Moved old talk to Talk:George W. Bush Archive, Talk:George W. Bush Archive2
There is a NPOV policy here at wikipedia. A more subtle way of violating this is writing a considerable amount of text on a rather trivial matter. The information about GWB calling Jean Chretien a "dino" and Times reporter Clymer an "a**hole" is interesting and true, but does it belong in an encyclopedia? Not really. A biography, yes, but not here and not in that detail. Discussion of the foreign policy of GWB is not much longer than the whole "nickname" thing (besides, GWB was not "nicknaming" Clymer an "a**hole"--he was calling him one. There's big difference.
- Not really. Foreign policy depends on relationships, and to call the most senior G8 leader a "dino" such that everyone knows about it shows a lack of judgement that is quite important to know about. It illustrates a flippant style that might well cast light on other things. Likewise, domestically, to be so careless as to have everyone hear you call a reporter a name, also shows a certain attitude. These are style points and a couple of them belong here. They're in context saying it's about style. Other articles can comment on US foreign policy direction of Bush, but only this one can comment on Bush as a person.
Perhaps we should reduce that discussion to one line: "A noted idiosyncracy of GWB is to bestow sometimes flippant nicknames on people."
- Add "including even senior G8 leaders, and respected reporters, causing some to question his judgement in letting these nicknames be so widely known." Then we're fine.
I replaced the picture with a more recent one just now. There was the original (a decent photo but Bush looks about 35 - it must be really old), then an anon stuck in one with a really silly look on his face, which was promptly reverted. Meanwhile, I trawled around, found a suitable recent shot at www.whitehouse.gov, pasted it in. Two questions: (a) It is OK to use stuff from there without copyright problems, yes? (b) should I trim the attribution at the bottom and move the information in it to the image talk page? Tannin 12:47 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)
Maybe we can put the old picture back in ???????????????
I made a bunch of edits to this page, mostly to expand on some important areas that deserved a more encyclopedia-ish description, and to remove what I saw as a lot of blatantly biased anti-Bush sections.
It seems to me that an easy way to dance around the NPOV rule is to tack a grand lists of "criticisms" to a page of a poltician or idea you do not agree with. While explaining the existance of criticism and popular opinion is important, I think we should all remember that an encyclopedia is not a college thesis paper or a trial. The purpose is not to convince the reader to think a certain way, or view events in a certain light, but rather to present the facts and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.
- If there are a *lot* of facts, though, they must be all dealt with.
I thus removed and revised some of the "lists of criticisms" mostly because I felt they were either not sufficiently countered by an "other side" or presented in anything close to proper context.
I could see that work went in to them, and certainly I believe they have a time and place. I am not convinced, however, that they belong here. Perhaps a "Criticism of George W. Bush" page could provide a sufficent forum for people to raise their concerns?
- I very much agree. This page is getting a bit cluttered, and anyway should probably focus more on biographical information and summaries of what Bush has done in office so far, instead of analyses of his actions. Since everyone has much to say about his policies, a separate article (or articles) is probably necessary and inevitable. -- Minesweeper 04:09 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Bad title idea. If you put "criticisms" in one place, then the article on Bush quickly becomes advocacy, and we quickly become Bauder's project.
Hmm, the first few pages I'd found before all had "Secretary of Treasury", e.g. http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html , but there are a fair number of places that say "Secretary of the Treasury", too, and that's where we already have an article, so I'll leave it with "the" in there. I wish they could at least be consistent with themselves about these things! -- John Owens 03:45 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
- The Treasury Dept's website has "the" in it, so we should stick with it. Leaving the "the" out probably isn't incorrect, but having it there is definitely more correct. -- Minesweeper 04:09 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
I re-instated "asshole" (instead of a**hole), as per Wikipedia:Profanity. Evercat 23:09 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
If its good enough for the President, its good enough for me....er Pizza Puzzle
The recently added stuff solely on the USA PATRIOT Act needs to be moved to that article. It is not about GW Bush. --mav 23:45 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I informed User:Ryenwah and will move it myself later tonight if he doesn't. Pizza Puzzle
I removed "., who can target students least likely to succeed and convince them to join the armed forces." from education has the miltary announce a plan to "target" bad students? is it as likley they would target smart kids? Anyway it seems to draw a conclusion without any support. Smith03 21:27, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- No, that belongs back in. This is the actual policy: recruit those who are flunking out. They did not "announce" it but they are not hiding it either, and some teachers' groups and civil rights groups have complained about this - look it up. Smart ones? Why would smart ones want to go to fight losing wars for oilcos? That's insane.
Does anyone have the name of the German offical who made the comparison? plus do we have a source to verfy the quote ( the full quote) plus also to verify the quote about dismissing the protestors as a focus group? My concern not just for the Bush article but for every article regarding topics that people have strong feelings about is that we make sure we include a full quote and documument were the quote came from. I am not disputing any quotes in the article but it seems very easy to put in a quote that sounds like something the person would have said, but may not have said or said it differently. Smith03 16:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- The Hitler comment was made by a high German official who later ended up resigning because of it (which should probably be in there also). Her name should be easy to find and verify. The other quote I have no idea when it was made or any sourcing. I just moved it to the place where the protests were discussed instead of the end of the paragraph and removed the characterization of the protest. The numbers of protesters speak for themselves and do not require any opinions or other characterization.Ark30inf 16:45, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
[1] This may or may not be the same comment. Maybe it not a huge different but was German minister comparing Bush to Hitler or Bush's policies to Hitler's ? Smith03 16:54, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Methods, and it is a pretty big difference actually. Herta Daeubler-Gmelin was the Justice Minister.Ark30inf 17:03, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Much better I think. The whole incident and result is now covered.Ark30inf 17:13, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree Smith03 17:30, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Agree small groups but a think more than a few dozen Smith03 19:36, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Within the article as it nows stands we have para dealing with drilling in the ARtic, the Kyto (sorry if my spelling is bad) treaty. Why not move this any thing else in the article to under envornment? Smith03 15:18, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I restored the Environmentalism section after seeing that it was deleted without comment (I assumed minor vandalism or a mistake). However I looked further into it and realized there was a bit of an edit war over Bush and Environmentalism. At first, the environmentalism text was part of the George W Bush entry. Then, it was moved to a separate article. Then, that article made it to the Votes for Deletion page because of NPOV questions. The participants in the VfD discussion did not reach a consensus, but the article was turned into a re-direct to George W Bush.
I have undone the deletion and redirect while the discussion participants come to some consensus. --Zippy 15:19, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Environmental record
I have recently made some questionable changes to the Bush article and related articles, and for that I apologize. (You can blame it on me, or you can blame it on the slow server response I was experiencing, doesn't matter.)
However,
Over the past few days there has been what I perceive as an effort to remove all mention of Bush's environmental record from Wikipedia by
- Excising it from his biographical article, with the excuse that the article is "too long,"
- Moving it to an obscure separate article with a single link to the main George W. Bush page
- Then removing all the information in the obscure article completely.
I am here to tell you now, this will not occur. Bush's record on environmental issues is extensive, it deserves a write-up in this or any other encyclopedia, and it is going to by God have one. - Hephaestos 19:56, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Can we just have a Bush's adminst enviromental policies section in the Bush page
that list his plans / programs and than critics and supporters opionions of them and be done with this Smith03 20:04, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)