Talk:George W. Bush

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

George W. Bush received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is the Biweekly Special Article for the Fact and Reference Check WikiProject. Please add references for this article as you see fit.

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

Presentation of substance abuse issues

This article has seen a long-running dispute about how to present information related to Bush’s use or nonuse of alcohol and drugs. Everyone agrees that Bush’s conviction for drunk driving (DUI) should be mentioned, and should appear in its chronological place in the account of his early years, but otherwise, there’s been no stability.

Presented below are:

Four different versions of the treatment of this subject.
A summary statement on behalf of each version.
A poll section where you can express your preference.
A section for comments. (Your comments are welcome but please put them here, not before the poll.)

Versions

Each version includes a link to a snapshot of the article as it stood with that version incorporated. These snapshots were taken at different times; you can ignore any differences among them that don’t relate to the substance abuse issues.

Please don't edit these versions here. Other people are responding to specific text, and changing that text might distort their responses.

Version 1

In this version, the only items included in the body of the main article are essentially the items found in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Version 3. They are not found under a seperate heading, instead placed in the section under Personal life, service and education. There is no link to the internal daughter article created discussing substance abuse.

Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth." and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years; he says 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. [1], [2]. In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. 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." [3], [4].

Snapshot of Version 1

Version 2

In this version, the entire subject is in a daughter article and the following reference constitutes the second section of the main article, after "Personal life, service and education".

Drug and alcohol abuse controversy

There has been much discussion regarding possible drug and alcohol abuses, primarily during Bush's youth. Though Bush admitted to alcohol abuse, he only alluded to using both marijuana and cocaine in his youth. Many books have been written and in at least two of these, Bush is described as having symptoms visible today which indicate that he did abuse drugs and alcohol excessively at some time in his past. See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for more discussion.

Snapshot of Version 2

Version 3

In this version, the details are in a daughter article and the following summary constitutes the second section of the main article:

Substance abuse controversy

Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth." and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years; he says 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. [5], [6], [7]

Some Bush critics have suggested that his public statements and actions reflect a "classic addictive thinking pattern" common among former alcoholics [8], and one psychiatrist (Frank, 2004) wrote a book describing him as "an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies." [9] Other professionals have expressed their disagreement with these analyses. 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. [10] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [11]

In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. 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." [12], [13]

Snapshot of Version 3

Version 4

In this version, the "Business and early political career" section of the main article includes an internal cross-reference to a separate section on "Alcohol and drug issues” much later in the article, after the "Public perception and assessments" section. Text of the cross-reference, which would come at the end of the paragraph about Bush's arrest for drunk driving:

For further discussion of substance abuse issues, see below.

Text of the separate section:

Alcohol and drug issues

Bush has described the first part of his life as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth" and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years. He has stated that, some ten years after his guilty plea to driving under the influence of alcohol, he gave up alcohol, although he never joined Alcoholics Anonymous. He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham. The final impetus, he says, came when he woke up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." [14], [15], [16]

In an article published by Counterpunch on October 11, 2002, Katherine van Wormer, a professor of social work and writer on addiction treatment, stated that Bush still displays "all the classic patterns of addictive thinking", which can occur even in an alcoholic who has stopped drinking. [17] More specifically, she argued that Bush exhibits "the tendency to go to extremes," a "kill or be killed mentality," incoherence while speaking away from script, impatience, irritability in the face of disagreement, and a rigid, judgmental outlook. She added that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was primarily a result of his relationship with his father: "the targeting of Iraq had become one man’s personal crusade." Van Wormer's analysis, expressed in colloquial rather than clinical terms, drew on her own addiction treatment experience and writings, as she did not meet with Bush in person.

Justin Frank, a clinical professor of psychiatry at The George Washington University Medical School, has incorporated similar, though apparently independent, observations into a book about Bush, Bush on the Couch ISBN 0060736704 [18]. Frank's book has been highly praised by other prominent psychiatrists and has found confirmation from a childhood friend of Bush and from Bush's disaffected former treasury secretary. [19].

Frank's book also has its critics. Irwin Savodnik, a psychiatrist who teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles, described Frank's book as a "psychoanalytic hatchet job" and said that "there is not an ounce of psychoanalytic material in the entire book." [20] The code of the American Psychiatric Association, of which Frank is not a member, states that "it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement." [21] Although Frank had in the past written for Salon, the online magazine reviewed the book unfavorably, arguing that it included "dubious theories" and that Frank had failed in his avowed intention to distinguish his partisan opinions from his psychoanalytic evaluation of Bush's character. [22]

Bush has also been dogged by suspicions about possible drug use. He has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [23] He has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [24]

In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. 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." [25], [26]

In 1999, James Hatfield published a biography of Bush, Fortunate Son (ISBN 1887128840), a largely favorable account of the life of the younger Bush and the Bush family in general. Hatfield said that he had investigated allegations that Bush had been arrested for cocaine possession and that the Bush family had the record expunged. Hatfield wondered if Bush's work at Project P.U.L.L. in Houston in 1972 could have been community service performed as part of such an arrangement. Hatfield stated that this version of events was confirmed by three sources; he did not name them, but described them as being close to the Bush family. [27] Hatfield's original publisher later recalled the book after learning of Hatfield's concealed felony conviction resulting from an unsuccessful murder conspiracy. Hatfield responded that, before the Bush campaign brought pressure to bear, the same publisher had stated that the book had been "carefully fact-checked and scrutinized by lawyers". [28] Hatfield never named his sources, but in 2001 his new publisher, against his wishes, stated that they were Karl Rove, Clay Johnson, and Michael Dannenhauer. Bush called Hatfield's book "totally ridiculous". [29] Hatfield committed suicide in 2001. [30] [31]

During the 2004 campaign, a Salon writer asserted that, on April 21, 1972, the National Guard began random drug-testing of guardsmen, and that Bush stopped flying at about that time and took no more Guard physical exams. The issue had also arisen in 2000, when a Bush spokesperson said that he had not known of any drug testing by the Guard. [32], [33]

Snapshot of Version 4

Proponents' statements

For Version 1

Version 1 constitutes the only passages almost universally accepted as fact. It has been agreed by almost everyone involved that these two major points are factual, NPOV and based on reliable witnesses. In the two major points, Bush essentially admits to alcohol use and alludes to illegal drug use. Though some have argued that Bush was misinterpreted due to his usual poor choice of wording, most feel that his comments that he "hadn't denied anything", in response to a question posed regarding his public denial of illegal drug use, and his comment that "he didn't want some little kid doing what I tried" in response to why he wouldn't answer a question posed by others regarding marijuana use, are both essential admissions on his part to the use of illegal drugs. Placing the paragraph immediately after the DUI conviction he had in 1976 is a good fit as they are chronologically accurate. There is no link provided to the sub article because the same information is also there and the remainder of the information is the reason this is in Rfc. This version provides the only version that has information that is not under dispute. Proponents of this version feel that nothing more is needed to "prove" the issues, and that the remainder of the information is mainly opinion, sensationalistic and politically motivated. Incorporation of this version would contribute to the probability that the NPOV tag on the article could be dropped. An example of the version is here [[34]].

For Version 2

Version 2 provides a summary and an adequate link to the sub article which provides all details. The summary removes most of the argument off the main article helping it to become more streamlined. This compromise would result in a significant reduction in edits and or edit wars regarding information that has been disputed by some and supported by others. All of the material that has been in dispute can be easily linked to in the link provided. The summary provides a snapshot of the sub article in that it openly states that Bush admitted to alcohol abuse (which is not much of a revelation to anyone) and may have also abused two illegal drugs. Additionally, the summary mentions two detractors of the current behavior patterns of Bush as being the end result of previous alcohol and or drug use without making direct quotes which are provided in the sub article. Direct quotes in the main article have resulted in a demand by some for direct quotes disputing this information in a form of quid pro quo, making the article longer. The summary allows balance to return to the entire dispute as it removes the dispute to another article. This has occurred repeatedly in this article as evidenced by many links to discussions regarding election controversies and military service. This version appeared here: [[35]]

For Version 3

This version is based on some editors’ efforts to reach a compromise (discussion). It presents the issue in full in a daughter article with a summary in the main article.

As compared with Version 1, which wouldn't even link to the detailed article, Version 3 includes the link and at least makes the information available. The link is repeated in the second paragraph (contrary to normal style) because of a desire to make absolutely clear that there is controversy about the criticisms referred to in the first sentence of the paragraph.

As compared with Version 2, which says only that Bush "alluded" to past abuse, Version 3 quotes what he actually said. His statements about his past are unusually personal for a world leader and should be in the article verbatim. Furthermore, in treating the allegations made against Bush, Version 3 follows Wikipedia policy for spinning off a particular controversy into 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). The summary in Version 2 is not adequate. Its vague phrase "much discussion" doesn't tell the reader what allegations have been made. The only expansion it provides is misleading; the sources are discussing Bush’s underlying personality, not any lingering effects of past alcohol abuse. Version 2 also uses the word "youth" twice; Version 3 tells the reader that Bush quit drinking at age 40.

As compared with Version 4, Version 3 reduces the length and level of detail of the presentation by limiting it to a statement of what the allegations are, the fact of Bush’s denial, and the fact of professional disagreeents. All the evidence and arguments advanced by both sides are left to the daughter article. Some readers will be interested in seeing that detail and some won’t; Version 3 accommodates both groups.

For Version 4

The edit war over this issue has occurred because at least one editor doesn’t want to include opinions about Bush that "are dubious to a majority of persons..." This exclusion of minority opinions would contradict Wikipedia policy as set forth in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?. Version 4 describes points of view that are unfavorable to Bush, but it does not adopt them. In addition, it fairly presents the opposing POV, giving all the facts cited by critics. Each of the disputed passages represents a notable viewpoint that merits inclusion:

Drugs: Hatfield’s book, with his conclusions about Bush’s cocaine conviction, was a best seller that reached #8 on the amazon.com chart and has been the subject of a documentary film. There was news coverage of the book, of Bush's threat of a lawsuit, and of the publisher's decision to withdraw the book. Version 4 reports Hatfield’s charge, reports Bush's denial of it, and reports the publisher’s action, along with the other facts that people have pointed to in attacking Hatfield’s credibility. Bush's denial of Hatfield's charge is also relevant in assessing his refusal to make a blanket denial of cocaine use before 1974. That refusal is not based on a general refusal to speak about pre-1974 events, as some of Bush’s other comments might imply. The Salon article noted the coincidence in timing of Bush's National Guard career with the beginning of drug testing; the whole National Guard issue received heavy media attention, in the course of which this aspect of the drug issue was raised. Version 4 summarizes the article and a Bush spokesperson's response.
Addictive personality: Van Wormer is a professor of social work and has co-authored a book about the treatment of addiction (Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective, ISBN 0534596703, reviewed in an academic journal as "a must read for social workers and other allied health and substance abuse treatment professionals"). Her credentials make her opinions on addiction-related matters noteworthy. Her Counterpunch piece quoted here also appeared in the Irish Times (available online only for a fee), and a revised version appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle ([36]). Frank is a professor of psychiatry who wrote a book about Bush from a psychiatric perspective. His book received enough attention to be used by Fidel Castro as the basis for an attack on Bush, another indication of its notability. [37]

Version 4 presents these assessments of Bush, along with the opposing points of view.

The trouble with moving this subject to a daughter article, as Versions 2 and 3 do, is that there isn't really enough material to need its own article. (See, by comparison, the much longer George W. Bush military service controversy, which couldn't be accommodated in the main article.)

Some editors supported putting this information in the main article but didn't want it to appear an early section, even though that's its chronological place. Therefore, Version 4 leaves only an internal cross-reference in the section on Bush's early life. The section addressing substance abuse comes later on, after the description of Bush's presidency.

Poll

Please add your name under the version you think is best. If you’re fundamentally dissatisfied with all of them, you can pick “None of the above”, but please give us some idea of what you’d prefer.

Supporting Version 1

Note: Version 1 as it stands does not contain a daughter article, thus Tverbeek, PPGMD, and Maltmomma seem to be voting for a different version.

--MONGO 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--kizzle 20:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Tverbeek 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Though obviously a link to the daughter article should be added. Versions 3 & 4 aren't about GWB; they're about the debate (which is ultimately not a major feature of his life).
PPGMD 17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : With a link to the daugher article of course. The main article should be entirely based on known fact. Version 2 would be my second choice.
maltmomma 19:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) I agree about adding a link to the daughter article. I think the other versions are too indepth. JMO
--Steve block 09:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm not sure whether a daughter article link is needed. Is Bush's substance abuse a huge political issue in the US worthy of an article? If so, yes to a daughter article link, if no, then no link and no article.
--Nobs01 17:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Very concise & well written. Very, very informative too. All others are extrapolation, exploitation, etc. The "controversy" that exists regards brain damage, and this speculation will never go away.
--Dcarrano 29 June 2005 05:51 (UTC) Sets out all the facts just fine, and the Hatfield stuff is the only one I would miss from the expanded versions. The other sources mentioned seem like they haven't attained much notice or credibility among the general populace. Although I don't support GWB politically, I wouldn't like it if fringe positions were included in articles about people I do respect.

Supporting Version 2

This one works for me. I took a look at the Bill Clinton's pre-Presidency scandals (see Bill_Clinton#Public_image) and there is one short paragraph on sexual issues followed by one short paragraph on drug issues. With the links there, anyone can get all the details they want. Both of these men are well known and we seem to be underestimating the readers' ability to follow the links if the scandal issues are of interest to them. Keep the main article short, but have good detail in the linked article. Version 2 seems to do this for me. NoSeptember ^(talk) 20:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporting Version 3

Xaliqen 02:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Seems like a good idea to me. Four would be my reluctant second choice.
~~~~ 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The demiurge 20:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Four is good, but too long. The rest of the information can be expanded in the daughter article. Three seems to be just about the right length to get a overview of the situation without being too much for a relatively minor part of his life.
Ampracific 30 June 2005 21:24 (UTC) I'm sympathetic to version 4, but I don't think that the citations represent a majority viewpoint in the psychiatric community. Therefore, I believe that version 4 gives these minority viewpoints too much emphasis. Version 1 silences a credible minority opinion, which is contrary to the Wikipedia philosophy. (Note: I have changed my user name from Ampacific.)

Supporting Version 4

Neutrality^talk 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
JamesMLane 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC). My second choice would be Version 3.
Harro5 07:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) The two-eyes-shut approach in V1 is very pro-Bush, version 2 somewhat vague, V3 actually adds some perspective, but V4 fleshs this out.
Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
albamuth 13:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Trim 10%-15% of the words from version 4.
jamesgibbon 10:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) this one's my first option, but I also find V3 acceptable.

None of the above

Junes 09:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'd support version 1 with a link to the daughter article. Version 2 is too vague and uses a new section which is not necessary, and the other two are too long, making the allegations look more important than they really are (and I'm saying this as someone who can't stand Bush).
Sandpiper 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Version 1 with a link to the longer article. Version 2 is too short and the longer ones unnecessarily big. 1 reads quite well and covers all the bases, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Then you can go on to read more detail if you want. The more controversial stuff should be accesible but there is no need for it to be absolutely front line. So we two seem to be in agreement with the three who have said the same but listed themselves under option 1.
--Keairaphoenix 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm a new user, just browsing through, and I thought I'd give my perspective. As much as I can't stand the man and truly believe he is a meglomaniac ex-coke head, I'm voting for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article. Version 2 is too vague. Versions 3 & 4 read as too anti-Bush. Version 1, as it stands, is too pro-Bush, as it ignores the controvery altogether. Verison 1 quickly becomes neutral when you add the sentence: See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for more discussion.
Eisnel 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC) - I vote for #1 with a link to the daughter article (NoSeptember referred to this as Version 1½). I put this here and not in Version 1's section, because it's been made clear that a vote for #1 with daughter is not a vote for #1. It looks like everyone in the None of the above section so far prefers #1 with daughter article, and in addition (as of this writing), three of the eight people voting for #1 say they want it with the daughter article. So far that's seven votes for Version 1½. #1 without the daughter article is unacceptable, IMO. Like Dcarrano said, I'd also like to see the short Hatfield paragraph from #3 put in, so I suppose I'd be partial to #3 without the "classic addictive thinking pattern" paragraph.

Comments

The most recent discussions of the subject can be found in the last archived talk page (more than half the threads) and in several of the threads above on this page.

How does the voting work? Is it STV voting or First past the post ?

None of the above. It's not voting in that sense. It's an attempt to solicit people's views in the hope of moving toward consensus. Separate alternatives aren't provided so that we can apply different algorithms for counting the "votes" and picking a "winner"; they're provided because they're a convenient way to bring other people up to speed on the discussions that have occurred so far. JamesMLane 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV policy

The basic reasoning for Versions 1 and 2 is shown in this comment by MONGO: "I believe that if indeed, the arguments are as disputed as they are by folks like me and other critics of expertise in their fields such as Sandovik, then they are just opinion and politically motivated opinion at that." The call for excluding opinions from Wikipedia arises from a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. We do not avoid reporting opinionated statements. Here are some relevant excerpts from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?:

The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present.

That's why this article reports many of Bush's statements, such as about Iraq, that are, in my opinion and in the opinion of numerous experts, lies, and politically motivated lies at that. We present the facts of what was said and other facts relevant to the reader's evaluation of the statements. It's up to the reader to decide whether Bush was deliberately lying about WMDs, or whether van Wormer and Frank are making stuff up for political reasons, or whatever. JamesMLane 01:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy...it has nothing to do with any misunderstanding on my part about what the NPOV policies are. I think that the use of this rhetoric is not what an encyclopedia is all about..this is not a political blog...Wormer has been shown to be opposed to the politics of Bush and her "evaluation" from afar hardly constitutes anything other than armchair quarterbacking...as with Frank's book, the American Psychiatriat Association would render her opinion as unethical in that it wasn't arrived at within what constitutes the normal parameters accepted by her field...her opinion isn't noteworthy. Justin Frank, as shown clearly in version 4 has some serious detractors of his book...it is almost self refuting evidence. Hatfield's claims are unsubstantiated, he was a felon whose book was originally pulled by the first publisher and there has been nothing to show by anyone that claims made in his book have any basis in fact. Obviously as discussed before, there have been numerous books written that make one accusation or another about Bush, yet I don't see them quoted in the article to the same degree. All three items are either politically or money motivated and serve little other purpose. The fight to ensure these items remain in this article is a violation of NPOV as they are all Junk science. Inclusion of these items is a violation of NPOV, even if the detractions are there because it instills falsehoods illusion and innuendos that are POV.--MONGO 03:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, MONGO, "misunderstanding" was a bit of a euphemism on my part. Based on what I remember of your past comments, it might be more accurate to say that you understand the policy but you disagree with it, and therefore you deliberately choose to violate it. Over and over and over you give the reasons for your personal disagreement with the opinions. Your opinion is irrelevant. I strongly disagree with some of Bush's opinions (and with his outright lies as to matters of fact), but my opinion is also irrelevant. Your conclusion that these commentaries "are either politically or money motivated" isn't based on any special knowledge of their motivations. (You haven't personally examined van Wormer or Frank, to apply the standard you yourself have argued for.) Instead, your opinion is based on certain facts. We disclose those facts. The readers can then choose whether to draw the inferences that you do. Your preference is to save the readers that trouble by drawing the inference for them. On Wikipedia, however, the NPOV policy "suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?. JamesMLane 08:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I deliberately choose to violate it" as you say is unfair. I have stated that my argument against Frank and Wormer is primarily due to the fact that their opinions are unethical...they never performed a diagnosis on the "patient" as the APA or their peers would expect them to. Obviously, based on what it appears have been their traditional political views, they can hardly expect to have any political congreguity with Bush, and since their opinion was rendered outside the scope of what the remainder of their peers would consider a traditional doctor to patient evaluation, we can also hardly expect them to be reliable witnesses to Bush's mental health or behavior patterns. If you can find one substantive mental evaluation that is sanctioned by the American Psychiatrict Association that proves that Bush is suffering from some post alcoholism trauma, then by all means do so. Hatfield's claims are completely unsubstantiated...so are a lot of other claims made about Bush as found in dozens of other books...books written by people with better credentials than Hatfield. As far as my not having any special knowledge about the motivations behind the opinions of these people, that may be true, but what is the alternative? Would we believe that Bush has these "problems" if they were "diagnosed" from afar by a conservative leaning psychatrist? I wouldn't. There is a great chasm that separates us on these points and I doubt we will ever agree so I would like to remind you to cease with your constant argument that I either don't understand what constitutes the NPOV policies or that I wish to ignore them...I wish to provide a fact based account on the life of Bush worthy of Wikipedia..if you agree with that then help me do so by getting rid of this unmedical claptrap.--MONGO 09:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've said, "I disagree with the premise that it is okay to state facts about opinions if those opinions are hopelessly biased and without a basis in fact." (09:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)) More recently: "It is poor editing to include such items if they are dubious to a majority of persons." (07:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Both these stated positions of yours are contrary to current Wikipedia policy. You have edited according to your personal positions, not according to Wikipedia policy. I agree that there's a great chasm that separates us on that point -- I believe in following the community policies, even those I dislike, unless and until they're changed. JamesMLane 10:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That great chasm is about the information...not about any disagreement over Wikipedia policy. If it is "dubious to a majority of persons" perhaps I was defending NPOV whereby the inclusion of this jargon would be their POV and knowing that their POV is strongly opposed to the subject matter, then the inclusion of such opinion and the support of it is NOT in keeping with NPOV policy.--MONGO 08:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, MONGO, you lost me with that comment. I think you're saying that the term "dry drunk" is jargon and embodies a particular point of view, so it shouldn't be used. This is where you depart from Wikipedia policy. In keeping with the policy of "presenting conflicting views without asserting them", we have no rule against reporting someone else's use of a POV-laden term. For example, this article reports the Bush administration's use of the terms "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies" to describe bills that were widely considered to be exactly the opposite. Anyway, the point is irrelevant. The use of the term "dry drunk" seemed to irritate some editors, so I omitted it from my proposed Version 4. JamesMLane 19:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with you there James, but briefly tell us what specific criteria an opinion must meet in order for inclusion? Obviously there must be some criteria, or else any opinion that anyone has may be included? Does this threshold of criteria apply evenly to all pages? --kizzle 01:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

You raise a valid question that won't always have a clear answer. I think I said, somewhere in the archived ocean of talk, that we don't need to quote the opinion of every crackpot who's learned enough HTML to put up a website. We agree on that. I would say that an opinion merits inclusion if the proponent has expertise in the area (often but not always based on academic credentials); or if the proponent is in such a position that his or her opinion is an important fact regardless of its merits (most often a public official who can act on the opinion, but it could include an influential private-sector figure like Henry Kaufman, an economic forecaster who was so widely respected that his opinions could move markets [38]); if the opinion is held by a majority or by a significant minority (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?); or if the public statement of the opinion was itself a notable fact (for example, Rick Santorum's comment linking homosexuality with bestiality touched off the notable Santorum controversy). There will always be borderline cases where people can reasonably disagree. Under the policy, though, those disagreements are not to be resolved on the basis of which opinion we think is correct, or better referenced, or ethical, or nobly motivated, or whatever. JamesMLane 08:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page that the source of this dispute is the fundamental perception of whether the authors' works are considered notable, as I agree that editor endorsement of opinion is irrelevant. While I agree with you that this threshold will not have a clear answer, I do believe that this threshold which you describe should be directly proportional to the available commentary on the subject. If we are writing an article that details the school history of my local high school, we can't exactly quote notable historians or PhD's, so we use what we have. However, seeing as dubya is one of the most commented on presidents in history, I think the bar for inclusion of opinion should be much higher than simply "expertise in the area". Following this guideline, any Ph.D in behavioral psychology can add their comment to this page, as there is no requirement for being directly involved with Bush. According to your threshold, if I go out and get a Ph.D (which will take a while, as I'm still working on my undergrad), in behavioral psychology, comment on why I think Bush is a classic case of a narcissist with suppressed childhood trauma in a local newspaper, it can be included in this page? Cause I'll do it James. That's how dedicated I am. --kizzle 23:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of commentary about Bush's mental state, but we should prefer quoting experts, as opposed to quoting some Democratic Party official who says, "Bush is nuts!" We aren't talking about a "mere" Ph. D. in behavioral psychology. Van Wormer specialized in addiction treatment to the point of co-authoring a book about it. Frank is a psychiatrist with 35 years' experience and director of psychiatry at George Washington University. Furthermore, he wasn't just dashing off a letter to his local newspaper; he put in enough study of Bush (using public information) to write a book on the subject. I don't think we're opening the floodgates to every Ph. D. who rolls out of bed one morning and decides he wants to see his name in Wikipedia. Hatfield's notability, of course, rests on the best-seller status of his book. JamesMLane 00:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With the daughter article in existance, I see no attempt to exclude discussions of allegations, only an attempt to keep the main article shorter. Version 2 and Version 1 1/2 (those who want a link added to version 1) gets you to the information without anything be held back, just not in the main article (which is huge). NoSeptember^{01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)}

The information would be effectively suppressed because the reader wouldn't know what allegations were discussed in the daughter article. By comparison, see 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 substance of the allegation against the President. Version 3 is fairer than the treatment of Clinton, because it also reports the opposition to the allegations; Version 4 goes further and presents the facts cited by the opponents. JamesMLane 08:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At risk of finding furniture flying at my head, I would observe that if the 'ethical code' prevents fully fledged doctors talking about their patients, then there is no chance of ever getting an opinion from one and not much point in waiting for such an opinion before writing your article. I don't want to argue about the merits of the stuff, but I think it deserves reporting. I do not think it has to be in the main article, particularly because of the nature of this medium. If it was a book you would put the whole lot together somewhere, but huge pages are a real problem to deal with here. I am British and have a few issues with the Tony Blair article, but I am very wary of changing it to my point of view. I am content that contentious stuff is on a different page, just so long as the main page DOES mention it in enough detail for an interested person to go looking. If someone is not interested then I see no point in boring him with a screen full of stuff irrelevant to the main points of a biography. Everyone remember that unless articles are readable and interesting no one will bother accessing them. (Ducks chair)Sandpiper 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The information is politically biased as has been shown...that we all know this would make us look tabloidish to include it...this is not the place to push a POV with unsubstantiated opinion rendered by "experts" outside the scope of an authentic standard...I can see placing Frank's and Hatfield's books in the addtional reading section, but quoting them without also quoting the numerous detractors of their opinions would be POV pushing. However, the suppression of inforamtion is something I am opposed to so perhaps version #1 with a link to the article discussiong substance abuse controversies may be necessary to achieve a concesus and make everyone, as Kizzle stated, equally unhappy.--MONGO 20:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to quote all the "numerous detractors" of a particular position, any more than we need to quote each and every person who's criticized the invasion of Iraq. The intent of Version 4 was to report the opinions (pro and con) and to provide the reader with the salient facts relied on by each side in support of its position. Are there any such facts that are omitted? Not "does the article fail to beat the reader over the head with the inferences that MONGO wants to draw from those facts" -- the question is whether you are aware of any important facts that are omitted. JamesMLane 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as detractors to Hatfield how about that in addition to his 5 years in prison for solicitation of murder, he also was previously arrested for burglarly and embezzlement of 34,000 dollars in federal housing subsidies? Does this make his allegations more credible for you? Does the fact that after the book was rereleased by another publisher it was again pulled due to the fact that libel charges were brought by another author? Or how about this:[39]. This argument isn't about the NPOV policy James, it is about substance and quality control...if you want to talk about Hatfield and his book, do so in the article on him in Wikipedia...but not in this preeminent article, please.--MONGO 05:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reference to Dry Drunk Syndrome and Brain Damage needed

The article needs some discussion of the theories that Bush's poor diction and rigid thinking can be explained as a result of brain damage incurred by alcoholism and the subsequent Dry Drunk Syndrome pattern of behavior common among recovering extreme alcoholics. (e.g. "Addiction, Brain Damage and the President "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush by KATHERINE van WORMER" [40]) User:User

This "dry drunk syndrome"...is that a proven medical term accepted by the AMA or just phrasology AA uses to compel their "patients" to continue with their program? It's hard to say who's more likely to have brain damage...Bush and his poor choice of words or Clinton with his absolute abuse of power getting snarlins from Monica....I'd have to say Clinton, since this one deed alone is the biggest reason history will always see him as less than he could have been...that's brain damage. Besides...is there proof that Bush was an alcoholic or just drank more often than he should have...if he was an alcoholic or still is, he is in big company...according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1 in 13 Americans suffer from this disease...that's more than 20 million people...do they all also suffer from "dry drunk syndrome" or "brain damage"...if so, then we're in big trouble[41].--MONGO 11:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And if cheating on your spouse is "brain damage", a third of all Americans would be damaged as well. Then we'd really be in big trouble. --kizzle 16:14, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

And of those, how many were President?...Clinton, regardless of my personal dislike happened to enjoy a strong economy, relative peace and world wide respect higher than many other Presidents...that he did this one act forever tainted his chance of greatness in the eyes of many people...not to mention his impeachment in the House...but I sure am glad he wasn't impeached by the Senate...then we would have had.....oh my gosh...GORE! Then as we critique Bush and his "you're with us or with the terrorists" jargon and not take it into account as being typical forceful talk by a world leader soon after the most distructive terrorist attack in world history...perhaps not the best chouce of word play...and then liberals think this is worse than Clinton..."I did not have relations with that woman" which all the world saw...not only is Clinton brain damaged, but he's a brain damaged liar to boot.--MONGO 20:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probably about 50% at least of presidents... shit, he didn't even have illegitimate children out of his affairs like our founding fathers, and look how we revere them. They didn't even have to lie about it, as its pretty hard to explain having half-black children when your wife is white. --kizzle 20:18, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

And not to espouse cliche liberal talking points, but at least when Clinton lied, nobody died. --kizzle 20:20, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that's sore point..it's okay if you liked Clinton...I can understand and he isn't the worst President in my lifetime...Johnson was. If you're speaking of Jefferson...he was a widower...I hadn't heard that there were other mixed race off spring of former Presidents...or any proven unfaithful ones...even Kennedy never had anyone prove that he had been unfaithful, despite all the rhetoric that he had been.--MONGO 20:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the worst you can say about a 2-term president is that he lied about having an affair, then in modern-day standards of morality, that ranks about a 8.5/10. No watergate, no wars, great economy, budget surplus, smart, all the good stuff that actually affects the people he works for. And I'll get back to you on the (alleged) unfaithfulness of previous presidents... maybe it should be an article ;) sure as hell would carry a lot more weight than some articles on wikipedia (*cough*... Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda...*cough*) --kizzle 20:37, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, as for presidents and infidelity, you might want to play this game :) --kizzle 23:46, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not the worst I can say and I won't so that ends that. The game is amusing, thanks.--MONGO 09:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "dry drunk" idea is considered in the work by Katherine van Wormer, which is part of the pending RfC (the section just above this one). You should register an account and weigh in on how Wikipedia should treat the whole substance abuse area. JamesMLane 08:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is veering dangerously in the direction of original research. The Van Wormer crap is worthy of note because it made the Irish Times, an objective fact, the nutty professor's stuff is in a book that was fondly received by some members of his profession, another objective fact. If we go beyond that and find outselves tempted to hedge and whatnot it's because we've dropped the NPOV standard. Unlike certain television stations, we don't claim to be "fair and balances". But we don't go around discounting stuff just because we think it's tripe. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait, hold on.

Does Version 1 include or not include a daughter article? You have 2 people (in addition to me) who are voting/would vote for Version 1 if it links to the daughter article, but yet version 1 explicitly states there is no daughter article? --kizzle 19:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I drafted version #1 and excluded the link to the daughter article. I have stated that the reason behind the Rfc is due to the dispute that the remainder of the issues are not factual, but merely opinion and should be omitted. As one reader calls it a two eyes shut view and very pro Bush...I disagree. I feel that it represents the only issues that are not in dispute and provide suffcient evidence that Bush did, in all likelihood, abuse alcohol and probably drugs too. In themselves, they can hardly be construed as pro Bush or help to elevate him as a leader. The remainder of the arguments are just political commentary. I think that this has been shown and is shown in version #4 by the counterarguments that dispute Frank and Hatfield books. I believe that if indeed, the arguments are as disputed as they are by folks like me and other critics of expertise in their fields such as Sandovik, then they are just opinion and politically motivated opinion at that. Besides, there are numerous books and opinions that could also be cited against Bush so why do these have particular merit? I am against the suppression of information and think all readers should "get their money's worth" but not if that information is just pure politics or unsubstantiated referencing just to sell a book. I feel that a link to the daughter article would compromise the efforts to eliminate this rhetoric. I do, however, see your issue and have sympathy with it to some degree...perhaps you think we should have a version #5 which would include all of version #1 and a link to the daughter article...you may wish to mention it to JamesMLane.--MONGO 20:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you actually have me sold, but look at the 2 other people who are voting for version 1 only if there's a daughter article. --kizzle 20:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting...I may have no choice. Again, I stated that (and I am not trying to sling mud here) that JamesMLane developed the daughter article so that all this information would never go away. It offered him a win-win scenario and I see no concession by offering a link. If the concensus says we need a link then that is what will happen...but I am completely opposed to one...if indeed there is a link, then version #2 is probably my choice and it also probably needs to be written better.--MONGO 20:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it simply needs to be mentioned, otherwise next there will be another edit war when another set of allegations come out (as they seem to come out every election cycle since he was elected). Take the political bickering off of the main article, so only true credible facts will be left in the main. You can discuss all you want there, heck you could say that the President isn't even human instead a reincarnation of Hitler by aliens, just as long as it stays off the main article. PPGMD 05:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a link to the daughter article. It doesn't matter if the accusations are complete nonsense, as long as they are notable enough. I mean, we have an article on the flat earth society, haven't we? Of course, these books about Bush suffering long-term effects may not be notable enough to merit inclusion in the main article (I don't know enough about the US situation to judge that), but his alleged substance abuses sure are, and they deserve to be fleshed out for readers who want to know more. Now, of course the daughter article should be made neutral too. I think your objection is that it never will be - well, maybe, but at least the most controversial things will be off the main page. Junes 10:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, we may at some point end up with a version 1 with a link to the daughter article, but time will tell. I am opposed to the use of Wikipedia as a place to vent political frustrations and feel that any mention of the disputed information and or a link to them is poor referencing and makes the main article look like we are trying to peddle tabloid nonsense as supporting commentary. For anyone who may wonder, I even think that the two main points of version 1 are relatively weak...but they have some weight when placed immediately after his DUI charge of 1976.--MONGO 11:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we take version 1 and simply add to it as we see fit to fill in the missing bits? You keep banging on about political frustrations, but I notice that only you are removing factual references from Wikipedia. For instance your removal of the link to the facsimile of Bush's DUI, which for some reason you seemed to believe was a "weak quote about 1976 DUI arrest". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony...is this how you really feel when you tell me that "I notice that only you are removing factual references from Wikipedia"? That seems to be a pretty bold comment...--MONGO 07:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I considered the new link to be more substantive...if my edit summary seemed rude I apologize. It's not like I removed the information...if anything, I made it more believable with a CNN link instead of a "smoking gun" link--MONGO 07:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of which link is "more substantive". They're different -- one is the primary source material, the other is explanatory and has relevant detail about the context. Each of them adds something. There's no reason not to have both. JamesMLane 20:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James...come on..."smoking gun" I mean really...you're a legal man, does the facimilie look to you like it would be admissible in court in that it isn't fully descriptive...besides, it contains a link, right near the top, that takes the reader to none other than evidence you refute...the video of Bush partying at that wedding...the reference isn't a strong one and I think it makes the information less believeable, not more so. The reference I added is more than sufficent to substantiate the point.--MONGO 18:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about TheSmokingGun.com, I was under the impression that site was actually pretty reliable, as all they deal in is paper trails. --kizzle 18:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

We're truly through the looking glass now, when a site devoted to producing pdf and other graphical copies of evidentiary material is held up to be prima facie evidence of false evidence. Gzuckier 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not familar with this web site...it just looks rather sensationalistic to me. that's all. The fact that there is a link to other information that JamesMLane didn't even think was substantive enough for his version 4 as shown in the Rfc...the video of Bush "drinking"...only supports my opinion that the web site isn't very substantive. If you think it should be there then replace it...everyone chill out as it was a good faith edit on my part and I thought this piece of rather unflattering information about Bush was made more believable with the CNN reference, not less so. It's not like I tried to suppress or delete the information....relax.--MONGO 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether you or anyone else considers the police record "fully descriptive" is irrelevant. An online reproduction of the document would be inadmissible in New York courts, whether it came from The Smoking Gun, The New York Times, or the right-wingers at Free Republic. You would need to obtain a certified copy from the issuing agency. Of course, if you were to start applying legal standards for admissibility across the board, and not just when it suits your purpose, you'd have to call for deletion of pretty much everything in this article, beginning with Bush's birth date. Bush has admitted that the news accounts of his previously concealed DUI were accurate. As far as I know, no one has raised any question about the accuracy of The Smoking Gun's reproduction. If you have a good-faith basis for contending that the police record has been doctored, you should present it. JamesMLane 19:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the survey has helped, and indeed I would have counseled against holding one if I had been around this article when it was being discussed. About half support version 1 and half support version 4 with a couple of votes for other options, so there is no decisive result. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the survey got us somewhere. So far, of the 15 people who've responded, 13 have said that there should be a link to the daughter article, with one more undecided on that point. I think we can say that MONGO's desire to omit even a link has not met with favor. Otherwise, you're right, that we have sharp disagreement.

It seems to me that the logical thing to do is to try to accommodate both views by crafting a version that's more informative than the cryptic Version 1 but not so detailed as the much longer Version 4. That was what we tried to do last month. What emerged was basically Version 3. Everyone more or less acquiesced to that compromise, which many of us disliked, and it was implemented. Then MONGO returned to editing the article and re-opened the question. Given that, as you say, the RfC hasn't produced a decisive result, we need to figure out what we can do other than engaging in a full-blown edit war. JamesMLane 19:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me you may be misreading the "results" (which I think should be determined after another week anyway so that everyone has a chance to chime in). It appears to me that the majority of voters favor version 1 so long as there is a link. Otherwise, Sidaway is right in that essentially there is no mandate for any major change. Furthermore, your constant referral to any previous recent concensus is erroneous, as only a small number of folks even made an imput into that discussion over the same issues. This Rfc has at least brought out some newer voices top consider. Regardless, you commitment to Wikpedia is highly commendable as evidenced by your development of the Rfc. I want to thank you for taking the time to develop it.--MONGO 20:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also James, why not archive all the information above the Rfc except the recent discussion going on about the pet goat picture to make it easier to access the Rfc.--MONGO 21:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Tony's reading is correct. As Weyes stated, and I agreed, before the RfC, the point isn't to get a majority behind one particular version. The purpose was to help us work toward consensus. So far we aren't particularly close. And if a few more people show up and prefer Version 4, we still won't be particularly close. JamesMLane 22:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religious Conversion due to Arthur Blessit not Billy Graham

The article neglects to mention the real story behind Bush's conversion, that it was due a travelling preacher Arthur Blessit [42] [43] , and Bush only met Billy Graham much later, but likes to mention Graham but not Blessit.

Dunno who wrote the above. The PBS quote seems to be evidence Jim Sales claims that Bush was converted by this odd godbotherer. Please feel free to add this fact to the article (as if you needed permission!) I take it that Midland is some part of the United States having some more specific geographical parameters than the similarly-named area of England. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Portrait Change

A celebrity's portrait need not always be a solemn one. A photo which caught up the precious moment of a man's true nature might be more worthy or informative than you think. I believe a new bio-photo might be more helpful than the current one in helping those knowledge seekers who come to this page to distinguish the personal characteristic of the featuring topic in the first eye, hence a vote is held, to change the bio-photo from the current one:

to the proposed one:

Please cast your vote here so it can be decided if the proposed image is going to be applied. The poll will last a week.

Yes. The proposer. -- Curimi 14:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is this patent nonsense? PPGMD 05:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted...ongoing pranks constituting vandalism deleted. He was contributing zero to the article...he also archived this discussion page here [[44]], just as we were getting busy on the Rfc...--MONGO 06:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To the hell where in my proposal did you find any vandalism?

State your reason why you think a change like this comprising a vandalism. Did I make joke of anything in my vote description or did you find it a blasphemy against the featuring topic by changing the picture? I proposed the portrait change because instead of the static, bureaucratic-posed current one, I found the proposed picture has a more dynamic, realistic nature. It addresses the activism and pragmatism personalities of the featuring topic in a vivid fashion. I argue that it can give more information about the distinguishing characteristics of the featuring topic than the trait-less one which now presenting.
Even if you did not look with favor on my proposal, you could not call it a vandalism. You should not call it a vandalism. Did I applied any change on the article yet? No. I came to the talk page seeking a consensus. And now you claimed I have vandalized this sacred discussion place. What? You trying to strip away my freedom of giving out opinions? As long as this discussion page exists even George W. Bush is not capable of doing that on me!
Oh yessss, I was contributing zero to the article, which means I am new to this article, so when I came here and found this talk page has more than 100KB I just archived it. My fault. My apology for this. But you just claimed me guilty and sentenced my poll to death before calling me to a hearing. Is this the proper netiquette a Wikipedian should have?
Not to mention by excluding my rights of opining or editing just because I am new to this article you have desecrated the very doctrine of Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit!

Hence the poll is revived. If you disagree, express your doubts in a civilized way. -- Curimi 14:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let us not be too naive wrt to the anality and lack of humor of the BOFH Wiki Admin-Nazis in enforcing the NPOV dogma according to their own particular POV by deleting any such attempts at emulating Paul Krassner's The Realist. The slogan that anyone can edit is now empty party doctrine just like democracy or freedom of speech, in actuality, the power junkies rule here just as in the repugnican plutocracy of the USA.

MONGO, this is the 2nd time you interfered with my attempt of polling without any obvious reason. If you think it is a bad idea to change the image, than say it loud by casting your vote. Thwart the whole poll attempt just because you dislike one of the options is not the democratic way. -- Curimi 02:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't some message board where we all get together and laugh at how silly Bush looks. We're trying to write an encyclopedia. Please stop this. Rhobite 02:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Someone, please tell me that rule that goes something like, in an argument, as time approaches infinity, the probability that an analogy to the Nazis approaches 1? Seems to be highly relevant in this case. Please, I've never seen such an example of bitter loser-talk as the paragraph equating Wiki Admins to Nazis. How long did it take for you to come up with that witty paragraph? Geezus. Cry me a river. --kizzle 04:38, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Curimi wants to know why the proposal is vandalism. According to Wikipedia:Vandalism:

Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. . . . Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

This talk page isn't here so that you can emulate Paul Krassner. The real purpose of the page is quite clear: "On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view." Wikipedia:Talk page#What is it used for? Your post was not a good-faith effort to improve the article, because your picture obviously would not be accepted. The invocation of the Nazis is a confirming instance of Godwin's law. JamesMLane 06:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intention is to get the featuring topic a more suitable portrait which fits in with the topic's inherent characteristics more than the current one. The topic is an advocate of activism, not a happy smiley. I am not so sure why Rhobite said the featuring topic just looks like a Chimp in his ifd against my original proposal; it is just a normal man speaking. But since many have expressed their dissatisfaction, then fine, I will put up a third option:

So here are the three options:

I only hope this new poll will be more acceptable among here. -- Curimi 09:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It isn't.--MONGO 10:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you are not the only other people here. I would like to hear comments from people other than you. -- Curimi 10:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read above, they already did.--MONGO 10:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Curimi, I agree with MONGO, which is undoubtedly a sign that the end of the world is nigh. JamesMLane 10:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Godwin's law, nice touch...I'll remember that one.--MONGO 10:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

clearly this is some use of the word options I was not previous aware of. clearly only the orginal is acceptable as a head of page portrait.

Then why did you suggest it? --kizzle 22:21, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Stop it Curimi. You're being annoyingly pedantic right now. The current picture is fine, leave it. Rhobite 16:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

If we're still voting, and mine probably doesn't count for much, but I think the current picture barely looks like him and I don't think the average person would recognize it upon first glance. As a democrat I would perfer option 1, but that's not a presidential picture, so I would say option 2 is a very good choice.

My pet goat picture viewpoint

The pic is good but I don't believe the viewpoints add anything to the picture itself so I'm removing them.Falphin 01:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My reasons for changing the pic,

Having the viewpoints inside the picture is pointless. There is nothing wrong with just commenting on where the president was during the September 11 attacks.
The info belongs in a criticism section where the picture can be added a second time.
The info currently adds no useful additions to the article.
Its NPOV, IMHO to state where he was during the September 11 attacks without adding controversy to it. --Falphin 01:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that presenting the picture without comment is NPOV, but it's also NPOV, and more informative, to tell the reader something about how Bush's supporters and detractors reacted. It has been the subject of a notable amount of commentary outside Wikipedia. Why do you say that the information about those reactions isn't useful? Regardless of what caption is used, I would be absolutely against including the picture (or any other picture) twice. JamesMLane 03:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm against including the picture once, but we've been over this before so I won't push it. Rhobite 03:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The caption currently reads, "Bush reading "The Pet Goat" in a classroom after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center." Prior to Falphin's change, the caption also included, "He was criticized by some for his apparent nonchalance, but praised by others for not alarming the schoolchildren." May I suggest we move the current image and caption to the comics page? Monkeyman 16:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should keep the picture (there has been quite some controversy over it after all), but suggest we move the reactions and such to the article text itsself. --W(t) 16:37, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

The points about Bush's reaction to 9/11 are closely tied to the picture. It seems more convenient for the reader to have those viewpoints in the caption. JamesMLane 18:53, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the truth is he sat on his posterior and read that adolescent book instead of politely excusing himself and getting on with business. Who knows what he was thinking, if at all. I dunno but it was a big time brain fart on his part. (Some might argue that he has lots of those). The guy's no Einstein, but I still see the picture as being cross related to F911. I think that is why there have been several objections to it. The picture doesn't make us look good and it doesn't make us look bad...I think due to it's controversial overtones, it wouldn't appear in the article on Bush in Encarta, Encyclopedia Britannica or other encyclopedias but that doesn't mean it can't be here. Monkeyman, you can certainly change the caption if you can come up with one that everyone will be mutually unhappy with as it seems that is all of ours ultimate quest...otherwise, none of us will have anything to B*%ch about.--MONGO 20:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Encarta's for pussies. --kizzle 21:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think that as long as the information is balanced and there is a demand for it to be in the article, it definetely should be in. I don't think the previous justification of not "adding anything to the picture itself" is warrant for its removal if it helps even one person. --kizzle 19:46, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason we need to specify which book Bush is reading? Why not just say, "Bush reading in a classroom after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center." It feels like the book title is included just to make him look like a buffoon. Monkeyman 23:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why we need to censor the book he was reading at the time?--kizzle 00:18, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

We went through this whole discussion months ago. The result was a caption presenting both points of view and generally accepted as fair, with the sentence: "He was criticized by some for his apparent nonchalance, but praised by others for not alarming the schoolchildren." Howzabout if we just go back to that? Naming the story is useful because it links to the article. I don't see how it makes Bush look like a buffoon. No one would expect an elementary school class to be reading Shakespeare. JamesMLane 00:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If he were reading Macbeth would the title still be included? Monkeyman 01:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point Moore was trying to make in criticizing Bush was not the contents of the book he was reading, but the fact that he continued reading for so long. The actual book he was reading at the time of his inaction is irrelevant. --kizzle 03:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

So we agree that the title should be removed then? JamesMLane, I would welcome your opinion on this as well. Monkeyman 11:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant irrelevant to your argument. --kizzle 17:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be as funny, but it would still be held up as an example of incompetence. Gzuckier 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Monkeyman, I said just above that naming the story is useful because it links to our article on "The Pet Goat". If Bush had been attending an event at which some adult actors were doing a reading of Macbeth, he would still have been praised and criticized for how he handled the news, and I would still favor linking. JamesMLane 13:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how that information contributes to the article. Should we also include a description of the suit he was wearing that day? Monkeyman 13:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The answer to that question rests upon significance of information, which is different from the justification of bias you referenced earlier in including the name of the book. --kizzle 17:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

This does not answer my question. How is the book title more worthy of appearing in the article than a description of Bush's suit? Monkeyman 17:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How many people would care what suit he was wearing? (The book with "My Pet Goat" was sold out at amazon.com; there's never been a comparable run on a particular type of suit just because Bush was wearing it on 9/11.) Is there a separate article to be linked to? (I can't imagine why we would ever have a separate article on a Bush suit, but if we did, it would be linked to from this article.) JamesMLane 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that an Rfc dealing with Drug and Alcohol abuse controversies ended up becoming half a discussion page over one picture that has nothing to do with the original Rfc. Monkeyman, this is turning into a petty argument. The picture is a vidcap of an actual event...it isn't based on some opinion...it really did happen...he was really reading that book...[[45]]...he sat there for, I'd like to forget how long...in actuality, he appeared to be off in a trance..I would have been too. This event happened...we even have video and pictures to PROVE it! I wish it didn't, but it did. The consolation is we also have video and pictures of Clinton denying the facts about Monica, we have video and pictures of Reagan denying Iran-Contra...few people would argue that these items have been doctored using some form of movie magic...it's pretty hard to refute this kind of evidence. If it makes you feel better, the suit looks to me to be Brooks Brothers, Deep Charcoal in color.--MONGO 20:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, that was the book he was reading and has become inextricably linked in the public mind to the incident. If you pick 10 people off the street at random, pro or anti bush, and just say "My Pet Goat" to them, they will probably all ten think of this incident.

No Bush fan I, but
the title of the book, though ridiculous, really has nothing to do with the central issue, but
nevertheless, it has become the unofficial "title" of the incident, so I fear I must vote to keep it.

Gzuckier 01:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe moving the text to the article itself makes the most since. The picture doesn't need to be cluttered. Falphin 23:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would rather see the same scene but instead replace it with the moment he was informed of the attacks...otherwise it does look like he is hoping his "Depends" don't leak when he does eventually leave. Basically, it doesn't matter as all we have is a still photo from a video which also appeared in that "movie". I have lived through a lot of Presidents in my time...and none of them were perfect, as no human is. It isn't a defining moment one way or the other...to not have the picture here would be negligence on our parts...how we interpret it by way of the wording of a caption is the area which becomes more tricky to navigate.--MONGO 03:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is Bush still a Methodist?

His home church's pastor and his Bishop both have a boatload of problems with him.

http://theymustrepent.com/

Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP

"According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, by 2003 these tax cuts had reduced total federal revenue, as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to the lowest level since 1959."

Should we now include the numbers for 2004? With a GDP of 11.75 trillion, and 1.88 trillion in federal tax reciepts for 2004 (http://www.nber.org/palmdata/indicators/federal.html), it has gone from 8.6% to 16%. Seems like the newest should be added on to this section, or perhaps restructured somehow. -bro 172.164.13.81 11:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are several different ways to calculate GDP, and several different ways to calculate federal revenue. I doubt that there's any consistent measure by which federal revenue as a percentage of GDP has nearly doubled in the course of one year, with no major tax increases (and, I think, with some of the earlier tax cuts still being phased in). Find a source that says that's happened, and we can include it. (Given the numbers you use and the assumptions you make, GDP in 2003 would have had to be $20.724 trillion, meaning that, in one year, Bush presided over a 43% drop in GDP. The economy's been bad, but not that bad.) Part of the problem is the difference between federal income tax receipts and all federal revenue. The CBPP paper gives both numbers, but your comparison is apples and oranges. (Note that the NBER source you cite gives total receipts, not just income tax receipts.) The CBPP's figure of 8.6% is income tax receipts as a share of GDP in 2003. That same year, "total federal revenues as a share of the Gross Domestic Product dropped to 16.6 percent. The last time that total revenues as a share of the economy fell below 17 percent was in 1959, near the end of the Eisenhower Administration." So, if your figure of 16% in 2004 is correct, then total revenues as a percentage of GDP, which in 2003 hit the lowest level since 1959, hit an even lower level in 2004. That, in fact, is what I'd expect, given the phasing in of more of the estate tax cut and possibly other tax cuts. JamesMLane 11:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I really don't care about the politics of it, just noticed a 2003 figure and figured that there had to be an updated one available. Thanks for the explanation though, I was indeed confused. I did find a similar statement regarding 2004 here. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6060&sequence=5

In 2004, receipts of individual income taxes equaled 7 percent of GDP--1 percentage point below their postwar average of 8 percent. The level of those receipts in 2004 was lower as a percentage of GDP than in any year since 1951.

If someone wants to take a go a pop that in there instead of the outdated one, I think it would be a good idea. On a side note, why is it that adding information from a provided link, in direct reference to the subject at hand, especially in a case that explains the previous statement (the "I haven't denied anything" remark) is being deleted? Secondly, do you not find the part bolded in this statement to be redudant?

Neither candidate received a majority of the popular vote -- Bush took 47.9 percent; Gore, 48.4 percent -- but Gore received about 540,000 more of the 105 million votes cast.

At the least this could be rephrased into "a difference of 540,000 votes". The "but" statement isn't refuting anything, or even adding anything thats not present before it, that gore recieved a greater percentage. -bro 172.134.132.223 12:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taxes: The figure for total federal revenue is more meaningful than the one just for income tax receipts. (Bush's tax cuts affected the estate tax, for example, and there's lately been discussion about changes to the FICA tax, which I think is also excluded from the income tax figure.) Should we substitute the 2004 data on total revenue? I don't think so. The 2003 information isn't outdated when you consider its context. It arises in the discussion of the federal deficit. The first time the deficit hit a (current-dollar) record under Bush was 2003, so, as long as we're giving that 2003 deficit figure, it's worthwhile to note that the major factor was lower revenues rather than higher spending. We could give the information for 2004 as well as that for 2003, but I think that would be too much detail, given that there was no huge change from 2003 to 2004.

Ok, I'm confused again, my first comment on the section in question had the info for total revenue, which was again lower as a percentage, than even the year before, but we dont' want to sub or add that in...Now the second comment, in regards to income tax receipts which is what I thought you wanted shouldn't be subbed or added in? If the reasoning is that we are recording the record reached, then the 2004 numbers should at least be added as they too are a record.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I don't think we should use the income tax figures. What we have now is the decline in total revenue, as a share of GDP, as of the time the overall deficit first reached a record under Bush (FY 2003). The important figure is the deficit. Revenue as a share of GDP is included only by way of explaining the basic deficit figure -- specifically, that it's not primarily attributable to any post-9/11 economic slowdown. (By 2003, GDP was rising each year.) You're right that we could repeat the statistic for 2004, using the CBO calculation. I'm not strongly against it; I just feel that it's an unnecessary level of detail. In 2004, the overall deficit was a record high but revenues as a share of GDP was not a record low, only a post-1959 low. JamesMLane 01:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Drug use: The reason the statement keeps being deleted is that some people want to provide the reader with little or no information about issues concerning Bush's drug use. That's being discussed further up this page, at Presentation of substance abuse issues. You can look at the material there and offer your comments and/or your preference in the poll. You will note, from Version 3 and from Version 4, that Bush has denied using cocaine since 1974 but has refused to comment on his pre-1974 use. I personally consider that an important fact that should be included in this article, but some people want to suppress it; it's omitted from Version 1 and from Version 2. The purpose of the RfC and the above-linked discussion was to get around the edit war problem, of people constantly changing the article to reflect their preference, which results in a constant back-and-forth. While the RfC is going on, the proponents of providing less information have continued to revert to their preferred version, which includes excluding even a link to the daughter article (George W. Bush substance abuse controversy) where both sides are presented. You shouldn't assume, however, that this is the "baseline" status of the George W. Bush article. It's just that MONGO, who is practically alone in favoring such total suppression of the information, has been more willing to engage in the revert war than the rest of us.

That is another misconception in that according to the Rfc, most prefer only a link to the article you created...--MONGO 02:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a bummer. I have read through this incredibly long page, but since the discussion/vote has taken place a pretty good while ago, and is buried rather deeply at this point, I rather doubt my voting on a poll (which I don't like the idea of anyway, information should be able to be added/deleted as is neccessary to make the article a -good- one, no matter what a group of people agree to at one point to put into the article) would do any good. Mongo has so far reverted without cause, deleted without comment or even edit summary, I don't think that is very proper.

Well there are four versions as listed above in the Rfc...perhaps you need to read through them and offer your comment...nothing here is written in stone but it would be better for us if you adopt a user name and timestamp your posts.--MONGO 02:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Mongo, I have both used a name 'bro' and signed my posts, all of them. Secondly, my comments are here, and if you had read them, you would read that I -have- read all the above. I couldn't care less about your attitude toward nonlogged in users, deal with the edits, period. The part added is sourced, relevent, and clarifying. I again, will mention as I did before, that I don't much care for the 'choose one of these' votes. The articles should be edited to improve content, there should be no baselines or untouchable sections. If you wish you can continue to remove sourced, relevent, clarifying material. But it would be wonderful if you wouldn't just revert, or better yet, post a reason. -bro 172.149.84.231 05:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't appear to have a user name. Your addition is redundant and unnecessary as it can be easily linked to in the articles referenced. It's hard to see your edits as being ones made solely in good faith without a proper user name...and it is a lot easier for all parties involved to remember who you are...it's quite easy. You're comment that I need to deal with it is the same back as I said nothing here is written in stone and I can revert your edit with good faith based on the fact that you are just using your IP address as an identifier...and also that this section is in Rfc and both JamesMLane and I would sincerely appreciate your comments there.--MONGO 06:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Using your logic, the whole section is redudant as it can be referenced in the link provided. The added text is not used elsewhere, and is needed for context. as for this I can revert your edit with good faith based on the fact that you are just using your IP address as an identifier You may want to rethink that. There is a reason why its not required to have a logged in account to make edits, and its certainly far from being in 'good faith' to ignore the edit, and revert based on -your- bias towards nonlogged in editors. If you have a hard time remembering who I am, thats not my problem, and shouldn't be yours. Deal with the edits, who makes them are inconsequential. -bro 172.149.84.231 07:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one, especially me will take your efforts seriously without a user name...perhaps this allows you to avoid violating 3RR. I do not have to deal with your edits if you are too lazy or unwilling to contribute in a civilized manner to the Rfc on the issues or by creating a user name...perhaps you are only a sockpuppet.--MONGO 07:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the section for RfC responses is a while back, but the RfC itself still links directly to it, so anyone coming in response doesn't have to slog through the whole page to find it. We're still waiting, giving more time for people to respond, so I think it would be useful for you to offer your thoughts in that section. JamesMLane 01:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2000 vote: The added information is the total number of votes. If we gave only the percentage figures, and gave Gore's vote margin, someone with enough math savvy could work out the approximate total number of votes, but it would be a bit off because of rounding, and anyway not everyone has even that much math savvy. The point of the "but" is that no candidate had a majority but Gore had a plurality. Many of the readers who couldn't figure out the total number of votes are also not sound on the distinction between "majority" and "plurality" and would say, looking at the numbers, that Gore had a majority because he had more than anyone else. I don't think we need to explain these terms here, or even introduce the term "plurality", but it is worth phrasing it in such a way as to note that Gore's edge of 540,000 votes does not mean that he had a majority. JamesMLane 19:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you wanna keep the 540,000 number in that sentence, I think that would be fine, but I think it should at the -least- be rephrased. As it is its more the clumsy and less than redudant. The mention of Gore recieving a plurality is actually below the section with the percentages, and would be unaffected by any change on such. Thanks for your time in responding James. -bro 172.140.156.147 22:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My preference is to keep the 540,000 and the 105 million, even though there's a slight redundancy. If you want to rephrase the passage, please consider keeping those facts in. JamesMLane 01:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't dare to actually change the wording, and thats not a dig at you. For there to be this friction when adding a following quote from a source already in the article thats been used, I couldn't imagine what I might run into by trying to rework actual content (again, not in regards to you). I was more trying to throw the idea out there and hoping someone would grab on and go. I do appreciate your time james, I'll see you around. -bro 172.149.84.231 05:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blanking

What do you mean, Falphin? (And what is blanking?) All I did was change the line about a "controversial and close election" to say that he lost the popular vote. This is not a matter of opinion, because whatever the actual Florida vote, GWB lost the popular vote. --Micler 22:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I figured you did it on accident so I will show you. [46][47]Falphin 22:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't disagree with your wording change. Falphin 22:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you don't disagree, why did you revert it? Micler 22:50, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  - Did you read the two all the way down. When you made the edit you blanked the rest of the page. Falphin 23:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - I see. In both IE 5.1 and Netscape 7.0 for Mac OS 9, this happens. Is there any way t avoid it, or another browser to use that doesn't do this? (iCab doesn't like Wikipedia at all.) Micler 23:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
      - I might try using the edit on right. I use firefox which has no problems in that regard. I would suggest asking the same question at Wikipedia:Help desk. Falphin 23:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GWB substance abuse controversy subarticle now linked

In reflection of the Rfc and the overall sympathy towards a link to the daughter article on substance abuse, I have added a link now in respect to the overwhelming concensus in favor of the link. I would like to make the following tired old comments.

Wormer's opinion was reached outside the scope of the traditional doctor to patient relationship...an opinion from afar that has no basis in fact. Her credentials are not noteworthy and her expertise is not necessarily in this field of diagnosis. The American Psychiatrict Association does not support this manner of diagnosis.
Frank's book is another opinion rendered from afar...and has been derailed by equally prominent specialists in the field of expertise as being nothing more than political fingerpointing. Again the APA would not endorse his manner of diagnostics but he gets around this by not being a member of the APA.
Hatfield's book was originally pulled by the first publishers after they found out that he was a prior felon having served time for solicitation of murder. The second publisher was sued by another author for libel over the distribution of the book. Hatfield claims that he has valid sources as did lawyers representing the publishers but they never provided any proof of many of the allegations in the book. Hatfield also pled guilty to stealing of at least 22,000 and as much as 34,000 dollars in Federal Housing subsidies. There is a myriad of those that consider the book to be just an effort to make a buck.

The argument has been made that it isn't POV to discuss these items. I have stated that they are less than credible witness. If we know that they are less than credible and still incorporate them in this article, even if we also include the detractors of their opinions proving how ridiculous their opinions are, then we spread gossip only and the entire article looks like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedic effort. My concern is about editing and quality control, not suppression of information and in an effort to appease the concensus, I added the link as mandated.--MONGO 06:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed quote

172.49 asked me to give an opinion on this. I don't see the problem with this if it was part of the same conversation. It's relevant and properly sourced. The only thing I can add is that I'd present it differently. The edit was: "When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." "I am just not going to answer those questions," he said. "And it might cost me the election." I'd say - He added: "I am just not going to answer ..." to make it clear that it was part of the same conversation. Or if he said it just after the previous words, I'd write ... instead of starting a new quote. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that quote was actually my second try at trying to figure out why it was being blind reverted, I thought it may have been something to do with my original one which was He said that he would continue to refuse to comment on allegations of drug use. which is also from the same source. I personally like the bolded one better by far, but hey, thought a direct quote might be more acceptable.-bro 172.149.84.231 08:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Either would do, so long as it was part of the same conversation. If he said it elsewhere, you'd want to add another source, as in: He later told xxx that ... SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Both are from the same reference/cite as the other quotes in that section. -bro 172.149.84.231 08:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin that a related comment from a different conversation would have to be separately attributed. This is done in Versions 3 and 4 where different quotations from Bush are summarized:

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [48] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [49]

These other statements were made in the context of political campaigning, unlike the conversation with Wead. I think they make the point more clearly. The addition to the Wead paragraph suggested by 172 would be an improvement, but it would be rendered unnecessary if we included these other statements instead. JamesMLane 12:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If the above is in the article, the quote from the link isn't neccessary. The main reason I felt it was neccessary in the original, is the wording conveyed an altieror motive for the 'I didn't deny anything' remark. That motive may exist, but I believe we should leave it to the reader to decide, thats why I placed GWB's reasoning for not denying. -bro 172.147.73.11 22:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Already you have now a third IP...is there a purpose for not creating a user page? How about contributing to the Rfc on these issues?--MONGO 00:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before the night is over I will probably have a fourth, that again, is what happens when you are on dialup. I have answered the rest previously. -bro 172.147.73.11 00:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must admit to being confused as to why anyone would object to the addition of that sentence, given that it's relevant and it's sourced. Now we have 3RR and vandalism accusations flying around because of it. Could those who object - Mongo, for example - explain why? Also, please note that 3RR applies whether you're right or wrong. The only time you can violate it is in cases of simple vandalism, but the addition or deletion of the disputed sentence doesn't count as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is a standing Rfc on these passages and he has been repeatedly requested to comment there, yet he will not voice any opinion there, instead avoiding it outright. 172 also refuses to set up a user page, instead depending on his term "Bro". As it turns out, this is a heavily vandalized page and the content he wishes to have would be more accepted in this article if he would discontinue his obstenancy and create a user page. It appears he won't do this so he can skirt around 3RR. Nevertheless, he is free to edit as he wishes of course, but as I have mentioned, his behavior appeared at first at least to be vandalism due a combination of causes. The passage he wishes to see in the article is also found in the linked test, and doesn't provide any more insight or clarification than what was already achieved with less redundancy. As an advocate against inclusion of much of the text, I also added a link to the daughter article on the issues as a show of good faith and in respect to the apparent concensus...even though I have been vehemently opposed to the link.--MONGO 06:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Refusing to get create an account, yep, and? Skirt around the 3RR, untrue, unfounded. Appeared as vandalism, no, as you so eloquently commented earlier, you were reverting due to the lack of an account, that appears as vandalism. As for the actual content of the edit, I am overjoyed that you decided to address it, I have given the reasons many times here, and in the edit summaries. You appear to be alone in your idea that certain quotes from a reference are useful, and others that relate directly to the ones used, are not. I have no preference in regards to the sister article, you did that of your own violition as you say. At this point, unless further improvement is needed on a passage, I am going to step away. Toodles, "MONGO". -bro 172.147.73.11 06:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the Rfc you would see that I most certainly not alone...you are acting outside of the norm for these highly contested passages, refusing to engage in civil discussion in the Rfc on these passages and refusing to open a user account. SlimVirgin has asked you below to explain why you will not open a user account. Everyone here, including myself has been more than pleasant with you so there is certianly no reason for you to continue to agitate this article or the people that contribute here.--MONGO 06:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asked and answered. -bro 172.147.73.11 07:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do understand wrt the 3RR, as I've stated on the page, if its decided I was in violation, I will certainly take the block without a fight. I do question that blind reverts based soley on them being made by a nonlogged in user isn't vandalism though. But I will bow to your knowledge on the subject. -bro 172.147.73.11 01:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the vandalism, from the wikipedia entry:

Vandalism is any indisputably bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia....Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy...

Mongo's bad faith were made explicit in both his edit summaries, and his statements on this page. That he has, and would continue to revert due to my not being a logged in user. -bro 172.147.73.11 01:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The deletion or addition of that sentence isn't vandalism; it's a genuine content dispute. Whether you have a user name or not is irrelevant. Your edits must be judged on merit. However, do be careful not to violate 3RR; whether you're right or wrong, now that people have been warned about it, anyone violating it is likely to be blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:18, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Again, me being right or wrong on the inclusion of the material is rather irrelevent as I've stated I understand that I may be blocked if my edits were considered reversions. I did dispute that I was reverting vandalism, but I see thats not the definition regardless of the article on it here. For future reference, I will remember that deletions of information from an article, based soley on a users anon status isn't vandalism. -bro 172.147.73.11 03:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having said that, 172, you'd be saving other people and yourself some trouble if you'd set up an account, and I can't see any reason you wouldn't want to. It makes communicating with you difficult for one thing, because you don't have a fixed talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I understand the inherent disadvantages, and as mentioned before if you'd like me to elaborate on my reasons for not creating an account I will do so. I do watch the pages created for my IP's for a day or so after editing on them for information, and when talking to a user I watch their page for their comments. Regards -bro 172.147.73.11 03:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why won't you create an account? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -bro 172.147.73.11 07:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"American" versus "of the United States"

"American" might be informal, but "an United States" is even worse. Also, "American" is used in approximately 99.9% of other WP articles about U.S. citizens. I removed it entirely because "president of the United States" implies "American".—chris.lawson (talk) 22:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do we need "Selected quotations"?

Does this even need its own section? Right now we've got two quotes that are basically the same things he keeps saying in every other speech. And there's List of Bushisms and Bush on Wikiquote, so I don't see how Bush quotes need their own section in the article. There's also the problem of possible bias: the quotes are "selected" by whom? What criteria for notability were used to select them?

I don't think this section should be here. In fact, I think I recall a section just like this having been removed months ago, but I'm not completely positive on that. Regardless, I don't see why we need another collection of quotes. Mr. Billion 28 June 2005 06:37 (UTC)

I agree completely. Quotations sections are notorious targets for POV pushers and the practice is to use a reference to Wikiquote instead. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 28 June 2005 07:09 (UTC)

Disputed tag removed

I removed the disputed tag that Rdysn5 added due to no discussion as to why it was placed here. Normally this type of tag is either preceded or followed up by a discussion as to why the tag was added.--MONGO 28 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Who wrote that?

I really don't know what do to. I was browsing Wikipedia and stumbled on the article about President Bush. What the hell is that?!?!?!?! I'm not even a Wikpedia user, but that "article" about Bush getting killed by Dick Cheney has to go. I just needed someone to see that, and do something about it! I would do something about it but sadly I just don't know way too much about the guy. SOMEONE DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What article are you talking about? -bro 172.133.83.48 30 June 2005 06:28 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Jez removed a large number of wikilinks with this comment: "removed some pointless links (one of my pet hates) - eg: is there really any need to link to the United States article every time the phrase pops up?)". Normal style is to link a term only the first time it's used, although, in a long article like this one, it's sometimes appropriate to link the first use in a particular section if the previous link is far above. Beyond removing duplicate links, however, this edit unlinked quite a few terms -- countries in the coalition (Poland), policy areas (immigration), etc. I'll relink these unless persuaded that there's a reason not to. JamesMLane 30 June 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Comment on the beetles

I'm referring to the revert by 24.136.36.173 (talk · contribs) at 20:07, 30 June 2005 (UTC) with the following edit comment:

Beetle references are CLEARLY POV. See pages dedicated to this naming. http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/agathidium_bushi_agathidium_cheneyi_and_agathidium_rumsfeldi/

That's a comment by an old mate of mine, PZ Myers, who is definitely to the left of the US political spectrum.

However PZ didn't give these beetles those names and the people who did so are supporters of the gentlemen in question. They intended the dedication sincerely and it was taken in that spirit. In fact President Bush phoned them to say thanks: President Bush calls to say thanks for the slime-mold beetle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 30 June 2005 21:40 (UTC)