizzle 23:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

--67.101.67.167 23:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

--Gzuckier 14:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No

--MONGO 23:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

--Keep his book in "further reading" and that's it Wgfinley 03:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Keep Van Wormer in some form (paragraph/sentence)

Yes

--Gzuckier 14:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No

--kizzle 23:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

--67.101.67.167 23:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

--MONGO 23:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

--Wgfinley 03:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Keep Frank mention in some form (paragraph/sentence)

Yes

--67.101.67.167 23:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

--Gzuckier 14:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No

--kizzle 23:23, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

--MONGO 23:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Wgfinley 03:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Hatfield's book provides no proof. Just opinion. It is a rather strong accusation to not base it on proof. Where is the witness to said instances such as Karl Rove et al to substantiate it?--MONGO 23:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You're still acting as if Hatfield's book is being treated as factual. It isn't. We describe his claims, Bush's response, and the circumstances of publication, Hatfield's background, etc. The reader then knows these facts, and how to find out more, and can investigate and make his mind up. This is how NPOV works. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Protecting this is not NPOV, it is POV. Obviously there are serious challenges to the quality control we perform as editors if we don't act appropriately in creating a neutral treatise of the subject. With all due respect I am surprised you see these items as having any merit.--MONGO 01:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are you surprised? On the MONGOpedia, I gather that notable opinions are censored out if MONGO considers them poorly substantiated. Here on Wikipedia, however, the policy is different. If you're surprised that other editors are following Wikipedia policy, it's because you haven't really read any of several posts, with links, in which the point has been carefully explained to you. JamesMLane 09:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The poll, and 67.101.67.167's odd claim

I am opposed to the concept of voting on whether to remove factual NPOV information relevant to a subject from an article, so I'm not going to participate in the poll.

Selection of what factual NPOV information relevant to a subject from an article is a necessary task, we shouldn't have everything ever written about Bush on the main page... I'd be open to discussion about a drug use subarticle, as I rarely like to remove information altogether, but I don't like the inclusion on the main page as it is. --kizzle 02:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by 67.101.67.167's claim that there was a discussion a few months ago and a decision to remove Van Wormer. Well this didn't happen while I was editing, but I thought it was possible that it had happened while I was away from this article between around Feb 23 and May 11. But I checked, and it seems that it was present after MONGO edits on Feb 28, April 1 and May 1. So the claim seems a bit far-fetched. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If you're still curious, it would have been late March, early April. I can't say exactly because the page history doesn't go back that far. Maybe you can catch it in someone's contribution history if you care to. Have a blast. --67.101.67.167 01:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, here is my discussion about why I removed the tag Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_21#POV_tag_removed and it was because the issues regarding Wormer, Hatfield and Frank were not present in the article at that time.--MONGO 01:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I had a look in the archives for this talk page. No luck. As I said, April 1 after a MONGO edit all three sections were there. Same for a MONGO edit April 3. Same for a MONGO edit on April 6. Same story for April 8. April 11 MONGO tried to remove everything except two paragraphs from Alcohol and Drug Use. The deletions didn't take. Mid-to-late April there were sporadic attempts by some editors to remove anything critical of Bush from the article. Didn't take. All three were back by May 1. These things happen. Making concerted attempts to remove factual NPOV material rarely works for long, --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Remove anything critical of Bush would mean shortening this article by 50%. I don't see much evidence that anyone has tried to do this.--MONGO 02:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And here is the edit [[2]]in which I removed the tag due to the lack of the POV silliness we have been argueing about.--MONGO 02:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

MONGO what you seem to be referring to is the brief period in which you and one or two other people attempted to butcher the article, removing practically all detailed discussion of Bush's alcohol and alleged drug use. It didn't last. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't take it out...I found it that way...--MONGO 02:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You certainly removed Van Wormer. Someone else removed another bit. Shame on you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Yes, I did previously, but not immediately prior to removing the NPOV tag.--MONGO 02:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to think I should have never tried to be helpful by giving a timeframe... Now we've got a page's worth of discussion re. exactly *when* something happened 3 months ago, rather than discussing what the *content* of the argument is... Tony, I am sure everyone appreciates the hard work you are putting in to this article. But you may be missing the forest for the trees because of all the work you've put in. You may want to ask yourself if you are really *listening* to the *content* of what other people are saying about the structure, vision, and length of this article.--67.101.67.167 03:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Lovely

Tony Sidaway has decided that drug and alcohol section should be moved back to near the beginning of the article and then decided it is NPOV to rename it the "irresponsible Youth" section. He also feels that it is NPOV to expand on the issue regarding the section about neoconservatives now filling the void between Bush's ears with their pearls of wisdom (as if he has nothing else influencing him) and to remind us that it is they that acted with reckless abandon when deciding to invade Iraq. As I grit my teeth, I state that I think Sidaway is acting in bad faith with this and I say this because I know he is a better man than this.--MONGO 02:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well the section is biographical in nature--it's about a period in George W. Bush's life. It was originally there and somehow it was misfiled into the "public perception" section. The title "irresponsible youth", using Bush's words, is better than "Alcohol and drug use" because we really have no good evidence that Bush used drugs.

The text you have deleted from the paragraph on NPAC is part of the following paragraph (deleted phrase in italics).

There is some evidence that Bush's foreign policy is heavily influenced by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC). In 1998, for instance, PNAC wrote to then President Bill Clinton saying "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council" urging the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Many members of PNAC later had prominent positions in the Bush administration which invaded Iraq in the face of opposition from other permanent members of the Security Council.

The key phrase here is the quote: "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council". The phrase that you deleted shows that this statement predicts precisely the kind of situation in which PNAC thought the USA should take action without Security Council support. This suggests that PNAC's unilateralist thinking strongly influenced the administration.

To remove the reference to the circumstances of the Iraq invasion is to miss the point.

You say I have chosen "to remind us that it is they that acted with reckless abandon when deciding to invade Iraq". I have done nothing of the sort.

You write:

As I grit my teeth, I state that I think Sidaway is acting in bad faith with this and I say this because I know he is a better man than this.

MONGO, you're going to have to get used to the fact that a man you believe to be intelligent can disagree with you. Indeed I don't think I could disagree with you more strongly than I do. You're completely, utterly wrong, in my opinion. MOreover, you have repeatedly attempted to remove factual NPOV information from this article. Don't do that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony the information was not in the article for two weeks and was restored (no surprise) by JamesMLane on May 1. A number of folks here performed about 500 plus edits to the article in the meantime and not one of them restored the information until Lane did. I removed the NPOV tag after someone else deleted the information I have been complaining about as being (factually) a bunch of leftist bile unworthy of this endeavour. Your constant arguement that I am deleting factual information is your attempt to protect these POV passages to support your politics and it doesn't wash. Furthermore, your insistence on adding POV phrasing is ruining any attempts that this article can become neutral...you are nothing more than an obstructionist.--MONGO 02:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, claiming that something is "a bunch of leftist bile" does not make it so. Those are NPOV descriptions of significant opinions. Qualified professionals published in their fields, investigative reporters turning up suggestive evidence, biographers reporting sources close to the Bush family. The pieces in every case report only the facts, and give enough information pro- and con- about the pieces for the reader to make up his mind. If we leave out these reports, the reader may read of rumors and not know what they're based on, so they'll be thrown on the mercy of whatever news media they happen to be able to access. Here we digest and report, providing the reader with a map through the controversy, but not pushing any opinions on him.

I don't think you've quite caught on to that idea yet.

You refer to my "insistence on adding POV phrasing". Now that is wrong. Go back to WP:NPOV and learn what NPOV means.

And again you're repeatedly making personal attacks on me and JamesMLane. You've made personal attacks on others, too. Please stop doing that. Remember our discussions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Both of you have attacked me as well...a blind man could see it. But it also takes a blind man to believe that there is any hope you wish to edit this article with spirit of neutrality. I encourage you to cease your personal attacks...it is absolutely outrageous that anyone would allow you to be an admin. You use weaseling words, insinuating threats and finger pointing more than anyone here.I don't think you've quite caught on to that idea yet....nice, real nice with your veiled insults to my "lack of knowledge of Wikipedia standards" and your constant wikilinking to items of mandatory reading...how stupid I must be...in fact, you're right...let's find every biased opinion we can, and bastardized this article and stand back, on our high ground, and exclaim: it is normal to state facts about opinions! Not if the opinions have no basis in fact should it be normal.....how hard is that to understand....oh, but that's right....so long as the fact about an opinion backs up a negative view of the subject. You're here to be an obstructionist and to push a point of view and that is the bottom line.--MONGO 03:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright you guys, this is quickly deteriorating into heated and unproductive discussion. The issues can't be addressed on the basis of suspicion and accusation. NPOV should be discussed on the basis of its tenets, such as significance, relevance, substantiveness, etc. those aspects can be discussed much more meaningfully, and I'm pretty sure the goal here is to do just that. There's a lot of wikistress here and that's what's doing the obstruction. Drink some tea or something. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 03:10, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Well Im sorry if you feel that I've ever attacked you. I think I've been patiently trying to educate you on NPOV, and I think I've been asking you to stop removing factual NPOV reports of significant opinions from this article.

Now you claim that the opinions expressed "are not based on facts." But this is incorrect. Bush has openly admitted being a former heavy drinker, and there is evidence suggesting possible drug abuse. Hatfield has named his sources--the fact that they deny the story can be evaluated, alongside Hatfield's known untrustworthiness.

MONGO, stories about Bush and alcohol and drugs are all over the press, they're in the gossip. If we don't present them fairly then the reader will get an unbalanced version elsewhere and he'll know for sure that we're short-changing him by refusing to discuss the stories. They come here and they see that Van Wormer's just busking--because that's what emerges from the facts. They see that Frank is going out on a limb, in effect psychoanalysing speeches. They see that Hatfield was a con-man and a would-be murderer. Boehlert is putting two and two together, but is he making four or five? THis is how encyclopedia articles should be written. Take the story and present the facts, without the spin. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That argument constitutes your opinion that we are to provide spin, not take it out. The article is already preposterously long...what is gained by adding this wretched dogma is beyond me unless you care to call it what it really is and that is spin. Your patiently trying to educate me on NPOV is just more mudslinging...the reader deserves to be shortchanged if all we have to offer is gossip and what you readily refer to as poor referencing....I'll just delete it and start an edit war...so what.--MONGO 03:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony, what you don't seem to be acknowledging is that the first two paragraphs cover the fact that Bush is a recovering alcoholic and that he has not denied nor admitted to previous drug use with reputable sources for both. Why do we need unreputable sources in there to carry it on for a few more graphs? Everything that follows the first two graphs is superfulous garbage that doesn't need to be there. Hatfield is a complete and utter sham and the other armchair psychiatry is bunk. Cut the fat from the article, keep reputable information in the article and leave the polemics to the "further reading" section. --Wgfinley 04:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Please, MONGO, do make efforts to actually assume good faith from your interlocautors, not only to refrains from shouting at them until you can't bear it anymore.

Tony's version in not only logical chronogically, but the title of the section is also much softer on Bush, being an expression which Bush himself choosed, and suggesting that these "irresponsable" days are now over ("drugs and alcool use" is more misleading in this sense). Rama 06:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Rama, le terme irresponsable n'est pas un joli un et bien que Tony aurait pu tenter seulement d'être neutre, il apparaît m'être moins si.--MONGO 23:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Come again ? Rama 05:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Logically, the information does indeed belong earlier. I acquiesced in moving it down as a compromise, because some people thought it was too prominent when it came in its logical place early in the article. Now it seems that compromise was worthless, because, having gotten it moved down, the pro-deletion forces then went right back to work to try to remove the information entirely.

MONGO mentions above that there was a period of a couple weeks when this information was missing. Well, yes, and there was a period of several months when it was included. There is no estoppel on Wikipedia. I'm not single-mindedly devoted to throwing mud at George W. Bush, no matter what MONGO would like to believe about me. I have hundreds of articles watchlisted. I have a lengthy to-do list. I even have some responsibilities outside Wikipedia. When I noticed the removal of this information, I had to take some time to look at the different versions, see what had been said on the talk page, etc. Somewhere along the line we also stopped informing the reader that members of the bin Laden family had invested in one of Bush's early companies, and I haven't yet had time to go through the same process with regard to that deletion. Editing takes a little longer when you stop and think first. JamesMLane 09:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the section belongs in the correct chronological spot (so up near the top) and the details of the borderline-wild speculation parts of it moved to a linked subarticle.

You bring up that bin Laden family investing isn't in the business section. Why should it be there, unless all investors are listed? (in which case the list ought to be in an article specifically about the business) Singling out the bin Ladens as investors can only serve to imply some kind of importance that is in reality not in explicit evidence or relevant. Or, worse, such a statement would simply serve to be purely prejudicial rather than actually illuminating. Now, if *Osama* bin Laden had invested personally, that would be something that might be worth mentioning as a gee whiz.--67.101.67.167 13:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That a bunch of Texas businessmen invested in a Texas business isn't particularly noteworthy. That Saudi money was involved is more unusual. That it was specifically the bin Laden family is indeed something that many readers would consider important. JamesMLane 06:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Saudi money has invested quite a lot in Texas (and the American/NY financial markets) in the last few decades -not just in the energy industry, either. And the bin Laden family is one of the big Saudi families. I would say that many readers *unfamiliar* with these details would read a line singling out bin Laden investment and say "wow! that's important!" But they would be misled. Therefore, I believe a mention of bin Laden family investing *must* be part of a larger discussion of typical energy sector investing. A sector where foreign money is not unusual, and where the ability to get good investment based on who you know is not limited to being a Bush. And that would be large enough to probably deserve an article of its own.

To use an entirely different example, if I were going to write about how Sherman's army forcibly requisitioned food in its Georgia campagin, I must also write about any forcible requisitioning the Confederate army conducted unto Georgia's citizens. If I don't, the modern reader will think "mean Sherman! no one would do that today!" rather than "it would suck to be a starving small potoatos bystandard in Georgia during an era where property rights had disappeared."--67.101.67.167 13:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Irresponsible Youth

TonySidaway is right that MONGO should try to refrain from expressing his frustration with inflammatory language. But Tony, your edits may not be spiced with inflammatory language, but they are both inflammatory in their injection of POV bias and inflammatory in their implicit devaluing of other's views. Did you not think that moving and retitling the section on drugs and alcohol that has been vitriolically contested, giving it additional prominence, might be considered a provocative move? Could you have proposed it on talk before running with your view of where it should be? I'm pretty sure there's at least a wikipedia suggestion that controversial changes should be discussed first, if not a policy per se.

If you look at the Bill Clinton article, FYI, the marijuana use and philandering are treated thusly: "Clinton's opponents raised various "character" issues during the campaign, including his avoidance of military service during the Vietnam War, and his glib response to a question about past marijuana use. Allegations of womanizing and shady business deals also were raised. While none of these alleged flaws led to Clinton's defeat, they did fuel unusually vehement opposition to Clinton among many conservatives from the very beginning of his presidency."

I'd like to suggest this as a model for the corresponding ideas about Bush. Like Clinton, he admitted to drug use. Like Clinton, he was targeted by opponents. Like Clinton, it didn't resonate with the electorate, and like Clinton, it is in the end a VERY SMALL part of the BIOGRAPHY of a man twice elected as President of the United States. Kaisershatner 13:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sidaway has a predisposed bias against the subject matter and is therefore an unlikely candidate to expect a neutral position from when he edits this article. My critique of him is not meant to insult but to act as a a message that I do not understand why he would edit here except to push a point of view. The vast majority of his edits are about spin, regardless of his claims otherwise. My fight is over this article and if I was so proBush, I would be spending time in the John Kerry article or numerous others that have the opposite politics...but I don't. Much of this is a test...a test to see if this forum can really follow a NPOV format and I am inclined to believe that in articles such as this, it is impossible. JamesMLane states openly on his talk page that he hostile to the right....I would also expect that he would be another poor example of someone to expect neutrality from in this article. All insults aside, I fully respect their political positions and they would be surprised to find that my own political opinions are less divergent from theirs than they might believe. But this is not the forum to vent their frustration...perhaps a blog would do, but that wouldn't be visible enough I fear. I find it facinating that they both repeatedly utilize the Wiki standard that it is fine to state facts about opinions, even going so far as to say that it is still okay to do so even if we know the opinions are false...yet all the opinions they protect are negative ones...I see few if any examples in which they have edited or reverted to protect a positive issue. Perhaps I am in violation of the Wiki standards when I say that it is our job to determine what is rationally sound, well referenced and authoritatively backed, and also what constitutes the differences between tabloid journalism and an encyclopedic endeavour. I really think that when Jimbo and others built this project, they were hoping it wouldn't turn into a non stop political contest. If the opponents of Bush get relief that he was reelected by making him look subhuman or at the very least, vastly beneath the position he holds then, I probably can't do much about that...except edit.--MONGO 23:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Like Clinton, it didn't resonate with the electorate, and like Clinton, it is in the end a VERY SMALL part of the BIOGRAPHY of a man twice elected as President of the United States

Amen to that.--kizzle 17:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the current wording of the Clinton article if you have given it correctly. Putting the word character in quotes is against Wikipedia style, it's a form of weaseling. I don't think we need to use any other article as a model for this one. Looking at the article as it stood at 15:03 UTC, 17 May 2005, last substantive editor User:Kaisershatner (that's you!), I am very happy with it. I have added some small tweaks today, toning down the description of permanent SC opposition to the invasion, and distancing Wikipedia from a reported claim that Bush "gave up drinking for good". May he live a long, happy, alcohol-free life, but until it ends we cannot say whether he gave up drinking alcohol for good. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know "gave up drinking for good" could only be applied to dead people. --kizzle 19:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Drugs gone

Create another article if you wish to uiilize this medium for tabloid nonsense thank you.--MONGO 23:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

MONGO's edit summary for his deletion of information was: "redeited [sic] after vandalism from someone that has contributed nothing to talk or to this article". This comment violates two Wikipedia policies. First, whether you agree with the restoration of the information or not, the edit restoring it was quite clearly not vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism, in particular What vandalism is not. Second, Wikipedia is an open-source project that anyone can edit, even people who've made few or no previous contributions to a particular article. It's irrelevant that MONGO has edited the article more than Rhymeless has (just as it's irrelevant that I've edited it more than MONGO has). No one owns a Wikipedia article. JamesMLane 00:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You would like to think you do. Furthermore, your lecturing is so old now....please stop. Due to the high level of the discussions on this article...I do feel that it is vandalism to edit without stating why. This is in fact standard protocol for articles such as this.--MONGO 00:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Sun Tzu's The Art of Revert War, pg. 51 - "In order to not address opponent's criticisms of your viewpoint, simply label him as 'lecturing' or 'POV-pusher'... this way you do not need to respond to individual points and may carry on with yours." Now why would I make that up? --kizzle 00:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I really do want to move on but am truly trying to create a neutral treatise on this person...according to the vote (which I now see says 1 week limit) those in favor of ridding this article of Wormer and Frank are clearly ahead...the other item is tied. Regardless, I want to start creating articles about places in Wyoming and Montana etc. but until this article is neutral, I don't have time.--MONGO 00:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane just did it again, even though there is a small consensus against his desires to protect the information...I believe that he may be trolling...--MONGO 02:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that my edit comes within any reasonable definition of "trolling". Your suggestion that I "may be trolling" is, IMO, a personal attack. Also, I'm not familiar with this concept of "a small consensus". Consensus is there or it isn't. Given that several people obviously disagree with your attempt to suppress this information, there is no consensus for such suppression. JamesMLane 02:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you have been reverted as well...regardless, small consensus or not, your lack of desire to bring any issues to a vote brought up by someone that frequently is in agreement with your editing strikes me as being obstructionist...you were even invited by me even though I consider our efforts to be antagonistic to each other....so who is trying to push a POV here?--MONGO 03:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

How much does international opinion matter?

I think that the phrase I left in is substantial enough to support the fact that Bush is very unpopular internationally. Is it necessary in an article which is already way oversized to have three complete paragraphs detailing this evidence...I think not.--MONGO 03:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with this at the moment provided the deleted references are restored and are very, very briefly described: PIPA July/Aug 2004 (pdf), PIPA-BBC Nov 2004-Jan 2005 --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Unless of course you get another mood swing because you also did state that you saw that the Wormer and related items had been eliminated a couple months back and stated then that you were not going to put them back....now you wish to add to them. My original comment stands...there is plenty already (besides everyone knows how unpopular he is internationally) so the remainder of the items are just redundant.--MONGO 04:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well no. If you leave the article as it is then you've removed relevant factual information. That's a big no-no. I'm just saying we should have a statement like "see also " and references to the two external links you deleted.

You refer to what you perceive as my change of opinion as a "mood swing". And I'm sorry I cannot find anywhere that I said if the Van Wormer piece was removed I would not restore it, though there was a point when it was removed and a revert by me was itself reverted. At that point I said something to the effect that whether it resurfaced would thus have nothing to do with me. And of course resurface it did. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's "relevent" negative information...which is all you protect. The material you now admit to saying that you wouldn't reinsert was restored later, by another, but not immediately. What I can't understand about your thinking is why are the items in which Bush discussed his youth with Billy Grahmn and the taped conversations in which both cases Bush essentially admits he was a drinking and drug using 1960's hip kind of spoiled brat dude not enough for you.....why is it authoritative to include Wormer's and Frank's psychobabble baloney and convicted felon Hatfield, gotta rip off the public with my baseless baloney book, considered encyclopedic unless you wish to turn this operation into a silly tabloidish rubbish heap? Yah, yah, I know....it's okay to state facts about opinions....that's getting to be a weak excuse for sensationalism and POV pushing jargon.--MONGO 05:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, your me-against-the-world attitude is not only grating, it's counterproductive. For example, I said a while back, "The foreign polling information is worth more than your one sentence but could be considerably trimmed from the current level of detail." Instead of trying to do any kind of reasoned trim, however, and certainly instead of suggesting specific language here, you've simply butchered the passage by removing two entire paragraphs. You thus leave in all the detail about foreign reaction to the aggression against Iraq, while removing all the rest of the information. It would make more sense to summarize all three paragraphs. I think we could craft something about as long as your truncated version that would meet with Tony's approval and mine. Unfortunately, you seem to have decided instead that you must fight relentlessly against the evil left-wing cabal. When I saw Kingturtle's protection, my first reaction was to disagree with it. On reflection, though, it may be that a break from editing the article will leave you more willing to work constructively to improve it. JamesMLane 05:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That's fine if you wish to review and reduce the three papragraphs into one and I'm sure that it may be "approved" by the Gods. However, if you think I can believe that you edits are ones to be constructive you couldn't be further from the truth. The vast majority of your edits protect things that wouldn't be acceptable in most reports produced and submitted by the average American High Schooler...that's because most institutions of higher learning teach their pupils to avoid opinion and stick to the facts. It is destructive to the efforts of this medium to promote tabloidish junk and protect it with the ever boring comment that it's a Wiki standard to report facts about opinions. Bush admits, for all pratical purposes, his drinking and drug use...so did Clinton. So what...are we to then also add junk such as the Wormer stuff? Bush uses no more "strong" language to motivate people than any other politician (as Wormer fails to realize). In fact, Roosevelt certainly was polarizing with his us and them speeches as was Churchill....does that make them recovering alcoholics too? Frank and Hatfield have nothing but unsubstantiated opinion to offer...there must be a thousand books published and unpublished that have the same unreferenced, unsubstantiated baloney on Bush...why...because smut sells...so by including this stuff, are we to be the promoters of the same silly innuendos and to also be looked on as sensationalistic? I certainly hope not.--MONGO 06:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, for now, American hish schools are mostly famous for introducing creationist theories in the cursus, so we might perhaps be better off leaving them alone.

As for the rest, I deplore that you should now display defiance on all edits by JamesMLane because of their mere origin. This is the sort of things which I say go against the "assume good faith" principle, and I think it is quite obvious that such declarations of a priori non-confidence do very little to improve the atmosphere of the talk page. I urge you to reconsider. Rama 06:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

At least here, in the U.S., our children don't have to fear legalized discrimination as to whether they wear a turban or kippot so let's not insult my country anymore. Furthermore, Lane wishes top promote the same form of bad science you also argue about when discussing creationists...it is not based on facts.--MONGO 06:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry,I think I have not made myself clear. I meant that we would better set these tings aside. Becaseu they are off the topic. And that we must work on the subject at hand, in a spirit of confidence, and discuss different versions, edits and facts, rather than personalities. Please ? Rama 06:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I added a bit about UK opinion on Bush earlier today and have just seen here that additions to this section are considered controversial (oops). However what I added is true, and perhaps more relevant than other countries (while being representative of them), because of the widespread misconception that Bush enjoys UK support. In reality, he is supported by Tony Blair but not by the British public or media. (I have hardly ever met anyone in the UK who supports Bush.) Ben Finn 23:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Achieving a consensus

I read this at Wikipedia:NPOV about objective truth and NPOV: "The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. To say this is not to say anything contentious, from a philosophical point of view; indeed, this is something that philosophers are doing all the time. Sophisticated relativists will immediately recognize that the policy is perfectly consistent with their relativism." I will attempt to apply this to the drug/alcohol section. Kaisershatner 14:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Remember, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We will not all agree on the merits of Bush criticsm, but we all ought to agree that it exists. Portraying it as it is (part of which is noting that it's 99% based on his actions in the 1970s) should be above POV. Kaisershatner 16:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the Wormer, Frank and many of Hatfield's illusions post date that period and in fact are not about his past, but more in line with perceptions they have about the man presently. Critical commentary aside, it is worthless in this article due to it's complete lack of medical/diagnostic/factuality and regardless of it's negative or positive connotations, it is simply tabloid journalism.--MONGO 02:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

In looking over your edits, I think your ones to the section on the election controversies will soon be reverted as that area was heavily fought over. I recognize your hard work here however, there is still too much innuendo (not that you added any) to this article for it to be neutral yet. We must also act as editors in a quality control mode in that tere are plenty of substantive claims that Bush has issues and if we are to even have a section based on this wild speculation, surely his critics can find more substantive claims than Wormer and company.--MONGO 03:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You constantly snipe at van Wormer and Frank because they didn't interview Bush. It seems that you won't accept anything as "more substantive" unless a professional psychiatrist examines Bush and gets Bush's permission to publish his or her findings. When Bush agrees to such a procedure, I'll agree that our article should mention the published report of the psychiatrist's findings. Until then, we'll provide our readers with the best information available. JamesMLane 11:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

So, therefore, the "best information available" is unmedical, unstandardized, unethical opinion, and you consider that to have merit for inclusion? I don't simply snipe at those two blatently biased sources due to lack of a personal evaluation of the subject. I have and numerous others have a serious lack of belief that their opinions are anything other than their attempt to push their politics....this has been shown by repeated edits...that they are biased against the subject matter...an a priori situation....and are therefore, unrealiable witness. More importantly, they violate the ethics of their disciples with their public pronounciations of Bush's mental health...a serious violation of their code of ethics to begin with. The inclusion of the passages is poor editing...it is up to us to provide as much factual information as possible, not junk tabloidish opinion.--MONGO 15:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

While I don't object to mentioning it in its appropriate place (a detailed subarticle) I would dispute that the *details* of the van Wormer speculation counts as "the best information available." I'm a little more generous on the details of the Frank speculation. At any rate, if you feel differently about any of these items, this is why you (James) should *vote*.--67.101.67.167 16:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion is much prefered to voting (wikipedia policy), because it is an exchange of information.

You are making assumptions. Voting does not preclude discussion. Voting *does* help summarize discussion that has occurred; a reader can always go back to the discussion behind the voting. Discussion ad ininitum without summarization above it inevitably will only serve to obfuscate. Of course, I feel this way just like I feel that the GWB article needs more summarization and structure to avoid too much rambling.--67.101.67.167 20:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. I'm stating policy. (see community portal->policies and guidelines) Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:09, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

OK, how about this: *I* am making an assumption that when you say "discussion is much prefered to voting" there is a silent "and so I'm not going to vote even after much discussion" attached to the end. Am I wrong?--67.101.67.167 20:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

"an a priori situation" - what does this mean? re: ethics. it maybe "against the psychological code of ethics", but in the larger picture, it is ethically imperative that people have a deep understanding of who their leaders are. So, although they may be violating their code of ethics, what they are doing is not unethical, immoral, or imprudent.

regarding "merit for inclusion": his point is that it is unreasonable to set the threshold for "merit for inclusion" at a level that will never be reached. The threshold should be set so that the probability of it being reached is reasonably close to the probability of x happening times the significance of it. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 19:23, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

That's right....I don't set a threshold for disinformation or overtly biased unfactual information as having any merit for inclusion here. There is no threshold because it is just political opinion based on a definitive predisposed dislike of the subject matter and inclusion of such fallicies are without merit. According to the American Psychiatrict Association, the most respected association of their vocations, what they have done is unethical, regardless of their membership or not.--MONGO 19:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't understand a word I said. oh well. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 19:45, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone fully understands you Kevin. However, I'm sure you're in agreement with Lane that if this is all we have (Wormer, etc.) then we "owe" that to our readers. I disagree...if all we have is nonsense then it should be eliminated.--MONGO 19:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Call it what you will, regardless of the veracity of the claims, if we can't reasonably expect to have anything better, then we can't reasonably say that what we have isn't good enough. That's Lane's point, and it's logically valid. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:01, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

IMHO, that's logically quite invalid. Bunk is bunk is bunk. Whether or not you might ever get something that is not bunk is irrelevant. I think to argue otherwise is to argue something like "Some frogs are species #1. Some frogs are very similar species #2. You have to make a close expert examiniation to determine if a frog is #1 or #2. I have a frog that generally looks like #1 and #2. A person overseas who isn't really an expert on species #1 and #2 says it looks like it's a #2. Because I may never get an expert to examine this frog in person, I should say it's a #2. (even though it might actually be #1, or even unrelated species #3)"--67.101.67.167 21:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

He understood you perfectly well, Kevin. The problem is that you were invoking Wikipedia policies. MONGO is a committed and quite unabashed violator of Wikipedia policies. If he doesn't like a policy established by the community, he just ignores it. When I point out to him that this is a community, that fairness to article subjects calls for applying the same policies across the board until the policies are changed, and that we have procedures for changing policies, he tells me to stop lecturing him. So, he will go right on violating Wikipedia policies, and thereby causing all the good-faith editors to waste considerable time.

In this particular instance, MONGO tries to sow confusion by begging the question: "if all we have is nonsense then it should be eliminated." I agree; for example, all we have on the question whether Bush really did stop drinking is that video showing Bush drinking something at a wedding, and some guy with a website who thinks the drink is alcoholic. His opinion isn't worth reporting, under Wikipedia policies, so I agreed that it should be removed. As to the points in dispute, though, the issue is precisely whether they're "nonsense". Under Wikipedia policies, they are notable opinions and so should be reported, though of course they shouldn't be endorsed. One point of my comment above was that, in determining whether an opinion is worth reporting, we generally shouldn't consider whether better information might be available if the world were different. We would know more about Bush if he had agreed to submit to a psychiatric examination and had agreed to the publication of the results. He hasn't, though, and it's not likely he will anytime soon, so there's no point in speculating about it. There's also no reason to throw out the information we actually have just because of this completely unrealistic hypothetical possibility. JamesMLane 00:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Once agin, I dispute that your edits are always in good faith in this article due to your comment on your user page in which you state that you are hostile to the right. I won't dispute that the "right" has problems and that President Bush also has problems. But I do agree with the need to act as good faith editors and therefore feel that inclusion of farcicle opinions from politically biased sources using their credentials to push their political point of view is not what constitutes a fact based effort to achieve neutrality and to create an encyclopedic article.--MONGO 02:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane, are you disputing the analogy as being unrelated to your line of thinking? If so, how does it not represent your line of thinking? Or are you saying that there's nothing wrong with keeping something in even if it falls under that analogy?--67.101.67.167 02:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that we are running on a chronical problem similar to the one which has occured in the past with quotations supposedly defining the line of the article. MONGO, I think that you really tend to have a problem to figure out that people can handle ideas which are not necessarly their. JamesMLane might be sufficiently opposed to Ring-wing politics in his private life that he might find it necessary to mention it on his talk page, without writing tendenciously in the encyclopedia. It is only a question of intellectual honesty and discipline for him.

I would also like to point out that "I dispute that your edits are always in good faith" is a rather grave accusation which should not be made lightly; I have seen people displaying behaviours more disturbing than JamesMLane's by orders of magnitudes whose honesty in editing was not challenged. If you do not have very specific and very serous proofs to cast such an accusation on another editor, I strongly suggest you refrain from it and find more constructive ways to interact than this; it could be understood as a petty attempt to wholy discredit a user in a whole becaseu you have no other arguments, and rather harms your point and yourself. Rama 04:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Rama, for understanding that my comment on my talk page was intended as a matter of intellectual honesty. Since I posted it, I've been surprised that it gets mentioned in edit disputes by people trying to discredit what I write. Apparently their implication is that they have no such biases. Of course, the issue isn't whether I'm biased, it's whether a particular edit is biased.

Rama, do you have anything other to do than defend others? It's not like Lane has been overtly pleasant to me either...with his constant lecturing and failure to understand the difference between fact and fiction. What he peddles is Junk science. Exactly what is your editorial contribution here except to attack me? Furthermore, it is unlikely that you know that Lane is not utilizing this medium for his politics unless your relationship with him is on a personal level, which I doubt. If you have something to add to the discussion on achieving a consensus let's hear it.--MONGO 08:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain that I understand your questions, and I fail to understand your "furthermore" sentance; what I do one Wikipedia is available on the logs, history and User's Contribution, like anyone. Your remark about me "attacking" you is quite typical of the sort of things that I am trying to warn against -- running the risk of making a fool of yourself. My point is that the form of the discussion tends to degenerate, and I am trying to bring it back on what I consider to be the tracks. On this regard, what I think of the psychiatry story is irrelevant. For the record, I think that these few lines, as such, are not tendencious, since they provide ample reserves about the authors, and that they are probably superfluous. Rama 10:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

As for MONGO's frog analogy, if the person consulted is a professor of biology specializing in amphibians, I would consider that opinion notable. MONGO's argument is analogous to saying that there's another professor, who specializes in frogs of the area where this one came from, so that professor's opinion would be worth more. Yes, it would, but if the second professor hasn't commented on the subject, then his or her existence is irrelevant. The first professor's opinion should be evaluated on the basis of its author's credentials. That the author may be biased is also irrelevant. The article quotes Bush himself, and he's obviously biased. The NPOV policy doesn't require that we exclude statements from people who are biased, only that we attribute them. One solution here would be to credit the comment to van Wormer, by name, wikilinked, and then to put all this information about her in the article about her. So a reader who wants to know more, in order to evaluate this opinion of Bush, can click on the link, and discover the shocking fact that she's "active in civil rights and peace movements". A reader who wants to discount her opinion on that basis is free to do so. JamesMLane 06:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The point of *my* analogy was not that Van Wormer is biased -everyone is biased in some form or another. My point is that she's *clueless*. I don't object to recording her position and leaving its details for a subarticle. In an article on the planet Earth, you wouldn't spend a detailed paragraph on how someone who's never left podunk is convinced that the earth is flat and that you can fall off the edge, because her deck is flat and she's seen people fall of the edge before.--67.101.67.167 13:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Your flat-Earth analogy makes the frogs look good by comparison. Unlike the Podunk crackpot, Van Wormer has relevant professional credentials. Your personal opinion that she's "clueless" isn't relevant to the question whether we should report van Wormer's opinion. If you have relevant credentials and you've stated that opinion elsewhere, we can consider whether to report your disagreement with van Wormer.

Could you please delineate what Van Wormer's relevant professional credentials are? The consensus now and in the past has been that she is not qualified, and the argument for inclusion was to ensure reporting on opinions.--67.101.67.167 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

(Incidentally, your friend in Podunk can take comfort from this passage in the Earth article: "In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth ...." Even on this subject, we honor the policy of reporting notable opinions.) JamesMLane 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, you're making my point for me. The entire flat earth view gets one paragraph *total* with a link to the flat earth article. Similarly, this topic should get *one* summary paragraph, with a link to a detailed article. Since you have finally come around, do not be surprised when this streamlining occurs at the end of the voting period.--67.101.67.167 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Your statement about "consensus now and in the past" doesn't comport with my recollection. I don't think your statement is accurate even as to the period of your edits to the article, let alone earlier. As for the flat Earth, the issue of Bush's substance abuse is much more notable these days than the possibility that the Earth is flat, so the former deserves more detail. Finally, I have most assuredly not "come around". Please don't put words in my mouth, and do not be surprised when the tone of your comments engenders hostility from other Wikipedians. JamesMLane 19:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't my analogy.--MONGO 09:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC) I would hope that the biology professor you speak of would have actually had the opportunity to examine a frog in his laboratory or in the field, up close and personal, so that his/her opinion on said frog would be based on an actual physical examination. Is it so hard for you to believe that Wormer's opinion is based on a deep dislike, no a loathing, of the subject? With your analogy of the frog biologist wouldn't we also expect her to follow a similar path when rendering her opinion...one in which her opinion would have been discovered after a series of standardized tests and standardized exams? I suppose a biologist can learn a great deal about a frog from a book, so can I...but I doubt that would make either of us experts. Wormer and Frank made there examinations outside the scope of standardized methods one would expect from persons in their fields...expectations that also are in line with what their peers perform...if the APA doesn't even approve of their methods, then why should we? If you have disagreement with that silly video in which Bush may or may not have been drinking alcohol, then surely you must see that Wormer and the others also have serious credibility issues.--MONGO 08:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, I'm sorry if you feel I haven't been "overtly pleasant" to you. In your first signed edit on Wikipedia, your edit summary was, "Good thing you folks aren't considering on submitting this falsifcation as a Masters Thesis....it would guarantee you a failing grade...my edits would help you pass..." You followed up later that same day with "Deleted left wing propaganda" and "It looks like foreigners and leftists wish to control this page....good luck!" In your very first signed post on this talk page, you said you thought the article "was written by some left wing extremists". If you feel that your welcome here was insufficiently cordial, I venture to suggest that your attitude toward your fellow editors might have played a role. Putting that aside, I looked at two of my posts to this talk page soon after your arrival, one discussing the general subject of the NPOV policy ([3]) and one addressed to you personally ([4]). I see no personal unpleasantries in either post. I always try to follow the "don't bite the newbies" rule. It wasn't your fault that you didn't know the rules back then. My current snappishness toward you is based on your own conduct over the succeeding months.

As for the frogs, you're right that it wasn't your analogy (an anon offered it in support of your argument); I stand corrected. Anyway, I don't think we'll gain much further insight from debating the hypothetical credentials of hypothetical professors opining about hypothetical frogs. Let's think instead about the real-world van Wormer quotation. We have certain facts that are relevant and apparently undisputed: what van Wormer said, what her professional credentials are, the availability of public records of Bush's speeches and actions, the unavailability of an in-person examination, and van Wormer's pre-existing political orientation. Your solution is apparently to weigh these facts, make a judgment as to her credibility, and then, because you decide that you don't agree with her, you'll remove all the information, to spare our readers the effort of thinking. My solution is to make available all the facts. Similarly, on Frank, let's make available his statement, his credentials, and the attacks on him that you dug up. Let the reader decide. The test isn't whether we all-knowing editors agree with a particular opinion. The test is whether it's notable enough to be reported. The comment on the drinking video from a totally uncredentialed and nonnotable person, whose only qualification was learning enough HTML to do a website, wasn't notable by that standard, but van Wormer is. JamesMLane 10:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You're a smart guy. I do not see the rational for wishing to keep diagonsis rendered from a distance. It is arm chair quarterbacking, not reality...it is definitely Junk science. I don't care about your politics nor do I about Wormer's...but I do care if those politics are helping to shape the message of this article. If I wrongly accuse you of using your politics to influence your decisions here, I apologize. However, I definitely think Wormer's and the rest have deep political or monetary reasonings for wishing to belch their undiagnostic opinion. It serves no purpose from a standard of encyclopedic merit...it is tabloidish....it is weak and unsubstantive...it is ridiculous. The frog analogy is accurate...one would expect an expert such as a psychiatrist or biologist to write and or educate others only after a standardized series of "experiments'. If you could find a psychiatrist that had the approval of the APA with similar psychiatrict evaluations, then that would be great...but we don't. All we have is this piece by a couple of reknown opponents to the politics of Bush who claim...gee...Bush acts like he didn't get treated properly for his alcoholism....he must be a dry drunk...I'm sorry, but the passages have been attacked by numerous others here so don't forget that your argument isn't just with me, I just have the loudest bark.--MONGO 16:40, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with taking some of the language out of the Wiki article on Counterpunch like this: "In an article published by radical left-wing Counterpunch, which carries on the tradition of muckraking and has published actual messages from Iraqi militant groups defending their ongoing actions, articles debating the factuality of Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes or the Pol Pot massacres, articles supportive of Fidel Castro's highly publicized arrest of 75 Cuban activists, on October 11, 2002, Katherine van Wormer, a professor..." Nobs 21:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

As long as you preface every mention of Fox News with something like this: "it's a radical right-wing news organization headed by Richard Nixon's former personal strategist and devout right-winger Roger Ailes, owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is the poster-child for the "big business" arm of the Republican party, is the mouthpiece for Republican talking points generated by such institutions as the Heritage Foundation and other right-wing think tanks and strategists, and who consistently sides with the president and generally attacks any liberal that ventures on any of the shows with a dissenting opinion..." .... then i'd be fine with that. --kizzle 18:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I would change "the Republican party" to "the Republican Party", but other than that, kizzle's language looks fine to me.  :) JamesMLane 19:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Template vandalism

Anyone know how to fix it? (infobox on the right) Teach me! Kaisershatner 14:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Why van Wormer quote should go

If you check out her bio on one of her websites you can see she's unabashedly biased given she is "active in civil rights and peace movements". You can also see where you can take her undergraduate courses via correspondence! Maybe Sally Struthers will be pushing her courses soon.

Secondly, if you do a Google search virtually all reference to her is regarding her comments about Bush (same thing for Hatfield actually). This is a clear case of someone who's entire notoriety is due to something she said about the president. The entire reference on the GWB page treads on vanity because I could find little other reference to any of her other books on the web.

She has a Masters of Social Work and a PhD in Sociology. If you look at the rest of her titles you see a clear trend:

• Social Welfare, A World View (1997)
• Social Work with Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals (2000)
• Women and the Criminal Justice System (2000)
• Counselling Female Offenders and Victims (2001)

Obviously the bulk of her work has been on women's issues. Now, I'm not saying she doesn't know her stuff, I'm just saying it's curious that she had a book coming out (Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Prospective - 2002) at the same exact time she decided to diagnose GWB with an "addictive thinking". Further, the main source of information for her article -- none other than our favorite felon James Hatfield. Finally, she has clear leanings on peace and the criminal justice system all at odds with positions taken by GWB. In short, she has many bones to pick with the president and performing some analysis from afar whens he had a book coming out certainly appears quite suspect. --Wgfinley 22:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

"active in civil rights and peace movements" - oh, so she's a responsible citizen. she thinks civilization is a good thing. she's biased in that she's polically conscious and active. all the more reason to not listen to what she has to say, right? civil rights is a non-partisian issue. so is peace. that's not bias, thats responsibility. she's a resopnsible person. good. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:32, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

lets address this issue on the merits of her work, not on ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacy. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 23:37, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Wgfinley is merely trying to address the political aspects of her reasoning. I searched her too and quickly saw that nothing of her politics is in agreement with Bush. It would be doubtful that we could expect a neutral point of view from her.--MONGO 02:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothing of half the country and 90% of the world's politics are in agreement with Bush. Does that make the world biased? If so, then we're f*ck@d. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:46, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

That's 48.7 percent of the rest of the country and an international average of 64 percent disapproval. But Wormer isn't just your typical democrat, shes a definitive bleeding heart...and that's fine, but again, it doesn't make it liklely that her unmedical opinion from afar is anything other than political grandstanding.--MONGO 09:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Kevin, you are right to try to focus on the merit of her actual work, rather than her viewpoint (we all ought to understand that citing the view of someone who is not neutral is not the same as introducing POV into the article), BUT the problem is there's a vocal faction here that doesn't want to address the "merits" of her work. As I have argued repeatedly, and posted repeatedly, there is no scientific basis for remote addiction analysis or whatever it is she is doing, her degree is in addiction, not in diagnosing people as former addicts based on their behavior (making her an expert possibly in her field but not on the subject of Bush's past), and finally, her criteria are so vague as to be totally nonspecific and laughable as an objective measure of anything. I'll reprint (Again) my argument from above, which has never been addressed, but the main justification of the Wormer inclusion camp, as far as I can tell is "someone said this about him, it's 'interesting,' and it was printed in a reputable newspaper." Kaisershatner 13:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Kaisershatner 13:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)(1) the argument is misattributed to an Irish Times piece in 2003, this reference predates that by 1 year: [20] (http://counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html) (October 11, 2002). (2) while she may be an expert in addiction and recovery or social work, she is not an expert in diagnosis of post-addiction syndrome in people she hasn't examined. (3) her argument itself is preposterously illogical, as noted above (a) begging the question, (b) making assumptions about his traits that are not objective or universally held, (c) totally nonspecific & subjective criteria to begin with, (d) implying some basis for causality between alcohol use and the traits she claims he has.

Finally, here are the traits she ascribes to GWB in the Counterpunch article- she says he has them, I say he doesn't. (Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity Grandiose behavior A rigid, judgmental outlook Impatience Childish behavior Irresponsible behavior Irrational rationalization Projection Overreaction) I also say I have them, and TonySidaway has them, and Kizzle has them, and MONGO has them. And JamesMLane has them. And frankly, Van Wormer seems to have them too, so maybe we should add "By her own criteria, Van Wormer also exhibits 8 of 8 of these traits, making her equally likely to be a dry drunk." So I guess that proves we're all recovering alcoholics, right? And don't bother denying that you have them. It's my expert opinion that you all show these traits. If you want to disagree, you can add a sentence saying "some people disagree that (your name) exhibits these traits, and Kaisershatner has never actually met (me)."

You write:

[T]he main justification of the Wormer inclusion camp, as far as I can tell is "someone said this about him, it's 'interesting,' and it was printed in a reputable newspaper."

You can reprint this gross distortion as many times as you please; that won't make it true. There's a great deal of "interesting" material about Bush that's in reputable newspapers that no one has tried to include. In the extensive discussion of van Wormer, we of the "inclusion camp" have repeatedly noted her professional qualifications. I realize that much of that discussion came before you were editing the article, and you probably haven't looked through the archives, but even what's on this page makes the point clear. Your "expert opinion" about van Wormer and about me can be included in an article about van Wormer or an article about me, provided that your opinion has been published soomewhere else (no original research) and provided that your credentials show it to be the opinion of an expert. The same criteria apply to whether we should report your disagreement with van Wormer. JamesMLane 15:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

What if we summarize in a few sentences that Bush has in some forms or another admitted to using marijuana and has not denied using cocaine, then link to a subarticle like George W. Bush substance abuse controversy ... I think this would work for several reasons:

• It would help bring the two opposing camps together as a comporomise, in a subarticle about Bush, I think we could spend a lot more detail on the matter, and while I am mostly against including these references on the main page, I would have no qualms against referencing on a subarticle.
• The main article would contain something similar to Mongo's suggestion, in that it would be a simple summary, but with no details except to summarize what we know about his drug use, the subarticle would contain why we know what we know (references to Wead, Van Wormer, all that)
• People who don't want it included would be somewhat satisfied in that it wouldn't show up on Bush's main page.

Mainly, I couldn't agree more with Kaiser's previous statement that this is a VERY SMALL issue in a twice-elected president, thus I think its current treatment on Bush's main page is a bit much on detail, thus I highly suggest we move it off to a subarticle and summarize. This is what we have done with many other controversial aspects on this page; I think we need to treat this the same way. --kizzle 16:24, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

You know...I really did wish to concede to the two points that shaped the section...the issue in whjich he discussed his alcoholism with Billy Grahmn and the taped recordings...although I thought his "I haven't denied anything" comment was probably as likely to being part of his notorious poor choice of word play, than a denial of something he actually did do...but many wanted to find evidence of true psychiatrict problems so we end up arguing the merits of baseless psychiatrict evaluations that aren't even accepted by the American Psychiatrict Association...I feel like I'm reading a National Enquirer when I read such things here...a grave disappointment in comparison to most of the articles here in Wikipedia.--MONGO 16:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

from above "has not denied using cocaine"; so when did you stop beating your wife? Nobs 16:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Glad you brought it up, because it seems like you're misusing the common example of a loaded question.

So when did you stop beating your wife?

The above is a loaded question because whether or not the statement's response is true or false, it assumes that the person has been beating their wife in the first place.

...and has not denied using cocaine"

The above is not a loaded question because the question was asked directly to him, "Have you used cocaine in your life?" and he responded with a non-denial. I didn't say above to conclude that he, in fact, did use cocaine, but that when presented with the question of his drug usage, he did not deny it. This is different if nobody asked him the question, then your example would be correct of a loaded question, as if I said "Nobs hasn't denied using cocaine", it would be unfair because you weren't even asked. However, Bush's situation is different. That is why I wanted to include "...and has not denied using cocaine", not only from answering the press's questions, but from the taped phone conversations from Wead, where he said "I haven't denied anything" to inquiries as to whether he used cocaine. Hope that clears things up. --kizzle 18:26, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

seems to me the innuendo employed is criticism of G.W. Bush's honesty, hoping that by denying spurious claims critics than catch him in a lie; the real story is George W. Bush has not lied about cocaine use. Nobs 17:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

(UTC)

Alright dude, the last thing anyone would defend him on is his "honesy". Where have you been for the past four years? Take a thorough look at 2003 invasion of Iraq and then tell me you admire him for his "honesty". Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 18:03, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

JamesMLane wrote:

You can reprint this gross distortion as many times as you please; that won't make it true. There's a great deal of "interesting" material about Bush that's in reputable newspapers that no one has tried to include. In the extensive discussion of van Wormer, we of the "inclusion camp" have repeatedly noted her professional qualifications.

I said that "as far as I can tell" those were the arguments; your description of that as a "gross distortion" is needlessly inflammatory, but whatever, I'll get over it. You say the inclusion camp as "repeatedly noted her professional qualifications." Exactly what qualifications does it take to (1) list a number of very nonspecific traits common to alcoholics and (2) allege that someone has them? What do van Wormer's degree(s) have to do with her argument? Is it your position that her degree makes her an expert who can state with some kind of objective, reproducible, scientific analysis that Bush's behavior is a result of a history of alcoholism?Kaisershatner 18:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You're free to believe that her professional qualifications are irrelevant here. If you choose to characterize the other side's opinion, though, it is indeed a gross distortion to omit those qualifications, since several of us pointed to them as making the difference. (Another example is the criticism of Frank. I had my doubts about Hamilton, but once the Savodnik quotation was unearthed, his credentials were clearly relevant.) JamesMLane 19:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I resent the comment that I was making an ad-hominem attack with this, (although I did make a snide remark about a correspondence course of hers) it's not what I was after. I was just trying to point out where the focus of her work has been and it doesn't appear to be on men, of which GWB is one. I just don't find her all that credible of a source, and again, believe the whole point of her article was to get attention and hawk some books. --Wgfinley 00:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Removing claim pending confirmation

131.252.242.164 inserted this paragraph under "Trivia" a short while ago:

In a 2002 Poll conducted by Harvard University, President Bush was rated among the top 5 presidents of all time. The panel (Consisting of a bi-partisan collection of university history professors) voted Woodrow Wilson, Grover Cleveland, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and George W. Bush as the nations top leaders of all time.

Did they, now... ? Considering that all the other edits from 131.252.242.164 are Sneaky vandalism, I'm removing the passage. Please reinsert it if you can source it.--Bishonen | talk 02:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Grenade thrown at Bush in Georgia (country)

On May 10 of this year, someone threw a grenade at President Bush while he was visiting the Eastern European country of Georgia. It landed within 100 yards of him. Fortunately, something was wrong with the cap and it didn't go off. If it had gone off, a little girl would have been killed. Bush was too far away for the grenade to injure him. I read about this in today's Los Angeles Times newspaper. → JarlaxleArtemis 04:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV statement

I removed the statement "by the highest popular vote ever" made by an anon because of the POV nature of this statement. First of all, contributor does not clarify. Do they mean by the largest margin ever? The highest number of people voting ever? If it is the latter, this is no special feat considering the U.S. population climbs higher each election period so therefore its natural that a president may garner record votes. Although this statement may be true, it is certainly a piece of information only included to make Bush look better than all other Presidents, which in itself is very POV. One thing I will add, if Bush had won the largest percentage of the popular vote than any other President (which he did not achieve by any means), that indeed would be a very interesting statistic worthy of inclusion. — oo64eva (Alex) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 11:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Was he not supposed to have had one of the least impressive re-election of the history of the USA ? The only thing which matter are the percentage of the voters (taking into account the federal nature of the US system, which can legally lead to the paradoxal results such as in the first election). Stating the absolute number of voterrs is meaningless on this respect. Rama 11:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that talking about the "popular vote" is not nearly as insightful as some people think, and doesn't belong in the article summary paragraph (see when we tried to remove language about explicitly "winning" or "losing" the 2000 and 2004 "popular votes" a while ago). I'd love to hear from those who are determined to stuff every meaningless (meaningless to me, anyway) factoid in the main article. Do you think "by the highest popular vote ever" should stay?--67.101.67.167 13:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it should go, but if it stays, then the article should also note that more people voted against Bush than had ever before voted against any major-party candidate. (More people voted against Bush than voted against Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, or Walter Mondale.) I agree with oo64eva that it's just a by-product of the growth in population, and of the increased push for voter registration and turnout by both sides in the 2004 election. JamesMLane 16:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me its quite evident: "highest popular vote" has the same meaning used in 2000 about Albert W. Gore, the hard number of popular votes (surpassing Ronald Reagan). "Margin", obviously refers to "difference" which can either be expressed in terms of percent or hard numbers. I favour using the same language used in 2000, "Al Gore recieved the highest popular vote ever". Nobs 17:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

All this information about the 2000 and 2004 elections would be quite appropriate in the respective articles on those As far as I can tell, though, neither this article nor the Al Gore article mentions that Gore's popular vote in 2000 was a record. If you're drawing an analogy to how Wikipedia handles Gore's 2000 record, would you please be more specific about where it is? JamesMLane 17:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I am referring to information of an historical nature. Also, factual information, for example hard numbers, is NPOV. Thank you. I will revert. Nobs 17:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's factual. It would also be factual to give the exact vote total for each candidate in each of Bush's two elections. It's more efficient to wikilink to the election articles, though. As for NPOV, if you report the information that more people voted for Bush, while suppressing the information that more people voted against Bush, it certainly looks as if your selection of facts is POV. JamesMLane 17:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a meaningless factoid... There were roughly 121 million voters who participated in the 2004 presidential election. This is the highest number of voters to participate in a presidential election in the history of the United States. As the population expands one can generalize that, more often than not, the winner of the presidency will have the highest number of votes ever in the history of the United States (provided that the 2 party system continues to exist and the number of people actively voting in the presidential elections does not drastically decline). Perhaps this will not be the case from one election to the next, but as a general trend over time this will likely be bourne out. A more interesting numerical fact is that GWB was the first candiate to get more than 50% of the vote since his father (which has already been included in the current version of the article. isotope23 17:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to dispute hard factual historic data, especially when they are numbers. Similiar to the fact that the current deficits are the largest decificts in the 213 history of the Republic. Nobs 18:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you dispute the hard factual historical datum that more people voted against Bush than had ever before voted against any major-party candidate? If you don't dispute that, why don't you include it with your edit? You see, even if a particular fact is undisputed, that doesn't mean it has to go into the article. Neither the fact of Bush's record level of support nor the fact of his record level of opposition is notable. JamesMLane 18:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The number of votes against a candidate is not a relevant figure; candidates are elected on the basis of votes received, not votes lacked. This whole argument is ridiculous. The statement was not POV. It is a fact that George W. Bush received more votes than any previous candidate, but it is also true that several important factors mitigate the meaning of this. In my opinion, the article should include the statement with the condition that it is also be noted that this is largely due to a larger voter turnout than ever. The more important figure is the percentage, and that George W. Bush won a majority of the vote for the first time in a Presidential election since his father- i.e. Clinton and Gore never won a majority of the popular vote.M412k 00:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

For a long time, what the article said was that Bush was the first presidential candidate since his father in 1988 to receive a majority of the popular votes, but also that his margin (expressed in percentages) was unusually small for a re-elected President. The rest can be left to the article specifically about the election. If there were some reason to highlight the large number of total votes cast, the clearest and fairest way to say it would be that Bush and Kerry each received more votes than had any candidate in any previous U.S. election. JamesMLane 02:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"Bush won a second term with 60,693,281 popular votes, with his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry recieving 57,355,978 votes, according to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration . This was more than any previous candidate in American history, surpassing Al Gore's record 50,996,582 popluar majority in 2000.[5]. "Nobs 19:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The quotation is incorrect; Gore didn't get a majority, merely a plurality. More to the point, there's no reason we need specific vote totals in this article. If we were to include them, the NPOV way to balance Bush's favorable total is to report his unfavorable total, i.e., that more people voted against him than against any other major-party candidate in history. Even with that balancing fact, though, the point isn't worth including. I've removed the biased version for the third time, so I'm retiring, but I urge others to remove it even if it's given in an unbiased version. JamesMLane 19:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it. Nobs, your mistake is simply assuming that "if its true, it goes in". Like James said, why aren't you including that he had more people vote against him than any other president in history? --kizzle 19:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

The above point about Gore is valid and the language will be corrected accordingly. The assertion: "the NPOV way to balance Bush's favorable total is to report his unfavorable total, i.e., that more people voted against him than against any other major-party candidate in history unforunately does not stand up to the records of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration which report [6]William J. Clinton recieving 44,908,254 popular votes with 13,935,154 popular votes against, or "his unfavorable total", to use your language; also the evidence shows "more people voted against him (William J. Clinton in 1992) than against any other major-party candidate in history" (for a winner) to again use your own terms. This could be expressed as a ratio of 13,935,154/540,520 or roughly 28:1 (not accounting for the Buchanan vote in 2000), meaning for every one vote of G.W. Bushs' "unfavorable total" (your term) in year 2000, William J. Clinton had twenty-eight "unfavourable" votes. An astounding ratio, (again, unadjusted for the Buchanan totals; even with that adjustment, it is still about a 3:1 ratio). Once again, it is awfully hard to argue hard statisitics are POV. Thank you. Nobs 20:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The above point about Gore is valid and the language will be corrected accordingly. The assertion: "the NPOV way to balance Bush's favorable total is to report his unfavorable total, i.e., that more people voted against him than against any other major-party candidate in history unforunately does not stand up to the records of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration which report [7]William J. Clinton recieving 44,908,254 popular votes with 13,935,154 popular votes against, or "his unfavorable total", to use your language; also the evidence shows "more people voted against him (William J. Clinton in 1992) than against any other major-party candidate in history" (for a winner) to again use your own terms. This could be expressed as a ratio of 13,935,154/540,520 or roughly 28:1 (not accounting for the Buchanan vote in 2000), meaning for every one vote of G.W. Bushs' "unfavorable total" (your term) in year 2000, William J. Clinton had twenty-eight "unfavourable" votes. An astounding ratio, (again, unadjusted for the Buchanan totals; even with that adjustment, it is still about a 3:1 ratio). Once again, it is awfully hard to argue hard statisitics are POV. Thank you. Nobs 20:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood the objection (in otherwords, disregard the references to the 2000 election). Nevertheless the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration report William J. Clinton had 58, 843, 408 "unfavorable total" in 1992 [8] {combining Bush Sr & Perot totals) compared to G.W. Bush's "unfavorable total" (i.e. Kerry total) of 57,355,978, again refuting the premise "more people voted against him than against any other major-party candidate in history". The partisan view will be reverted. Thank you. Nobs 20:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

With your comment about ratios, you completely lost me. Like everyone else who's commented in this section, I thought you meant that the gross total number of votes cast for Bush in 2004 was a record. Now you're invoking some kind of ratio that comes out at 28:1 and I can't understand how that ratio is calculated.

My statement about Bush setting the record for most votes against is true. Here's what I see, from the statistics at a certain online encyclopedia:

• In the U.S. presidential election, 1992, there were 104,600,366 votes cast, of which Clinton received 44,908,254, meaning that 59,692,112 people voted against Clinton (i.e., voted for some candidate other than Clinton).
• In the U.S. presidential election, 2004, there were 122,300,696 votes cast, of which Bush received 62,040,606, meaning that 60,260,090 people voted against Bush.

You try to avoid this by comparing apples and oranges -- in Bush's case, you count only the votes for his principal opponent, but you count more than one Clinton opponent. If you want to look just at the principal opponent, you'll notice that, while Bush attracted more popular votes than anyone ever had before, so did Kerry. Kerry received about eight million votes more than the previous record-holder, Al Gore in 2000. So, whether "votes against" means all the votes for all other candidates combined, or means only the principal opponent, more people voted against Bush than against any previous major-party candidate.

That Kerry and Bush both received record totals illustrates the point everyone else has made above: Bush's record total in 2004 reflected primarily the increased number of votes cast. That's why it's not worth including in the article. JamesMLane 20:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

My Source: National Archives and Records Administration; if you wish to dispute the veracity of their statistics may I suggest Talk:National_Archives_and_Records_Administration. Thank you. Nobs 21:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Nothing on that site contradicts anything I've said. If you want to look only at the principal opponent, your source gives Bush 41's total as 39,102,343; it doesn't give any 2004 figures, but there's no dispute that Kerry received more than that (about 20 million votes more). If you want to look at all the opponents combined, that site gives only two of Clinton's opponents and has no data for 2004, so it doesn't enable one to do a complete comparison. (By the way, even on your unfair method of comparison -- multiple Clinton opponents, one Bush opponent -- your NARA reference shows Bush the elder getting 39,102,343 and Perot getting 19,741,065, for a total of 58,843,408. Kerry's total was 59,028,111 according to this site. Where did you get your much lower figure for Kerry?) What's more important is that you still haven't answered any of the points made by other editors above explaining why Bush's total, with or without his unfavorable total, doesn't merit inclusion. JamesMLane 22:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I accidentally posted at the bottom and missed this conversation, I think people need to hear one of James's gems of an argument again...

You try to avoid this by comparing apples and oranges -- in Bush's case, you count only the votes for his principal opponent, but you count more than one Clinton opponent

Nobs, you're using all the votes for Perot, Bush, and everyone else in Clinton's case, but not in Bush's case (only Kerry)...maybe if you don't understand this distinction, you might want to go to Talk:National_Archives_and_Records_Administration. Thank you. --kizzle 23:12, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think the "highest popular vote ever" claim, while true is silly and misleading and this whole argument demonstrates why it should go. As the general population of the US grows so will popular vote totals. --Wgfinley 00:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Legal authority of source mandated by a Law of the United States Congress: Title 3, Section 6 of the U.S. Code under provisions for transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress and availablity to public inspection mandates the executive of each State to communicate by registered mail under the seal of the State to the Archivist of the United States a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed, setting forth the names of such electors and the canvass or other ascertainment under the laws of such State of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose appointment any and all votes have been given or cast. Nobs 18:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. But it doesn't seem like you understand what we're talking about. Let me simplify it for you.

Your comparison

• Votes against Clinton = All candidates combined
• Votes against Bush = Only Kerry's votes

Your comparison = bad. --kizzle 17:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

"Bush is against same-sex marriage, and has thus endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would define marriage as being the union of one man and one woman."

One does not logically follow the other. The word "thus" is misleading since many people oppose same-sex marriage AND oppose the constitutional amendment. I'd recommend deleting the word. --PrinceValium 17:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

True, there are exceptions, but the FMA is based upon the belief that same-sex marriage is wrong, thus one generally follows the other. but i'm not really strong on either wording. --kizzle 18:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. | This poll from last year shows 28% support for gay marriage (i.e. 72% neutral or opposed) and 60% favoring the amendment. Many of those who have strong religious or moral objections to gay marriage are federalists and abhor the concept of amending the constitution for what is essentially a state issue. --PrinceValium 02:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, so 72% are not for gay marriage, thus 60% are for the amendment. The differential can partially be attributed to federalists, I agree, but seeing as its only 12%, some causality can be ascribed. But like I said, if you went and changed it, I personally wouldn't care. --kizzle 17:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Done. --PrinceValium 15:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Drug section streamlining poll time running down

Consensus is for streamlining section back to a summary, with a link to a detailed subarticle. Start thinking about what the wording will be. Best quotes/examples for this route are from kizzle and JamesMLane.--67.101.67.167 19:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

From JamesMLane:

(Incidentally, your friend in Podunk can take comfort from this passage in the Earth article: "In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth ...." Even on this subject, we honor the policy of reporting notable opinions.) JamesMLane 15:17, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Finally, you're making my point for me. The entire flat earth view gets one paragraph *total* with a link to the flat earth article. Similarly, this topic should get *one* summary paragraph, with a link to a detailed article. Since you have finally come around, do not be surprised when this streamlining occurs at the end of the voting period.--67.101.67.167 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

From kizzle: What if we summarize in a few sentences that Bush has in some forms or another admitted to using marijuana and has not denied using cocaine, then link to a subarticle like George W. Bush substance abuse controversy ... I think this would work for several reasons:

• It would help bring the two opposing camps together as a comporomise, in a subarticle about Bush, I think we could spend a lot more detail on the matter, and while I am mostly against including these references on the main page, I would have no qualms against referencing on a subarticle.
• The main article would contain something similar to Mongo's suggestion, in that it would be a simple summary, but with no details except to summarize what we know about his drug use, the subarticle would contain why we know what we know (references to Wead, Van Wormer, all that)
• People who don't want it included would be somewhat satisfied in that it wouldn't show up on Bush's main page.

Public notice: Let all be advised that 67.101.67.167 is not my authorized representative in any way, shape, or form. This anonymous user does not speak for me and I disclaim any responsibility for his or her statements. The above characterization of my position is certainly wrong, and I do not agree with this user's characterization of a purported consensus. While I'm at it, I do not agree with what will apparently be the position of those seeking to suppress this information, namely that a poll set up with limited alternatives and an artificial deadline is binding. What the poll accomplished was to prompt discussion that indicates we aren't at a yes-or-no point yet. I think the best approach is to try to reach consensus. I had some ideas about proposing compromise language, but, frankly, the barrage of ill-conceived posts from this user and others led me to think I should take a short break from this issue, to cool down. Since then I've been too angry at statements like the one above to be in a good frame of mind for drafting, and also I've been too distracted by the need to answer so many of these posts.

Based on my experience at Wikipedia, I suggest that people try to refrain from making provocative posts. They tend to beget unhelpful exchanges, because others feel compelled to answer. For my part, I react especially badly to people putting words in my mouth. I feel perfectly capable of representing my own positions. JamesMLane 19:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yikes.--kizzle 20:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Double yikes. JamesMLane, I assume you are objecting to "since you're finally coming around," let me assure you that is meant to be irony. I stand by the rest, in that I argue you have proved my point, albeit implicitly. I assumed the irony was obvious, as I thought it was obvious that you don't *really* want to remove a single factoid in that section. Now, I expect to you respond that my characterization of your position (e.g., "you've proved my point") is incorrect. But what I'd love to see is your reasons for *why* it's a mischaracterization, so I can either concede the point or dispute that as well and continue to smack you over the head with the flat earth example.--67.101.67.167 21:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather that you both stopped the discussion completely. You are both wrong in assuming there's one right answer to this. --kizzle 21:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I missed the irony -- which itself is ironic because, offline, I'm more often the one whose irony is missed. I agree with kizzle that there's no one right answer. As I already indicated, I might be willing to go along with a suboptimal answer, i.e., a compromise that unduly restricts the information provided to the reader. It would be unfortunate if relentless POV pushing were to succeed in wearing down the other side, but it wouldn't be first time it had happened here. JamesMLane 23:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

No offense although I appreciate the offer I tend to shy away from anons leading any type of process. It's your right to be an anon and my right to wonder why you insist on it. I'm a big believer in putting my name next to stuff I say, that's just how I am. --Wgfinley 00:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't an offer. It was a notification (which sadly seems to be neccessary to avoid kneejerk reverts). When the voting period is over, I will be introducing some changes based on the discussion and others should think about how to *perfect* or *alter* those changes, rather than revert wars. No one should pretend to be surprised.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I believe that it should still possible make good faith edits to a wiki page -even GWB- and then allow the page itself to move towards meta-stable steady states based on the merits of these edits. Without people needing to use reverts as an editing tool (rather than a anti-vandalism tool), question motives, trumpet counts of total article edits as some sort of authority generator, or engage in meta-discussions so lengthy that the original point is lost.--67.101.66.58 16:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends?

Look. Everyone just take a deep breath, and scroll up on this page and find the mountains of kilobytes of text that we have spent arguing and arguing over some pointless bullshit in the grand scheme of things. There will be no concensus in drafting compromise language on the main page, because there are two dogmas being held over equally justifiable positions. JamesMLane, who is a main proponent of including the material, rightly cites Wikipedia policy (although I want to make sure to let him know I'm paraphrasing, don't want to get my head blown off), in that quoting notable opinions on a subject is adherent to and encouraged by Wikipedia policy. Mongo, and some others, are rightly of the opinion that what it means to be "notable" is highly questionable, of which they interpret this situation to exclude Van Wormer and/or others from the required "notability" for inclusion in this article. There will be no ground gained on either trench, and no concensus reached. James is also right in that the vote I started was simply to get discussion going or determine if a clear majority was in effect, which neither has been satisfied as of yet and its doubtful that either will be satisfied in the future.

Here is my compromise, as stated before, and remember, "a good compromise is when nobody's happy."

Create a subarticle called George W. Bush substance abuse controversy, just like George_W._Bush_insider_trading_allegations and George W. Bush military service controversy, and place *ALL* the info in the subarticle. This way, Mongo's camp will be happy the material is off Bush's main page, but unhappy that its included at all. James's camp will be happy that all the opinions which he and others interpret as "notable" will be included in the article, however, he will be unhappy (warning again, just paraphrasing/guessing, don't bite my head off!) that the material will not be on the main page.

This way, nobody's happy, life can go on, and we can shut the fuck up about a simple passage and go back to editing other articles. The only alternative is to bitch and moan for the next several months and put up with endless analogies, proofs, theorums, and bullshit why one side is clearly in the right, when neither side is.

Let us focus the discussion not on what compromise language it will be, but whether or not people are for offloading to a subarticle, and keep in mind, nobody's going to get everything they want in this case, as both sides are both right and wrong. --kizzle 20:16, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

All right, kizzle, I won't blow your head off. I'm running low on ammo anyway.  :) As for a compromise, we can't just completely excise the material from this article. I'm against creating a daughter article, but even if we do create it, we'd have to leave a summary here. That's the text I've wanted to try to draft but haven't. Bush's DUI arrest and his own statements about giving up drinking and not wanting children to emulate him are significant in his bio, and I don't think anyone has suggested that they be removed. What could be done is to write a brief summary of the Hatfield, van Wormer, and Frank positions, with a wikilink to a daughter article. It's writing the summary that's the tricky part. Everyone will want to throw in one more little nugget "against" the other side, and thus the summary quickly becomes only a paraphrase of the original. JamesMLane 20:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

In order to appease both sides, I say we excise all specific information/references to books/people and such for the daughter article, and only keep a sentence or few something along the lines of: "Bush has inadvertantly admitted to smoking the ganja and has not denied using cocaine when questioned by reporters (See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy)" ... except for the ganja part. i think we all need to take part in the ganj before this discussion continues... sheesh. For the DUI and giving up drinking, I think you'd find that in any encyclopedia on their main page.... but quite honestly James, I must reiterate my compromise and move all Hatfield, van Wormer, and Frank mention to the subarticle, otherwise this isn't a compromise at all. Even if you crafted the best, most articulate sentence that described all three of their positions, it is Mongo's contention that the sheer mention of "Van Wormer" anywhere on the page is not acceptable. That's why it needs to be in the daughter article as a compromise, as I'm sure Mongo wouldn't want it anywhere on Wikipedia in the first place. --kizzle 21:12, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, either way somebody's going to be unhappy. Our goal is to make everybody equally unhappy. --kizzle 21:14, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

nobs latest edit

Nobs, I am normally inclined to avoid ad hominem attacks whenever possible, but your edits are purely retarded and so blindingly POV its ridiculous.

By contrast, President Clinton had 58, 843, 408 votes cast against him by American citizens, the highest total ever and still won, according to the National Archives and Records Administration [7] (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/scores.html#1992)

You don't mention that that race had a significant third party candidate who received 18 million votes, thus simply saying 58 million people voted against him is just plain dumb. I'll give you a pop quiz, which one of these sentences more reflects the nature of Bill Clinton's victory in 1992?

1. Bill Clinton had 58 million people vote against him
2. Bill Clinton won with a margin of 5 million (which is almost twice of Bush's in 2004, by the way), against his closest opponent.

I dare you to say 1. --kizzle 21:58, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Google search of count all votes brings up 3,760,000 hits; your reasoning for not counting the votes, or rationalization why 58, 843, 408 legal, registered voters and American citizens votes do not count, needs no further explaination. Nobs 18:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so then who won more decisively, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton? --kizzle 16:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a purpose to this little debate here?

James - Re: My Revert

Sorry James, didn't understand the point of any of the edits you made. I frankly don't understand your repeated bluntness on the Bush v. Gore ruling and eliminating any reference to the basis for the decision. You make it sound as if a kangaroo court decided to stop the recount process in its tracks and while that may be one POV I don't think it's shared by many.

Secondly, your summary is misleading, you only mention the Bush v. Gore decision in your edit summary when you actually edited several different unrelated sections.

The "Bush speaks, using the word loosely" vandalism got left in your edit. Finally, I think the position of fiscal conservatives was well stated and I think that was about the first time you trimmed a section that was critical on Bush. Be that as it may, I thought it was concise as written. --Wgfinley 04:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Explaining each of my edits that you reverted:

• Comma in date: The format I changed to is one of those identified as "Correct" in the Manual of Style. Yours is not.
• Bush v. Gore: My wording states what the Supreme Court did, which is what counts for Bush's bio. The reader who wants to know more about the legal reasoning can click on the handy hyperlink and read all about the case. If we include the majority's reasoning, we should also note the dissent. Also, by your logic, we should explain the reasoning of the majority of the justices of the Florida Supreme Court, lest we give they impression that they were acting as a kangaroo court. None of that is necessary to this article.
• Your statement of the matter as to the "Bush speaks, using the word loosely" vandalism is precisely wrong. My edit removed it. Your edit restored it.
• Conservative criticism of Bush: To identify one single point of conservative criticism, the budget deficit is the most prominent. Yes, the right wing criticized the Medicare expansion, but that pretty much came and went in one year. Criticism of overall deficit spending has been persistent. Most conservatives would attack the deficit by cutting spending rather than by rescinding the tax cuts, so an alternative might be to refer generally to criticism of the level of non-military spending under Bush, but singling out Medicare just isn't an accurate description. (If we were to single out one program, the best choice might be one that costs less than $200 million: the National Endowment for the Arts. Despite its comparatively small size, it seems to drive conservatives into a frothing rage.)

Finally, your description of my edit summary is false. I did not "only mention the Bush v. Gore decision". Here's my actual edit summary: "Bush v. Gore - just what was done, with link to article for legal reasoning; conservatives criticize deficits". So, what I omitted from my edit summary was that I was (1) putting a comma in a date and (2) removing a short passage that we all agree was vandalism. Those omissions don't render the summary "misleading" in any way, shape, or form. Wikipedia practice is that an edit summary doesn't have to try to cover everything done in an edit. Instead, it should give a reasonable summary of the edit -- which I did. JamesMLane 06:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Addendum about Medicare: The Republicans in the House voted in favor of the bill, 204-25. [9] Yes, there was conservative opposition and criticism, but the heavy support from Republicans is another indication that the Medicare issue shouldn't be the poster child for conservative criticism of Bush. JamesMLane 06:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Time for Archive No. 23

This page is HUMONGOUS!!! Can someone please archive some of this discussion? I would suggest everything from "Regarding War Criminal Status" up...Harro5 04:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Possible compromise

I've finally gotten around to creating compromise language on the drug and alcohol issue. You can see and edit it here, and discuss the editing of it here. For convenience, I'll put the key passage here:

It has been alleged that Bush exhibits the "classic addictive thinking pattern" that is common among former alcoholics who are no longer drinking, a pattern reflected in his public statements and actions. [10] One psychiatrist who wrote a book about Bush (Frank, 2004) described him as "an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies." [11] For further details on these arguments and the opposition to them, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [12] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that he was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972 but that his family had the record expunged; he has, however, declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [13]

The subject also arose in a conversation between Bush and an old friend, author Doug Wead. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “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 Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [14] For further detail, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

This material would follow the quotation of Bush's comments about his giving up drinking. The separate section that's now in the article, currently titled "Personal criticisms and allegations of drug use", would be deleted. (In my draft I reproduced the whole section in which this compromise would appear, including the undisputed paragraph with Bush's own comments about drinking, so that people could see the context.)

I generally followed kizzle's suggestion that we "excise all specific information/references to books/people and such". An exception is that, because the Hatfield and Frank books are included in the bibliography at the end, it seemed unduly coy not to mention the source of the allegations. I did so in the academic style, with only the author's last name and the year of publication. Van Wormer's name doesn't appear at all. More important is that the specific traits that she cites as supporting her conclusion have all been excised.

The first paragraph, about van Wormer and Frank, follows the approach of the paragraph about the National Guard controversy. It summarizes the allegations that create the controversy and refers the reader to the daughter article. It doesn't elaborate on the support for or opposition to the allegations that created the controversy. Hoping to forestall efforts to load the paragraph with opposition statements, I introduced the wikilink with the additional phrase "and the opposition to them" -- superfluous, in my view, but of course I don't think there should be a daughter article in the first place.

The second paragraph is Bush's statements about drugs. Hatfield's allegation is mentioned only as something that Bush denied.

The third paragraph is more of Bush's own statements, in his conversations with Wead.

Anyone can edit the draft on my subpage. Obviously, though, there's no point in editing it to remove all reference to anything unfavorable to Bush, or to restore all the suppressed information. In other words, editing it to conform it to one of the versions in the main article that's already been reverted by someone else won't accomplish anything. If you believe that there should be no mention whatsoever of this material, or if you believe that all the relevant and factual information should be included and you will brook no compromise with the censors, then you probably shouldn't edit the draft. JamesMLane 22:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a good start James, I foresee a couple of problems though. While you have done a good job streamlining the text down and removing specific info, when people who know about Hatfield or Van Wormer read your text, they are going to be screaming for rebuttal, and then this whole thing is going to get larger again.

Imagine you're at a party and someone asks you, "Wait, Bush did drugs? Which ones? And how do you know?" Let us (on this main page) stick to the absolute basics, which in my honest opinion is your latter paragraph almost by itself. I like the second paragraph, but without the Hatfield mention that he "allegedly" got his record expunged... this is a big red target for future debates. We see that he indirectly admits to marijuana, he "hasn't denied anything" about cocaine, and that's it. The rest (IMHO) should go into the daughter article, which we can then lace with as much rebuttal/support arguments as necessary.

I'm thinking something like this:

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974[15], however, he has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974.[16]

The subject also arose in a conversation between Bush and an old friend, author Doug Wead. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “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 Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [17] For further detail, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

What do you think? --kizzle 16:58, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Shunting information to a daughter article is virtually the same as suppressing it altogether if it's not adequately linked. Excising the first paragraph of the draft affects the reader who doesn't give a damn what Bush did in his "irresponsible youth", but would be interested in reading the pros and cons about whether he currently, as President, exhibits any identifiable patterns of speech or behavior. Without the first paragraph, that reader wouldn't know that van Wormer, Frank, and their critics are summarized in the daughter article.

More generally, as to all three authors, it's wrong to move information completely to a daughter article. "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary." (Wikipedia:Article size#Restructuring and splitting articles). Notice that we follow this principle in our handling of the TANG issues. The reason there's a daughter article about George W. Bush military service controversy is that certain allegations were made against Bush. Therefore, we summarize those allegations before directing the reader to the daughter article. In the present case, the information we're discussing is also related to certain allegations against Bush. If we're going to move most of that information to a daughter article, we must at least note the gist of it in the main article, by summarizing the allegations. JamesMLane 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

True, it is important to correctly summarize a controversy if it is to be relocated to a daughter article. I guess where we fundamentally differ is the level of importance the three authors have on the subject matter as a whole. I personally don't consider them to be worthy of inclusion in the summary on Bush's page whereas you think of them as a vital aspect. Clearly we have a different perspective, because when you said "Without the first paragraph, that reader wouldn't know that van Wormer, Frank, and their critics are summarized in the daughter article", I couldn't think of a reader who would be impacted by that. :) I could imagine readers wanting to learn more about his drug usage, then coming to the page itself, but the amount of people who come to this section looking for mention of Van Wormer or Frank is extremely low. And even if we are to cater to this significant minority, I don't believe that excluding mention of Van Wormer just on the main page is a bad thing, as it is fully reproduced in the daughter articles, and if they know enough about the subject to already be familliar with Van Wormer, they'll definetely click on the daughter link. --kizzle 18:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I like kizzle's version, and I am close to kizzle's view re. what degree to which you "name names" vs. summarize. I don't think not naming (realtively) unknown names in the summary is going to change how many people click on the subarticle. I mean, who can resist reading an article about substance abuse by a president? =) But I think that JamesMLane's 1st paragrah is a decent summary of a position, too. So I think it's reasonably concise with that paragraph in there, too.--67.101.66.58 19:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I too like kizzle's version. I don't agree with James' first graph because there is an entire debate around "classic addictive thinking pattern" theory. I think kizzle's is precise, to the point, gives direction on where to go for more detailed info. --Wgfinley 22:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm not talking about the people who come to this article looking for information about van Wormer and Frank. I agree with kizzle that those readers will find the information. I'm talking about the reader who comes to this article just looking for general information about Bush, and who has no idea that the "dry drunk"/Bush on the Couch debate even exists, but who, if told that it exists, would be interested in learning more about it. Of course, many readers wouldn't care, but some would. We have to let them know that there's more in the daughter article than just the discussion about what Bush did 30 years ago. As for Wgfinley's comment, I agree that there's a debate about the concept, so Wikipedia shouldn't adopt it as true. My draft says, "It has been alleged"; it puts the phrase in quotation marks; and the wikilink to the daughter article is introduced with the information that the daughter article has information about opposition. I don't see how we can go any further in making it clear that this text is presented as a summary of a disputed opinion, rather than a statement of fact. JamesMLane 22:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Because you keep expanding the order of magnitude James - the President saying he took drugs, won't elaborate on it, makes inferences about it, etc. would be considered primary and important information. The van Wormer and Frank stuff is peripheral to that primary information and shouldn't be in the main article because almost all of it is speculative and subjective - the primary information I referenced above is neither. Hence, the primary important facts from the daughter article (the President's own admissions, the Weade tape, etc.) are in the GWB article and the peripheral, speculative, debateable, controversial, etc. goes in the daughter article. --Wgfinley 23:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

James, how about this?

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974[18], however, he has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974.[19] There is some debate as to whether or not he still exhibits signs of his previous alcoholism (or something to the effect) (see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy)

The subject of illegal substance abuse also arose in a conversation between Bush and an old friend, author Doug Wead. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “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 Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [20] For further detail, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

That's the best that I can come up without referencing names. --kizzle 00:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

To Wgfinley: I don't understand what you claim I'm "expanding". My suggested compromise gives the reader substantially less information about the subject than was in this article until the latest ruckus. Furthermore, if we're to be NPOV, we don't divide information according to your view or anyone else's view of whether it's "subjective" or "controversial", with the stuff you prefer going in the main article and the disfavored material relegated to a daughter article. Instead, the normal procedure is to divide by subject matter. A daughter article presents all the information about a particular subject. As per the policy I quoted above, the main article retains a summary. Even if you think that the allegations against Bush aren't well founded, the reader should at least be told what they are, so that the scope of the daughter article will be apparent.

To kizzle: You're trying valiantly to contort yourself to comply with this rule that we can't name names. There is no such rule. Why should names be censored? Anyway, note that in my suggestion, the names of Hatfield and Frank are mentioned only in parentheticals referencing their books in the bibliography, and I've gone along with censoring van Wormer's name entirely. (The more I discuss this subject, the more I think my suggested version goes too far in trying to appease the critics.) The trouble with "signs of his previous alcoholism" is that it says both too much (asserting that he was an alcoholic, which I think he denies) and too little (it doesn't say what the "signs" are -- could be cirrhosis or the like). The guidelines tell us we should leave a summary here. I think that means mentioning, in cursory fashion, what the allegations are, not just the fact that some allegations exist. JamesMLane 01:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, James, read carefully here -- the problem with introducing Hatfield and Frank and just "mentioning" them incites a riot. You put Hatfield and Frank and then there's the token response that has to be made questioning the veracity of Hatfield and Frank and then the counter-point. It's exactly what we're trying to avoid that you're including. That's what I'm talking about expanding it because you just want this small part in and then there has to be a response in kind and so on and a ripple becomes a tidal wave. --Wgfinley 02:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I second this. But then I suppose it all relates to what degree someone thinks the movement of names to the subarticle qualifies as censoring. Although that's certainly a consistent position, I don't subscribe to it. I personally prefer to think of the question as being somewhat similar to editing a newspaper: if you think of the front page as the main article and the rest of section A as subarticles... the basics go on the front page and the more tedious details are left to the continuations at places like page 8A. --67.101.66.58 02:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Response to Wgfinley: I believe that I have been reading carefully. Your point about expansion is correct to the extent that Bush's defenders apparently won't permit so much as a mention of the fact that someone has criticized Bush without jumping in and throwing mud at the critic. But you don't have to make that response questioning the critics' veracity, just as I don't have to elaborate their criticisms or detail their supporting evidence. Instead, we can just mention the allegations that give rise to the controversy. To stop this endless bickering, I'm willing to go along with improperly and unnecessarily putting the full information in a daughter article. But no one will respond to three of the major points I've made (so perhaps you also should read carefully):

1) Ensuring that the information is in the daughter article is meaningless unless the reader is told that it's there. It's as if we said only, "See also Other criticisms of George W. Bush." The reader deserves a reasonable amount of information about the subject of the linked article so that he or she can decide whether to read it. The phrase "substance abuse" doesn't pick up van Wormer and Frank, because there's a lot more to what they say than just their reference to "substance abuse". That phrase, if unelaborated, will give the reader the false impression that the linked article is all about Bush's youthful hijinks, when in fact it will have information about his conduct as President.

1. 1. I agree James, but this does not necessarily justify reproducing allegations in their full form in the main article, we can simply summarize. You are absolutely correct in saying that there is no "rule" to not mention specifics, only this rule which I have self-imposed on my attempts to reach concensus, however, you should know the reason I am following this "rule", is simply the reality that if you reproduce allegations in full, Bush supporters will want to justify the allegations by adding rebuttal, and the process starts over again. I don't see what was wrong with the jist of my last proposal, just mention in one sentence without specifics what the general phenomenon Van Wormer and/or Frank is describing.--kizzle 06:39, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The material was in the article in its "full form" a couple months ago, and it was much longer and more detailed. This is a summary. With regard to your last proposal, I did comment on it, but I realize it's easy for a comment to be overlooked in the torrent of words we've collectively generated here. If you'll pardon me for quoting myself, what I said was:

The trouble with "signs of his previous alcoholism" is that it says both too much (asserting that he was an alcoholic, which I think he denies) and too little (it doesn't say what the "signs" are -- could be cirrhosis or the like).

You suggest below that "some people on this page" won't allow "a reproduced allegation without properly addressing it". The possible compromise that I'm now exploring is that I go along with depriving the reader of a properly reproduced allegation, and other editors go along with depriving the reader of a passage properly addressing it. (The alternative, properly presenting it and properly attacking it, is also fine with me.) I think my draft makes it quite clear that these allegations are the subject of controversy, but maybe the Bush defenders will be happy if we depart from the successful model of the TANG and SEC references, and rewrite the first paragraph this way:

It has been argued that Bush exhibits the "classic addictive thinking pattern" that is common among former alcoholics who are no longer drinking, a pattern reflected in his public statements and actions. [21] One psychiatrist who wrote a book about Bush (Frank, 2004) described him as "an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies." [22] Other professionals have expressed their disagreement with these analyses. For further details on these arguments, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

That wording states the points on which the experts disagree. It doesn't give either side space to argue for or defend its position. All that material, for both sides, could go to the daughter article. JamesMLane 07:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

2) Careful readers will have noticed that I quoted the following passage, which is of general applicability and not something cooked up the leftist cabal: "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary." (Wikipedia:Article size#Restructuring and splitting articles). The subject of this part of the daughter article is the analyses by van Wormer and Frank. I pared the summary of their positions down to a couple sentences. I don't see how anything less can be considered "an adequate summary".

1. 1. Once again, I completely agree. I don't believe we are arguing this point that you bring up, it is merely our different interpretations of what "adequate" constitutes in this situation.--kizzle 06:39, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

3) My draft follows the model that was finally settled on for the language about the George W. Bush military service controversy article. I'll add now that it's also similar to the language preceding the link to George W. Bush insider trading allegations. All three of these issues (TANG, insider trading, drugs/alcohol) concern allegations/charges/criticisms made against Bush. The subject arises because of the allegations. The "adequate summary", therefore, is to identify the allegations, so that the reader will know that the referenced daughter article has the pros and cons of those allegations. The model that we've used for the two other controversies is a good one to follow here.

1. 1. I agree, and my previous example leaves out all mention of the meat behind Van Wormer and Frank's info, but I still think there is a more condensed version that can be crafted which does not mention specifics.--kizzle 06:39, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Response to 67.101.66.58: The draft I wrote is structured similarly to your example of a newspaper article. The newspaper headline, on page 1, tells what the article is about. The headline might be, "Mayor Charged with Accepting Bribe". Then the allegations are presented. It might not be until page 8A that you read, "The chief witness against Mayor Coznofski is the cousin of Joe Blow, who narrowly lost to Coznofski in last year's election." In other words, you can't get all the pros and cons onto the first page, but when the story arises from an allegation, that's the lead, the single most important thing to tell the reader. JamesMLane 06:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

James, mainly, my point is this. The opposing side will not allow any mention of Van Wormer, Hatfield, or Frank without detailed rebuttal. Your streamline text does not contain any balancing/context/rebuttal to the allegations presented. That is why in my previous examples, I try to stick what has not been alleged, but what is fact. Once we start to get into allegations, the rebuttal/support train comes hauling in with a vengeance. That is why, if you are insistence on including the information, try and present it in a general and overview sense, rather than reproducing the allegations as a whole in order to avoid future attempts to add rebuttal in the summary text. In theory, I do not object to having the allegations included on this page, but there is no way some people on this page are going to allow only a reproduced allegation without properly addressing it, and then we're back to square one and 6 more paragraphs. Remember, compromise. Information is still accessible to people in a general form, however, the specifics are in a daughter article. In my mind, this makes everyone equally unhappy, and imho is the closest we're going to come to concensus. I honestly don't know what my personal feelings on this debate is anymore, I'm just trying to help everyone come to some sort of compromise so we can move on from this debate which seems like its lasted since dubya was appointed president in 2000. --kizzle 06:39, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I couldn't agree with you more this is the point I've been trying to make. James, it's as simple as this, your "summary" includes an introduction to the claims whose veracity is in dispute. You can't have on the page, and I paraphrase "Bush's daddy got him out of a coke charge" (Hatfield) and then have a link to a daughter article where, oh, by the way his book was pulled, he did time for trying to have his boss murdered, etc., etc. Same thing with van Wormer, your "summary" more or less posits "addictive thinking" as accepted fact when it most certainly is not. This is what I'm talking about and as a lawyer I would think you would understand. Only subtantiated fact should be in the article itself and then referral to a controversy related to those substantiated facts is discussed in detail in a daughter article. --Wgfinley 14:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my suggestion does indeed include an introduction to the claims whose veracity is in dispute. What else would be an adequate summary? The summary is basically, "Here are the claims made, and they're in dispute." The elaboration in the daughter article is, "Here's the supporting information and arguments, here's the opposing information and arguments." The purpose of spinning information off into a daughter article is so that the readers who are interested in the point can read more detail -- but we have to tell them enough about the point so that they know whether it's one they're interested in. "Somebody made some sort of allegations against Bush about something or other" doesn't do the job. (I realize that you haven't proposed that exact wording concerning Hatfield. I'll be glad to analyze and comment on any specific wording that you do propose.) You might note, for comparison purposes, this sentence from the Bill Clinton article, which tells the reader about a daughter article: "Chinagate involved Democrats accepting improper campaign contributions; allegedly the ultimate source of this money was the Chinese government." Note that it reports the allegation. My version for Hatfield is fairer in that it reports both the allegation and Bush's denial of the allegation.

One approach to Hatfield is to put all the information, pro and con, in this article. We're having this discussion because you don't want to do that. Alternatively, if we're going the route of a daughter article, then I would indeed omit from the main article the information that the original publisher pulled the book. I would also omit from the main article the information that the original publisher stated that the book had been meticulously fact-checked. Including it all and omitting it all are both NPOV options. Giving only one side of the story in the main article, as the current version does, is not NPOV.

As for van Wormer, I reject your charge that the summary "more or less posits 'addictive thinking' as accepted fact". The paragraph begins: "It has been argued that ..." It then uses the phrase you object to, but in quotation marks, which makes clear that it's part of what's being argued. If you think that's not enough, I suggested above that the statement of the allegations be followed by, "Other professionals have expressed their disagreement with these analyses." The paragraph ends with a link to a daughter article that has the word controversy in its title. I don't see how we could make it any clearer that the allegation we're reporting isn't an accepted fact. Do we need to? Just how stupid do you think our readers are? JamesMLane 16:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I like James's recent wording, so I copied down here rather than get buried above within his previous message with a slight addition, along with the rest of the text.:

It has been argued that Bush exhibits the "classic addictive thinking pattern" that is common among former alcoholics who are no longer drinking, a pattern reflected in his public statements and actions. [23] One psychiatrist who wrote a book about Bush (Frank, 2004) described him as "an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies." [24] Other professionals have expressed their disagreement with these analyses, especially since the psychiatrist has never personally treated Bush. For further details on these arguments, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974[25], however, he has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974.[26]

The subject of illegal substance abuse also arose in a conversation between Bush and an old friend, author Doug Wead. In the taped recordings of the conversation, Bush explained his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used marijuana at some time in his past. “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 Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [27] For further detail, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

Please for the love of all that is good and holy in this universe, people, agree with this version, James, its got your shit in it, Mongo/Wgfinley/everone else, its got your rebuttal in it + hatfield and others moved to subarticle........ if not, I will personally fly to every single one of your houses and bitchslap you until you cry. LET THERE BE PEACE! --kizzle 16:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's a big step in the right direction. Let me know what you think of my changes to this compromise para: [28] I am NOT trying to enflame, I really did try not to change the POV, so if you disagree, let's please be nice about it... Kaisershatner 18:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well at least we're being overly polite to each other rather than where this discussion was a few days ago :)... see people, we can all live in wikiharmony. The one problem with your version Kaiser, is that you know your text is going to get rebutted to in under 2 seconds if you post that... if we just include a small rebuttal text like I have above, this text is much less likely to be edited/expanded upon in the future. --kizzle 19:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

If we just include a small rebuttal text, how do we keep out the small rebuttal to the rebuttal, etc.? I think we should keep out all the pro and con, and if someone comes along and inserts something, we move it to the daughter article. That version of the main article will be the most stable. It's easier to maintain that kind of "zero tolerance" than to try to draw a line and say that this piece of evidence is in and that one's out.

I can accept Kaisershatner's edits to my draft, except that I inserted a blank space before each citation so it doesn't look like it's part of the preceding word. Kaisershatner, I've given in on other things, I hope you can accept that change.  :) (And remember, if you don't, kizzle might bitchslap you when he gets through with me.)

So, as of now, I'll offer as candidate language what's in User:JamesMLane/George W. Bush substance abuse controversy after my edit of 19:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC). I understand kizzle's concern that people who haven't been involved in editing the page before might come along and try to add to it, but, kizzle, maybe we could give it a try and see whether that really becomes a problem? We're dealing with so much silly vandalism on this article that people will be constantly revisiting it anyway, so I think it wouldn't be a huge burden for us to maintain the section in this form. JamesMLane 19:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: the line "Other professionals have expressed their disagreement with these analyses, especially since the psychiatrist has never personally treated Bush." is disputed on grounds of balance and significance? Personally, i'm fine with inclusion of the sentence, barring a slight correction: the statement is structured so as to imply that a psychiatrist not personally treating a subject neccessarily merits "disagreement" with their analysis. They certainly could make a better analysis if they could personally examine the subject, but their not having the consent of the subject to do so is no fault of their own and does not neccessarily make their analysis wrong. These two items should be separated (and the order flipped), and if there are indeed psychologists who disagree, then they should be cited and their premises stated. Lacking such substantiating, it should be ommitted. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 20:26, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will assume that Bush's personal psychiatrist has suddenly decided to blab to the media. I don't think the sentence adds anything useful, and it raises the danger that someone will want to add a counter to it ("Of course, Bush has never agreed to permit such an examination"). We can report the fact of the opposition in either of two ways:

• "Other professionals have expressed their disagreement with these analyses. For further details on these arguments, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy." or
• "For further details on these arguments and the opposition to them, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy."

Either of these is acceptable to me. JamesMLane 22:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

James, could you characterize exactly what you are giving up in order to compromise? --kizzle 22:28, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

My first choice is to have no daughter article and to have all these issues, pro and con, presented in this article. I would have no problem with reporting Savodnik's criticism of Frank, Hatfield's felony conviction, etc., provided all the information on the other side was also included. I think the article was in approximately that state a few months ago (although the Savodnik comment probably hadn't yet been unearthed). JamesMLane 22:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

In the state that you are advocating, there is only the allegation. All I'm saying is, I give this content 2 days before someone comes in and sticks rebuttal text in, and then we're back to the beginning. But I've done all I can to help the situation...sigh...I guess just put your text in and we'll see what happens. --kizzle 22:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The allegations are accompanied by Bush's denial (in the case of Hatfield) and the reference to opposing views (van Wormer and Frank). That's better than we do for the Chinagate link I mentioned above. You're right, though, that we can expect people to try to stick in rebuttal, while other people try to justify the allegations. We'll see how bad it gets. Thanks for your willingness to give it a try. I'll wait a bit longer to see how others react. JamesMLane 00:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In the spirit of finding a compromise that makes everyone a little unhappy, I think it's not horrible the way it is. JML is right that as written the para lists allegations, and some counterpoint to them (Bush's denial, opposing views). My preference is for as neutral a statement as possible (ie, sticking to the facts, "certain people have said these things,") and letting the interested reader find out more for themselves. My only major concern right now is this "When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [9] (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/) " as the footnote used does not support the quotation. Bush may have said that, but that link doesn't substantiate it. Also, I'm not sure what point is being made - that he denies cocaine use, doesn't deny it, reversed himself? The context of the statement would be helpful to know- not suggesting necessarily to add it, but this sentence could be better. Kaisershatner 13:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This won't do as a replacement cite, but at least it contains the quotation [29] - to me it sounds as if Bush was trying to make the point that he'd rather not deny anything because it would lend credence to the issue and his accusers.Kaisershatner 13:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Right, taking the moral high road just like Mark McGwire. --kizzle 16:14, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well it seems to be working much better than Clinton's strategy of "i didn't inhale" did. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:38, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

That's only because the Republican PR machine is way better than the Democrats'.--kizzle 17:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

In that passage I was picking up other people's work. From the way it was set up, with the phrase "taped recordings" as an external link, I had thought that the cite there was one where you could listen to the recordings. It isn't, so that presentation was misleading. I've rearranged the citations on the draft, using a BBC site as the source for the "I haven't denied anything" quotation. As for its interpretation, I thought that Wead was making the point that Bush denied using cocaine, but didn't deny marijuana, and that the difference amounted to an implicit admission that he'd used marijuana, and that Bush Bush countered the implication by denying that he'd denied using cocaine. (Or maybe this convoluted rationale proves only that I did inhale.) JamesMLane 17:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

James, we all know you smoke the wacky tobacky from time to time. --kizzle 17:32, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I surrender, just leave it as it is, this will never get shortened because people can't let miniscule issues go and cover what is important. This article has no hope of being concise until long after Bush leaves office obviously since people are hell bent on making it carry on longer than a trial in California. The entire point was to shorten the article and now we have 4 graph compromises introduced to solve what is already 4 graphs. --Wgfinley 02:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Personal criticisms and allegations of drug use" section is too big

I propose that this section is too large, and includes some information which should be deleted. For example: "In February 2004, Eric Boehlert in Salon magazine claimed that Bush's departure from the Texas Air National Guard was related to implementation of the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program." In my opinion, this section is bogus, because the democrats would of broadcast this to the world if it had any truth to it. It would be in his medical records if there were truth. I see this as wikipedia wasting space by publishing unsupported rumors from a random reporter, and if this type of stuff is allowed to stay then the article will become a few gigabytes in size because of everybody elses crap that will be added to it.

Also, the line "Bush has admitted to a once serious alcohol problem" is incorrect. In should read "Bush decided to stop drinking before it became a serious problem", the reason it should read that way is because of the interview he gave where he described his drinking. It was not a problem, but it was a habit which he was not proud of, a habit which could lead to an addiction, so he quit. Nowhere in his history is there a record of chronic alchohol abuse such as loss of job, entering into treatment, etc.

• Not sure of the details of the Boehlert allegations, but I agree with your proposed edits to the alcohol sentence. Your suggested version is better NPOV, and has been well argued. But its probably best to get the OK of either MONGO or JamesMLane because, while I know no one "owns" any article, these two will likely smother you with a pillow if you edit a section on Bush criticism without their OK and ensuing two day argument...Harro5 09:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

To Harro5: A few days ago, kizzle worried that I might blow his head off. If your only concern now is that I might attack with a pillow, I must be getting a reputation as a softie.  :)

To the anon who started this section: The issue you raise has already been discussed extensively on this page. Some people agree with you, some don't. We're trying to reach consensus on how to address these issues. Please feel free to comment on the possible compromise in the section immediately above this one. JamesMLane 09:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Iraq section way too long

Could someone clean it up/move it to another article? Right now it is too much for a casual reader to go through in one breath.

In code there is a rule of thumb that any "function" (unit) should be less than 25 lines. Perhaps wikipedia coule do something similar either with articles or with sections.

The Iraq section is a total mess, this is supposed to be a biographical article about Bush - allegations of torture and Abu Ghraib, whether or not Iraq is "better off" without Saddam (an unbelievable debate to have anyway) certainly shouldn't be debated here. My edits aren't perfect but the level of detail in this section is appalling. Kaisershatner 15:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much a question of the level of detail as of the focus; I agree with you that the information presented should be what's most important in a Bush bio. So, for example, on Abu Ghraib, it would be relevant to say that the incident led to calls for the dismissal of Rumsfeld, but Bush reiterated his confidence in Rumsfeld, or some such. The Downing Street memo is relevant but not, as it's currently presented, for what it says about Britain's decision-making process. Rather, the points are that by summer 2002, the Bush administration had decided on an invasion, and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." That's why, several days ago, I added information about the memo after the reference to 9/11. That's where it belongs chronologically. JamesMLane 17:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, we certainly agree that as written, the section is all about Britain's rationale for supporting war, something that doesn't need to be addressed in the GWB article. I think the whole para should be chopped, but I'll reprint here in the spirit of discussion rather than initiating a revert war over it. The whole thing can be summarized as "Bush has stood by his rationale for the war, and some of his critics have called for his impeachment for allegedly lying to Congress." Something like that anyway:

The decision-making process of British support was later leaked in a classified document, the "Downing Street memo". After repeated requests for clarification, both the US and the UK government have refused to either confirm or deny the accuracy of the document. In it, the British Head of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Richard Dearlove (known in official terminology as 'C') observed:

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

On May 5, 2005, John Conyers and 89 other members of Congress wrote an open letter to Bush asking a series of questions about the memo. Bush has not responded to the letter. On May 18, 2005, in a joint U.S.-U.K. press conference, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw were questioned about the memo; Rice reiterated the Bush administration's arguments in favor of the invasion, while Straw said he had not expected to be asked about the memo (see transcript (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/46412.htm)). On the same day, in response to the publication of the "Downing Street memo," Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article calling for Bush's impeachment for lying to Congress about the case for war [12] (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi/American%20Empire/2005/05/18/A_Reputation_in_Tat).

Kaisershatner 12:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit I'm impatient. Starting my edits. Kaisershatner 15:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The Downing Street Memo. Reinstated by User:Kevin baas. A memo apparently unauthenticated, in which a British man voices his opinion that intelligence was being fixed around policy by Bush...despite whatever evidence there was prior to the war about Saddam, that vicious butcher of his own people, using chemical weapons and spending his oil money for more torture chambers and eventually nuclear weapons. It's going to be a part of the encyclowikipedia biographical article about George W. Bush. I. Give. Up. I'm outta here, guys. Have fun. Kaisershatner 20:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Where in that rant did you justify why it shouldn't be included? --kizzle 21:03, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Also:

"The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. The British Embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents..."

• Memo: Bush manipulated Iraq intel, Newsday, May 9, 2005

---

"British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity..."

"...when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it 'nothing new.'"

• Bush asked to explain UK war memo, CNN, May 12, 2005

---

"Since Smith's report was published May 1, Blair's Downing Street office has not disputed the document's authenticity. Asked about them Wednesday, a Blair spokesman said the report added nothing significant..."

• Indignation Grows in U.S. Over British Prewar Documents, LA Times, May 12, 2005

Length of Article

This, as well as many other articles, is very long. Is there a possibility that we could break the articles into pages with a certain ammount of text per page? Just because internet browsers travel vertically does not mean we must conform to that standard. A page by page interface with a table of contents would surfice and would almost certainly make for an easier reading experiance through long material.Ø