Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

I think the links are somewhat POV. There are way more links that call Bush a Chimp, etc. than there are simple informational or Republican-biased links. I myself have a Republican/Moderate (See my User page) POV, but I certainly don't force them on everybody else by adding links to Bill Clinton's page. I think we should start a cleanup of this article (or at least the links section). Ilyanep 23:54, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We aren't resonsible for external links and don't need to guarantee that they're NPOV. If they're oppositional, we can label them as such. Of course, we don't want too many links...--Jia ng 04:16, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agree with Jiang. This article has plenty of content; having a large number of links is OK. If you want to add more pro-Bush links, feel free; taking some out would not be productive, in my opinion. Meelar 05:24, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

64.158.115.54 (Talk) (Removed "and the Skull and Bones Society" from the section "== Personal Live and Education ==" since that society is only a rumor and not commonly substantiated by evidence. Grammar changes too.) Not a rumor. Why is this connection suppressed? Something awkward? Wetman 01:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Skull and Bones Society is not a rumor. They own property, you can visit them if you want. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Removed (not an unusual occurrance); if it's not unusual, that doesn't be reiterated. (If it is unusual, as I suspect, it's not factual.) - Hephæstos|§ 22:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bias in updates

If someone can substantiate an addition or change to an entry using a reference, then the addition should be kept as is. I've noticed that there are people determined to expunge all the positive items (with links to supporting articles) regarding President Bush. For instance, an item was posted stating that Bush worked at an inner-city poverty program once he returned to Texas from Alabama (after working on the campaign of Red Blount). A link to the supporting timeline posted by the Yahoo! News supported this bit of information. Also, that Bush applied for a program to go to Vietnam using F-120s as bombers was substantiated by a link to an interview with someone who actually flew with Lt. Bush in Texas. There is also a concerted effort, not substantiated by the facts, that Bush was a "deserter" who went "AWOL" in Alabama. He, in fact, did serve, got his required service points, and was honorably discharged. As to some people stating they can't remember seeing Bush in Alabama, all I can say is that I'm in my mid forties and can't remember every face of every person in high school and college. Can anyone honestly say they can? Perpetuating this myth in order to inflate (when there is really no reason to) the record of John Kerry is just plain stupid. If John Kerry wants to win the next election, then he should propose plans to "fix" all the problems he's complaining about. Then, this country can get to an honest debate

A couple points:

I don't think an op-ed piece from the Washington Times is a credible source, any more than indynews. Surely there is information about Palace Alert elsewhere. At any rate the writeup by the Times does nothing but corroborate what "Bush claims," which was already mentioned in the article.
Some recent additions are non-sequitur. Unless his service with an inner-city poverty program was under the auspices of the military, it doesn't belong in a description of his military service. Likewise, the fact that the National Guard served during the wars in the gulf has no bearing on the time period of Bush's membership in it (although I do think some mention should be made of the fact that in more recent years the Guard has been much more frequently involved in foreign wars as opposed to, say, guarding the nation).

There's more, but that's enough for now. - Hephæstos|§ 21:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here are my addtions to the George W. Bush page:

1. Bush was twice promoted during his service in the Texas Air National Guard; First, to 2nd Leutenant and then to 1st Leutenant.

>>>> Irrefutable fact

2. A pilot program to consider using F-102 airplanes as bombers in Vietnam was underway. Bush inquired [1] about this program but was advised by a supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

>>>> As cited by a fellow pilot

3. President Johnson (and later President Nixon) decided not to call up the National Guard for service in Vietnam although this option was always available to the president (the National Guard did serve bravely in Iraq during both Gulf wars).

>>>> Fact: as a pilot, Lt. Bush could have been called to Vietnam at any time during his tenure.

4.These rumors were brought up during both the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Bush has released documents from the Alabama National Guard including, most recently, pay stubs and even a record of a dental examination.

>>>> Documents were released showing he did serve in the Alabama National Guard.

5. in early 1973, Bush worked in an inner-city poverty program.

>>>> Since Guard duty was NOT full-time duty, it is very relevant to report what Bush was doing with his time.

6. Bush, having achieved the required service points in the Air National Guard, was honorably discharged.

>>>> This is irrefutable.

All of these items are facts that are known or have been reported recently by major news organizations. Why is there a need to expunge this?

The only thing I added in that was biased was the line "perpetrated by the Democrats and the Liberal Media" which I added in frustration. I removed it in later submissions. -- Firstlensman 22:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You've made a good start (here on the talk page) of putting your edits in the proper context of NPOV. For example, as you mention, the part about Bush inquiring is simply not an irrefutable fact. To state that it is established fact that he did so is not correct. It is giving Bush the benefit of the doubt that a supporter but not an opponent would give him.. It is (providing your information is correct) according to a fellow pilot. Those kinds of qualifications make an enormous difference, and things like actual names of the pilot, etc. What happened is that you put a lot of things together and kept insisting that they all be included. Qualifications do not necessarily mean all your contributions are worthy of being the article, but they certainly deem them to be much more acceptable to the NPOV style. Thank you for making the effort here. -- Decumanus 22:43, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You should realize too that adding lines about the "Liberal Media" will basically get you instantly branded as a Troll and will bring out a host of editors that revert everything you write even the parts which may have factual merit. We simply don't have time to parse every nuanced contribution,and unfortunately that's what happens. We're the same people who revert "Bush is puppet of corporate America" Trolls too. -- Decumanus 22:55, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am citing "Letter from Bush's Squadmate Col. William Campenni (retired)", an article already included as a link on this page, for items 2 & 3 above. He lived and witnessed what happened to Lt. Bush. This is the reason the information should remain rather than being expunged by Wikipedia contributors who weren't there and are trying to skew the information to a negative POV. -- Firstlensman 22:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Meelar, but stating that you are editing this information to get an NPOV and then turn around and state rumor and innuendo fostered on the public by Moore and McAuliffe during a political campaign season is just plain wrong. I had left in that "some people feel that..." it was a way of avoiding Vietnam. Let's leave it at that. -- Firstlensman 02:14, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I guess you misinterpreted me; the reason that I attributed the "some people feel that..." quote was to make it more neutral. I think it's better for people to know the source of the allegations. I wasn't trying to make them any more credible; see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. As for the other changes:

I didn't actually remove that much information; for instance, I left in "promoted twice", because it was useful, relevant info that I didn't know. The major changes I made were these.

Moving, not deleting, the section about Bush volunteering for the bomber program.
Adding a sentence saying that Guard service at that time was seen as a way to avoid combat duty. References for this can be found at the following sources: [1], See 4th and 5th paragraphs of this article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm See last sentence of second paragraph], and many others
Deleting a sentence about serving in an inner-city poverty program. It doesn't matter if he was helping kids or skiing a la Howard Dean; this section of the article is about his Guard service.
Removing the sentence about Johnson and Nixon having the ability to call up the Guard, which, while technically true, creates a misleading impression; see point 2.

Please point out which of these changes you feel is unjustified. Thank you, Meelar 04:38, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, the questions surrounding his National Guard service have a subtext insinuating "what was he doing when not serving his time in the National Guard". All relevant items affecting his timeline in the National Guard should definitely be included. As to the Johnson/Nixon line, it has been stated that Lt. Bush would have been the first to go if Johnson or Nixon called on the National Guard. Becoming a pilot in the National Guard actually increased his chances of going to Vietnam in relation to other National Guard service. I get the feeling that Junior bowed to his father's wishes to join the National Guard, then signed up for duty that gave him the best odds of getting to Vietnam. I moved the paragraph regarding the pilot program because this happened in Texas not Alabama. Do you think that the insinuations by McAuliffe and Moore should be placed in context of the current presidential campaign? -- Firstlensman 07:04, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm reverting your most recent change; a sentence that includes "Often misunderstood is that..." is a warning sign. I don't feel that sentence was POV, in the context. We're getting somewhere, though; most of the changes you've made were acceptable, at least when looked over by others. Remember--BOTH sides have to agree on a version. Anyway, a request: instead of making numerous small changes, could you please condense them before hitting save? Also, the "edit summary" is a valuable aid to other contributors. Thanks, Meelar 20:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to put this in context. So what if Bush missed a couple of months? He achieved the required service points and was honorably discharged. The Negative POV crowd has been portraying this as being "AWOL" and calling him a "deserter". They are either mistaking their understanding of Guard duty or they are deliberately misleading the American people. I'm erring on the side of caution by mentioning a misunderstanding -- I can really make a case for them being deliberately misleading. -- Firstlensman 21:09, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a fairly narrow view of a controversial issue. You can't simply claim that "Either Bush's critics are wrong, or they're lying"; this is a controversial issue. As such, it's misleading to have Wikipedia simply claim that one side is correct, when it's still in the air. Keep trying, though. Thanks, Meelar 21:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The only reason it is a controversial issue is that Moore and McAuliffe are fostering this deserter/AWOL notion on the American public. The fact is that Lt. Bush earned the necessary service points to achieve an honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. He served 25 days, during the year in question, which got him to the minimum 50 points for a year. If Lt. Bush serves 4 days in November and then none in December it doesn't matter. The Guard allows service days to be worked around the men & women's lives and careers. This fact should definitely be recorded to put this "Controvery" in it's proper perspective. -- Firstlensman 21:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your point is...what? That Bush's political opponents are charging him with wrongdoing? It says that in the article. The only issue is whether the charges are true, which Wikipedia should not be ruling on, implicitly or explicitly. The issue is this: did Bush actually serve all the required time in the Alabama National Guard, or not? The definitive answer to this question, as stated in the article, is unclear. That's why I keep reverting your edits. Meelar 22:07, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Firstlensman is clearly an ideological troll. The issue of Bush's service has come up in each of his elections; it's currently a major national story, to the degree that he went on TV to deny the story and to promise to release all the relevant documentation (which he (a) has claimed in the past was already released and (b) still hasn't done). Not only is there the issue of Bush's service, but also reports of his records being destroyed, and the fact that he was given special treatment to get into the guard, with barely minimal qualifications when many others were in line ahead of him. This story was suppressed in Texas largely because Lloyd Bentson's son was given similar treatment. People are using the notion of "partisanship" to pervert the intellectual process. "NPOV" is being abused to suppress FACTS that would be apparent to any disinterested Martian who was simply interested in what is true. NPOV doesn't mean that everyone agrees, it means that all intellectually honest persons would agree -- otherwise, every ideologue gets a veto.

Please don't remove information. The White House press corps HAS questioned whether Bush's father got him into the Guard. In fact, articles have been cited in this very debate claiming this. Sincerely, Meelar 22:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The White House Press Corp will fly into a feeding frenzy over any chum they feel will get them ratings and readership. Doesn't mean we have to mention them here. Hell, everyone including my dear mother has questioned whether his father used his influence to get W into the guard. I've admitted as much myself. -- Firstlensman 23:09, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As stated in my reference article, "It has been standard procedure for many years for National Guard units to excuse members from scheduled drills for employment reasons, with the stipulation that missed drill time be made up." This all but exonerates the gaps. If Lt. Bush achieves the necessary service points to by honorably discharged then it does NOT matter if there are any "gaps" in his service timeline. -- Firstlensman 23:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The changes you made look good, with the exception of the "White House press corps" thing--it's important to know that the charges spring from other sources besides overtly partisan ones. Aside from that, I hope to soon get this section into a form acceptable to all involved, so work can be done on cleaning the writing; as it stands, it bears the scar of edit-warring. Cheers! Meelar 23:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I need to make one point about Bush's National Gaurd service (and I'm not going to incorporate this in the article--it's just FYI):

I was in the Army 1967-1969 and everyone felt that service in the Reserves (NG or AR) was generally considered a way to avoid Vietnam. This had been fostered all through the 1950's (I remember personally) when government-sponsored ads ran on television telling you that if you joined the Guard or Reserve you could avoid the draft. But during Vietnam, even the easiest reserve was more service than most young men served, by far.

I never dumped on Gore for his creampuff service (and it was--he served a short time in 'Nam and was understandably kept in a safe occupation and safe places) because HIS service was so much more than most other young men, and NOT just the sons of the rich and powerful.

Likewise, Bush's service, compared to other National Guard experience I am familiar with, is impressive within the context of NG experience. His being away (he was neither "AWOL" nor "Deserter" by any but rhetorical standards) is quite consistent with the nature of his TDY (temporary duty). The military showed great deference to people working in political campaigns (for any party) as they tried to keep on good terms with the political realm. Major point is that his service in general was so much more than many other Guardsman ever did--his extensive flying in Texas was, AFAIK, unbroken.

Another point, though, is this--I know the line is that this is wartime and 1992 wasn't (though I could make a decent argument that it was). I voted twice for Clinton, and, as a veteran of a war the main openly avoided, I didn't hold it against him, as I felt that GHW Bush was leading us to a possible Depression, and in 1996, I supported him vs. Dole.

But to have Clinton's man (McAuliffe) attacking Bush for more service than most, and especially in comparison to Clinton, is nothing short of shameful. It shows that the adage that "People Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones" is not only dead, it's shattered. Cecropia 01:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Argumentative POV marked as minor edit

User:Rei has been making multiple major edits criticizing Bush and marking them as minor edits.

The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit. This feature is important, because users can choose to hide minor edits in their view of the Recent Changes page, to keep the volume of edits down to a manageable level.

[...]

Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior[...] wikipedia: minor edit

Among the "minor edits":

The purchase was surrounded in scandal. Bush payed for it using money from a controversial stock trade; he received twice as many shares in the venture as he put money in for; the venture used threat of forclosure by an organization that they formed (the Arlington Sports Facility Development Authority) to acquire property at 1/6th its appraised value for the building of a new stadium; the stadium was built largely at taxpayer expense (135 million dollars vs 65 million provided by the owners); and the team (with its new stadium) was sold to then sold to a family friend (Tom Hicks), who later went on to be a major Bush campaign contributor. The venture made a total of 170 million dollars in profit. [Revision as of 16:00, 3 Mar 2004]

Between 1972 and 1973, Bush dated Mavanee Bear, another member of Bount's campaign. Bear stated "I know he served" because he had to regularly reschedule meetings, but also stated "I didn't see him in uniform". When later back in Texas, she frequently saw him in uniform, stating "I think he was mostly just flying in circles over Houston." [2] [15:50 3 Mar 2004]

Ben Barnes, the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, stated that he called the head of the Texas Air National Guard to recommend Bush for a pilot spot at the request of a Bush family friend [3]. [15:44, 3 Mar 2004]

3 I know lots of people hate Bush, but lots of other presidents and politicians have detractors but I don't see the levels of detailed attacks and POV as rampant for any of the others. And, I passed looking at some of these because they were marked "minor" Cecropia 23:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually, a number of the edits *were* minor - if a person adds only one fact, I'd call that a minor edit, and most of the edits were of that type as I ran into brief things that I thought should be mentioned when reading over the article. However, there were two that ended up being a lot bigger than I had planned for, but I never took the flag off; for that, I apologize.

However, I do have to strongly disagree about the change you made (although I'm not going to undo it) as being "POV and argumentative". The quote before the quote that I added showed Bush as being enthusiastic about wanting to go to Vietnam. The quote that I referenced, from Bush himself, shows quite the opposite (unless you think about him talking about seing his other two options as being shooting his ear out with a shotgun and going to Canada indicates enthusiasm to end up in Vietnam). That is known as a "contradiction", and thus it's not "POV" to point out that the previous statement was contradicted by another one. I also would like you to explain what is POV about Barnes's statement. Or what is POV about an interview with a former Bush girlfriend. Etc. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't change them from being facts. It's not a "Point Of View" that Barnes stated that he helped get Bush into the guard - it's a fact that Barnes stated that. It's not a "Point Of View" that Bush's former girlfriend gave an interview in which she gave both supporting and opposing evidence to Bush's Alabama guard service - she did give the interview, and I linked it right there.

I think I'll turn your argument around and state: "I know lots of people support Bush, but lots of other presidents and politicians have supporters but I don't see the levels of being easily offended about true, referenced statements for any of the others". I should also add that he's *currently* president, and thus gets tighter scrutiny. Lastly, if you ever think that anything isn't documented well enough, don't complain about POV - ask for a reference, and I'll give you a dozen if you want, from respectable sources. Thank you very much. Your criticism about "minor edits" is well taken, but your criticism about POV is very far off the mark. Rei

The major point, that you acknowledge, is that the edits are not "minor" )or anywhere near it) within the definitions of wikipedia. There is nothing in the quote about his possibly being interested in Vietnam service (and the quote is from a third party who stated his observation) that says he was "enthusiastic". Also consider that people's minds change--people who tried to avoid the service were often good soldiers; some who were anxious to serve soured quickly and tried to keep a low profile.

Two of them weren't minor; that was an accident, and I apologized for it, so I think that's the end of that story. However, quite to the contrary of what you write, there IS something about him being interested in Vietnam service - the line about him approaching Maj. Maurice Udell to try and join a program to fly the F-102 as a bomber in Vietnam. If you don't like the word "enthusiastic", what word would you use to describe "wanting to do something"? And, how would that *not* be a contradiction to his 1994 statements? Lastly, about how people's minds change, the interview was from *1994*, and he certainly didn't feel like mentioning any such "change of heart". What evidence do you have to support such a notion? Rei

Noneof the three edits I cited were minor. What word instead of "enthusiastic"? Easy ... you used it just now: "interested." He was honest in the 1994 interview as to his original motives, he could have changed his mind once in service, and that's what his acquaintance reported on. You're trying to impeach Bush on someone else's statement. Cecropia 00:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing that Bush was (or ever has been) honest.

Both the Bear and Barnes edits were minor; they were just one minor fact added in each.

Ok, "interested" - which is still contradictory with not wanting to serve in Vietnam, so you haven't helped your position one iota. You're basing your stance on "could have" when even Bush himself hasn't supported such a notion. I don't know what *your* goals are here, but I'm not trying to "impeach" anyone. Now, if you won't acknowledge that him being "interested" (or enthusiastic) is a contradiction, surely you'll admit that it is *seemingly contradictory*. And gee, guess what I wrote? Take a look: "seems to contradict". You somehow felt that "seems to contradict" - which it does - is somehow "POV and argumentative". I don't care that the original statement was from another pilot and not Bush - that doesn't change the reality that they are seemingly contradictory insights into Bush, and there is nothing out there but your idle unsupported speculation of some sort of change of heart to resolve them. My stating that they are seemingly contradictory is *true*. The it's the very reason for having the second quote there at all - it fills out the picture of Bush at this point in his life, and points out that there is a knowledge gap as to what exactly his viewpoints were. If you were more interested in having as balanced of a picture as possible than of defending Bush at every turn, you'd realize that pointing out where information conflicts is a good thing. Rei

Read the definition of minor edit.

This article has been so contentious that I think no edit should be marked minor, unless it's grammar or punctuation or the like. - Hephaestos|§ 00:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well of course edits should be marked minor if and only if they are. As for contentiousness: suppose the article pointed out the fact that Bush is a very controversial figure, widely considered (by many democrats, libertarians, independents, non-Americans, "traditional" Republicans) to be corrupt, and provided one section in which those who thought so could document that claim, and another section in which those who thought otherwise could counter the claim. What would the latter section consist of, other than a bunch of irrelevant tu quoque sputtering about the evils of liberals and Clinton? *That* is why the article is contentious -- because there's no HONEST defense of Bush, but many ideological Republicans feel compelled to defend him. This is an objective fact, and such things are beyond partisanship.

This sounds pretty partisan to me. -- V V 19:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who are you, that anyone should care how things seem to you? I gave an argument; feel free to offer the same. Your concept of "partisan" is intellectually bankrupt; what matters is what is true -- as might be judged, say, by an uninvolved Martian who has no "partisan" feelings. I noted that people who think that Bush is corrupt have reasons (which they have given at length) to think so, and ask what counter can be given to their arguments. I suggested that the only "argument" that can be given is of a "tu quoque" nature, and sure enough you offer one up on cue.

NPOV notice

Bush may believe in pre-emptive war, but I agree with those who don't believe in pre-emptive NPOV notices. For one, I don't think this article is going to be any more contentious than it already has been during Bush's presidency. It already has required constant vigilance. IMHO, the neutrality notice should only be up if there's a specific point of dispute, which we (as editors) can work to resolve as quickly as possible. -- V V 19:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You only need to read the talk section and look at some of the nature of the edits to see that a catalogue of the POV on both sides in both articles would be a ongoing Labor of Sisyphus, and it will only get worse as the election season goes on.

It is no more than fair to realize that some people may actually think that an article not marked with an NPOV dispute in a putative encyclopedia is well balanced and neutral. You know, there are some people, especially K-12 students, and those in other countries, who are not attuned to the level of venom now in U.S. politics.

This is true for every article on Wikipedia. Indeed, there is so much non-encyclopedic material that I think the disclaimer should probably be more prominent. But having these articles singled out seems wrong to me, in particular the constant neutrality dispute message. The Labor of Sisyphus you allude to has been de rigueur on these articles for quite some time. -- V V 21:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The U.S. presidential election is a special case. See how much of the minutae in these articles will have any importance after November 2. To be honest, these articles would become NPOV if they were gutted. As Mr. Kerry would well understand, "name, rank, serial number." If you're right that serious non-NPOV is true of every article in Wikipedia, than it is fraudulent to call this an encyclopedia--rather it becomes a debating society, and should be labeled as such--or, as Hamlet says, "reform it all the way," and have Wikipedia for technical articles only and fire up "Wikiwhine" for edit wars. Cecropia 22:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with VV. The current note implies that neutrality is not achievable on this subject, and I see no reason why it is not... More difficult, sure... More time-consuming, yes... But not impossible. If you don't think the article is neutral, explain why on the talk page and try to fix it. I fail to see how the expanded NPOV-dispute tag solves any problems. Even if the standard dispute tag was used and not removed for a long time, that would be better than the present tag. Tuf-Kat 00:38, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

My complete edits were reverted without any reason. If you do not like it, say why!

Ok, thanks, I will explain what I changed and why. It was written that "it became clear that Afghanistan's Taliban government was deeply connected to Bin Laden's terrorist organization." However, to my knowledge the Talibar, as ruthless as they are, are not a terrorist organization and only accepted Bin Laden because of his money and because they share fundamentalist beliefs. I know of no proof that they knew about 9/11 in advance, and had they I doubt that they would have been stupid enough not to foresee how they would be treated. As is already rightly reported at another page here, they first asked to see proof that bin Laden was behind the attacks the United States refused and instead threatened the Taliban with military action. Zhe Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan, where he could be tried under Islamic law. Furthermore, Afghanistan was not taken by the US army alone but mainly by Afghan warlords, in many cases supported by Ameri can air raides. Then I added that critics question that people like the former Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, who was crippled during the Soviet occupation, can be called "unlawful combatants" and claim that anyone accused for whatever crime has a right for a fair trial, I cannot see why anyone should have a problem with that. The paragraph about the Powell's appeal to the Security Council was clearly tendentious. First it was preceded by a statement putting Iraq's regime in a bad light, which in general of course is ok but at that particular point really fishy. Then the Security Council DID react AGAINST a military action when three veto powers claimed they would not support it and it was obvious Bush could not get the 9 vote majority. I cannot understand how that could have been left out. Ending the paragraph with Bush's "warning" "that the Council could be rendering itself obsolete." in my eyes is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Given the extend of protests the representation of them here was a clear twisting of reality. Furthermore, the EU does not yet have 25 members, that was simply wrong, and to mention that 13 countries sent troops (most of which did not participate in the invasion) is tendentious as well, taking into account that in fact only three countries participated in the invasion, only a single one of them from Europe. The Hitler/Bush comparison is explained in more detail now.

Last thing I added was the reason why Bush's and Blair's chances to win the Nobel Prize may be limited. I must confess I am not happy with how I put it, can anyone help?

It should not be disregarded that a former member of Bush's cabinet stated that already in the first days in office officials tried to find a strategy to fight against Iraq.

Permanent NPOV header?

I also disagree with having this permanent header. This is likely to be one of our most-read articles as the election goes on--putting a header like that is basically broadcasting that we're "not as good as a real encyclopedia". Yes, it will get more vandalism--but it also has more people watching it (I'm sure I'm not the only one who looks at any edit to this page with a high degree of suspicion). As it stands now, there appear to be a good number of people committed to making this page neutral, who will help keep it so. The permanent header just makes us look bad. Meelar 17:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The header has been modified as information rather than a dispute. Whoever modified made it just fine, IMO. I don't think it makes us look bad; I think it makes us look honest—a lot better than having someone happen on the Bush and Kerry pages, see some obvious polemics amid the NPOV stuff, and think Wikipedia is a partisan playground Cecropia 17:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It looks like we have given up on NPOV. That's bad and sends the wrong message to both readers and editors. --mav 18:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that the NPOV header isn't needed, but I'd also add that it is unreasonable to expect an article about Bush that one can truly say doesn't express any points of view. Even if wording is moderated, the ratio of what facts about him are brought up will change the point of view. Citing things about Bush that are seen as his strong points will be viewed as a pro-Bush point of view (for example, his recovery from alcoholism). Citing things that are seen as his weak points will be viewed as an anti-Bush point of view (for example, his business history). I think that the best we can hope for is to try to achieve balance. Rei

I don't think at all that we are or should give up on trying to obtain NPOV. Absolutely we should strive for it in these articles, but I don't see it as happening. I think we're mistaking "balance" for "NPOV". An article with 100 obscure pro-Bush tidbits and 100 obscure anti-Bush tidbits may be "balanced", but it is not "NPOV". The only way we could reach NPOV before election day would be to hire a single trusted editor--but that isn't Wikipedia, is it? Cecropia 20:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What? A single person is more apt to be neutral? What are you smoking? --mav

I should have been more specific. I'm in the publishing world (inter alia). You can hire (as in $$$) editors who are able and competent to edit to a NPOV, no matter what their personal sentiments. It used to be called journalism. ;-) But Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so... Cecropia 21:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That may sound nice, but in reality it's not so simple. Ask a Palestinian, for example, what they think of how NPOV American media reports are on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Then ask an American what they think of the Arab press's coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict. The problem is that what you're exposed to, and what determines your worldview, frames your writing whether you mean for it to or not. Rei

Having a disclaimer for extenuating circumstances is not "giving up on NPOV." I'm quite confident this article and/or the one on Kerry could achieve true NPOV, even within the election year. I'm also quite confident that it would last approximately two minutes and twelve seconds before someone came by and screwed it up again. I think a disclaimer of some sort is necessary, especially for people new to the site.

With regard to Meelar's concerns (and I think they're shared by others) I think it should be pointed out that in some ways, we're not as good as other encyclopedias. The situation here (and in Middle Eastern articles, etc.) happens to be one way in which we're not. It's worth it in the long run, because by suffering this detriment, we allow ourselves to be better than other encyclopedias in many other ways. We need to lose this "Wikipedia is far and away the best" attitude imo. - Hephaestos|§ 01:34, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Remember: this is an encyclopedia entry, keep it to the most important issues Imagine what someone in 2010 will think if she reads that we spent TWELVE paragrapahs about accusations that he was AWOL, days he was on or off service, people giving their opinion... Could that be moved to "pro-" and "anti-Bush campaigns 2004"? Furthermore, I apreciate that this encyclopedia tries to give both sides of controversial topics rather than just stick to facts. However, sometimes it gets kind of ridiculous, especially when a criticism "they think he was wrong in..." is countered by a statement "but others state he was right" (Obviously, if no one thought he was right he would not have acted as he did). Would it not be better just to state which two views exist? If someone is really interested in a particular issue he can still google into it...

Personality

I feel that any section we have on this is going to be even more POV, as

None of us know him
It's really hard to be objective, even if we did know him

It doesn't really add that much to the article either, being somewhat non sequitur (spelling?). I'm going to remove it. Meelar 19:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cocaine

Is it just me, or does anybody else think like 10 links for that cocaine issue is ridiculous?

It's not just you. RickK 06:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not just you and RickK. If this was even vaguely credible, the press would be chewing it over like a cow's cud. Cecropia 06:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Something about it needs to be there, but 10 links is a bit much. Meelar 17:37, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dealing with fat article and innuendo

It seems that get-back-world-respect has returned as an anonymous user to remove the same material that provides, documented with reputable sources, the background behind negative charges against Bush under the banner of brevity and appropriateness.

Some people complain that assertions pro- or giving background to charges against Bush are not documented. When you document them, then they are taking too much space, but somehow the negative charges remain. We can't have this both ways. So I've redited to remove such crap as an ex-felons one-book refuted charge that Bush was arrested for Cocaine and inane details like that Bush was "partying" with a tennis star before the DUI.

If you oppose me, maybe you can respect that I strive for accuracy and fairness even though I have a POV as the other editors have. I'm willing to have the quality of my edits on a contentious subject compared to anyones. I think you may note that even where I've expanded issues in the Kerry article that some might consider negative, I've also added material on the same subject that was positive. All in all, I prefer Bush in 2004, but I don't hate Kerry. Hatred is a bad and blinding motivation in a political campaign Cecropia 14:20, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems this definitely shouldn't be removed without adding back somewhere else. If the article is too big, split out parts of it and summarize. But don't just delete. Anthony DiPierro 14:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we're honest, I feel we're walking a line here. Some issues are substantive and some are not. A single claim in one book (even if the author weren't shown to be a virtual fraud) about a hot topic like an actual drug arrest, uncorroborated and not being made by the opposing campaign, really shouldn't be in an encylopedic entry at all. If someone wants to actually read the man's book and state the substance of its contents (with factual commentary) that it is fine--it should be posted under the name of the book as an article. As to the Iraq run-up, I think that deserves a space in a different article, if only because it shows how an a supposed "world body" reflects the partisan interests of its members on both sides. If no one else does it, I'll do it when I get a chance. (Is there life beyond Wikipedia).

And I should point out, for those who enthiastically stick in every "jot and tittle" on Bush, that Kerry wasn't born yesterday. I was at the VVAW march in 1971 and have watched his career. Some rather unflattering things have been been said about him that haven't surfaced in the mainstream press. I have not tried to shove these into his article because I think such details are the job of the "opposition research" of both parties (aka, "attack dogs"). Cecropia 16:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If a viewpoint is only held by an extremely small minority (as in a single claim by an author in a book), it falls under Wikipedia:no original research. I think there's a case to be made for removing it completely. As for the rest, I agree that it might be overkill at this point, but I also suspect this is going to be resolved in less than a year, after the election is over. In the mean time, claims certainly need to be documented. This will give us the ability to separate the nonsense from the legitimate when things do calm down. At the very least claims should be documented here, on this talk page. Anthony DiPierro 16:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"the administration even disregarded "

Ms. Raddick was an underling at the Justice Department, she offered an opinion, which her superiors overruled. She was an "advisor", not the DOJ, not the president. Use of adjective "even" further implies that the President recklessly ignored advice he was bound to follow.

People do not appreciate how easily Lindh got off. For one thing he was allowed to keep his citizenship. Do you have a U.S. passport? Have you read it? "LOSS OF NATIONALITY: You may lose your U.S. nationality by [...] serving in an armed force or accepting employment under the government of a foreign state. "

Second, the crime of treason is very narrow in the U.S. Constitution, but he committed it: Article Three, Chapter Three: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. [...]" He escaped that because the government wanted to avoid a difficult and divisive trial, and probably also because it was so early in the process.

War is not a chess game. People die of it. Cecropia 17:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the "even disregarded" phrasing is biased, but I felt that the name of the 'government employee' and her position were important--my mailman might agree with her, but that doesn't mean I should listen to him. Her position presumably makes her opinion more relevant to the debate. As such, I changed "One govt. employee feels that..." to "Janice whoever, a DOJ ethics adviser, feels that...".

Yours, Meelar 17:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your compromise, Meelar. Cecropia 17:57, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Loss of U.S. Nationality by native-born citizen

What's written on the back of your passport doesn't override the Constitution. A person born on US soil cannot lose their citizenship without doing so voluntarily and with the intent to lose their citizenship. In any case, I agree with the sentence "Jesselyn Radack, a Department of Justice ethics adviser, supported the view that John Walker Lindh, who was never held at Guantanamo Bay, could not be questioned without his lawyer present. ([8])" though I do question its relevance. Anthony DiPierro 19:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

8 USC 1481 (current as of 1/22/02) specifies:

Section 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality -

[...]

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

[...]

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States [...]

[...]

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily. [4] (emphasis added)

Barring a specific case brought to the Supreme Court, and the court ruling against it, this is the law of the land. Cecropia 20:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your quote does not address the fact that the act must be done "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality" - anthony