Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 19

Incorrect to refer to an Arab by last name
I'd like to point out that it's wrong to address Saddam as "Mr. Hussein" or even "Hussein", because Hussein is not a family name. It's the first name of Saddam's dad. We are making a very common western error here, and I propose we correct it by changing the article to address him by first name. --212.219.0.5 14:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) shoosh Mr. Hussain

yep
most nuetral version of this page I've seen 70.179.224.245 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2005 (UTC)

I say we just not allow edits to this page until 25 years after he leaves office. Because after that point, people will only remember what was relevant during his Presidency, and all the Michael Moore conspiracy bullsh*t will have been forgotten. 64.78.120.182 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2005 (UTC)

Proposed article split
This article may be controversial but it is also vastly overweight at 70KB, and needs splitting, probably into 3 different articles. I am happy to split the article according to a consensus gathered here, and will write a piece asking readers to contribute to this debate here. I wouild like to be able to split the article on Sunday according to a consensus gathered. I would say I am reasonably neutral on George W. Bush, and am not American. I find it hard to imagine me making any other contributuion to this article. My only agenda is to see this article split up so that all information about him on wikipedia can be freely edited. Squiquifox 20:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW, it already is split into 3 articles. I think 70kb is long.  In my opinion, it's pushing it, but I wouldn't neccessarily say it's too long.  Paper encyclopedias would probably have longer articles on presidents.  I do not mean by this to state my formal position on this matter; I am undecided. Kevin Baastalk 21:28, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
 * I think alot of what is said in this article could be moved to the first and second term articles. --The_stuart 21:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Splitting between first and second term is generally unhelpful to the reader. The discussion of, for example, Bush and Iraq should be in one place, not arbitrarily divided at January 20, 2005 (a date of no particular significance to Iraq policy).  In general, I don't think this article is overly long.  If material were to be moved out, it would still be necessary to leave behind at least a summary, so the article wouldn't be greatly shortened. JamesMLane 00:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree. Understanding the chronology of the events and placing them into a historal context could be much more helpful in understanding them.--The_stuart 14:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have brought the issue of whether articles should be split/slimmed or not to Village pump (policy).Squiquifox 02:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I too think that the length of this article is too long. I think it's so long that it ceases to be of great help to a casual reader. Even as a Bush supporter, I can admit that his alcohol and drug history are important. Their relevance, however, to this article, is questionable. Much of the material in here belongs at Wikinews, not Wikipedia. I would suggest at least breaking off one section for biography. A biography in the main article would, of course, be necessary. Then, when it comes to policies, highlight major (read "not necessarily current") concerns, give them brief descriptions, then move point readers to other pages for more details. In the Domestic Policy section, we would see sections on social policy, policy towards minorities, tax policy, immigration policy, healthcare policy, Social Security policy, science policy, environmental policy, and (I don't know why it's not there) security policy. Think about it. It would really be much better. Indeed, the domestic policy article already begins this process, but it appears that everyone comes to the main page and adds whatever news they think is appropriate. savantpol

Link to a video of drinking out of a bottled water container?
re. "Some have argued that a 1992 video shows him drinking at a wedding.": You guys should really take a look at this video and think about whether it's really appropriate. Then re-read the NPOV section entitled "Giving equal validity." If I might opine, it's lines like the above that are one of types of problems continue to keep wikipedia from being considered a place for 1st-rate scholarship. Best of luck. --67.101.66.193 02:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. But be careful...the gargoyles that haunt this page will call you a censor if you edit out such vital information. Neutral?...it is suggestive...and misleading...the fluid could have been anything...Bush may have been drunk, who knows, but conjecture such as this and the stupid narrative that goes along with it is pure sleaze and has no place here except for those that wish to push a leftwing point of view.--MONGO 09:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not misleading unless you censor it, or it's presented with a specific spin. The fluid could have been anything. Bush could have been drunk, or just acting loopy for the fun of it. Therefore it should be up to the reader to decide, not the Defenders of the President's Image. Kaz 15:30, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, let's leave it in here...it continues to show Bush in a questionable situation and that makes it suggestive...that is what I call fine journalistic endeavour...a blind man should understand that my argument is less about the content than the context. The content is inconclusive, the context is cheap, sleazy and sensationalist as one would expect from a tabloid...it is high schoolish and moronic and does not in any way provide the reader with an encyclopedic level of reporting. I say let the readers be educated with intelligent research not let the readers decide...the latter is the National Enquirer mentality many of the folks here have.--MONGO 17:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I am well aware that modern "journalism" is self-censoring, with anything "questionable" sat upon unless it fits the agenda of the journalist...but that doesn't mean journalism should be that way. It should not be the journalist's job to make sure the reader draws a certain conclusion. "Inconclusive" information is at least as important as, if not moreso than, the stuff that is clear and obvious, when it comes to what should be reported.


 * It is speculative content, like "What is Bush drinking in this video? Is it ALCOHOL???" that makes reporting taboid quality, not the inclusion of information that does not lead one to a clear conclusion. The simple fact that we can't know for certain what's happening means that we need to let the reader decide, himself. One can say the same thing about the Ron Brown funeral footage. Maybe it's OK for Clinton to be laughing at the man's funeral. Maybe he really did suddenly break down in tears the moment he saw the camera on him. Or maybe he was a heartless poseur. To censor it is to be truly a junk journalist; making the decision for the reader. Kaz 17:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that we shouldn't make a decision about whether the charge is correct. (I think whoever first added it used much too definitive language, saying that it showed Bush was lying about not drinking.)  The serious issue is whether the matter is important enough to merit inclusion.  I haven't even looked at the video; I was assuming good faith on the part of the editor who added it.  We can't include every crackpot praise or criticism of Bush, though.  If the video doesn't make clear what he's drinking, and this is just one person's interpretation of it, I'd be inclined to remove it. JamesMLane 19:44, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In US law there is a standard for evidence that I think is a propos here. Paraphrasing, does the probitive value outweigh the prejudicial nature of the evidence. This really offers no probative value for an encyclopedia article. Quite frankly there is just too much stuff in this article that is non-encyclopedic. Just as there is no reason to include the footage from Ron Brown's funeral in Clinton's article, there is no reason for this to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. On all these politically charged articles the problem IMHO is that there is this desire to get in "stuff" (stuff that proves the person/entity is superhuman or that proves they are satanic) as opposed to identifying what about that person is notable - That GWB claimed to stop drinking is not notable - in a encyclopediac article about the man - now in a full biography - that is another matter. If it was up to me I would redline this article and make it about half as long Trödel| talk 20:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say US law would be, if anything, an example of what not to do. Such tricks really are used to censor information that one side or the other simply finds embarassing. Even judges regularly impose their agenda by excluding perfectly arguable evidence that would undermine their goals. When the Michigan government was trying to confiscate millions from tobacco companies in order, supposedly, to compensate for the cost of smoking to the government health care system of that state, the judge threw out completely factual evidence that the tobacco tax itself brought in more revenue to the state than the cost it was claiming for the health care. And banned the government's own numbers, cited by the defense, that showed the alleged speed and earlier age at which smokers died actually resulted in a net "savings", economically. Why? What judge would want to let such a pivotal change in the way tobacco is prosecuted happen on his watch? Kaz 21:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure of the arguement made here - a bad decision by a judge implies the rule is useless? Anyway - how about this - a fundamental fairness issue arises when something is being included because of it casts the subject in a bad light purposefully - when there is no useful information also being presented by the information. That fundamental fairness concept is attempted to be implemented under a prejudicial v. prohbitive rule. Regardless - the issue remains and stands unattacked - there is no useful or probitive information being presented by this link. Trödel| talk 21:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you're certainly behaving like a judge or lawyer...pretending you've proven something when you clearly have not, and acting preemptively on it. I've reverted your invalid delete; it's not been settled, here. That was a prime example of agenda taking precedence over truth, and of the difference between someone who alters data to make it more appropriate, or deletes the data to censor things counter to one's PoV.


 * The very pretense that the jury...whose powers are generally being stripped away by corrupt judges...is not the one to decide the relevence of some evidence, but a Rule of Man judge instead, is the kind which is inevitably going to lead to abuse, as it is here. As with juries, the actual solution is to allow the actual people to see the evidence and decide, not some agenda-touting censor.Kaz 14:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * So taking something out that is disputed is pushing a POV but inserting it is not - get real - Are you going to continue to argue about the applicability probitive vs prejudicial while still not providing any reason why this is notable? Trödel| talk 23:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The legal standard of "probative" evidence is always applied in relation to a specific issue. Evidence may be probative in one case but not in another.  This article, though, isn't a legal brief aimed at proving that Bush is or is not a good President, or aimed at proving any other particular point.  It's supposed to be an encyclopedic summary about Bush.  Some facts about an article subject are worth reporting if sufficiently notable, even if they're not probative of anything.  (I'd leave in his height, for example.)  Factual reports of opinions, even irrational and ill-advised opinions, may merit inclusion here.  The legal standard for admissibility of evidence isn't a good fit for our purposes. JamesMLane 14:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree this is not a brief and it was not a good opener - In determining whether something is notable shouldn't there be some rational evaluation of the allegation, and whether the allegation is notable for something other than the fact that it was raised as an allegation. The fact remains that the inclusion of this is solely to push a specific POV - and it is not notable enough to be included. And no one has given any reason why this is notable other than the fact of the allegation itself. The justifications for it (Ron Brown funeral) argue against its inclusion since that is not in the Clinton article and is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. Trödel| talk  23:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with arguments on both sides of this debate. I don't like the idea of removing information because it may portray someone in a bad light. Information can be neutral and still be unflattering. However, I also don't like implying that some event may have occurred (Bush drinking at the wedding) without including both sides of that argument. If it's stated that "Some have argued that a 1992 video shows him intoxicated at a wedding", there should also be a statement of what others believe that video shows. As it stands, there's already a fairly thorough discussion of Bush's drinking habits. In my opinion, the disputed statement doesn't add enough value to warrant inclusion. Carrp | Talk 00:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is that such a statment should be included, I suggest this: "There is debate over whether a 1992 wedding video shows Bush intoxicated or simply tired." Carrp | Talk 00:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That would make sense to me. Probably the possibility that he's simply holding bottled water should be mentioned, too. Like "There is debate over whether a 1992 wedding video shows Bush intoxicated and drinking alcohol, or jovial and drinking bottled water"


 * He needn't be tired to act that goofy...people act goofy in front of wedding video cams, for some reason. Well, then again, I suppose they're usually drunk. But I still think one can simply be in a jovial mood from the whole wedding event. Kaz 01:35, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have more reservations about the link to the alleged party scene where Bush is "drinking" or "intoxicated" than I do to the picture of him reading the Pet Goat. With the goat picture, we know he sat there..we don't know what he was thinking, and that is besides the point. It is a FACT that he did sit there and in all honesty, I'm not sure why he didn't get up...I said it probably was a brain fart. However, the link to the party video is inconclusive. Yes it appears to have been a wedding party, and yes, I think he looks like he is a bit tipsy or stoned, but there is no proof of that. I see no reason that it is here unless it is singularly significant that Bush was at that party and it could be proven that he was drunk...drinking...stoned or whatever. I also wish it could be authentically dated. The presentation by the smoking gun has a lot of suggestive prose. If it was admitted in a court of law as testimony it would be stricken from the record. I know, facts about opinions...but not if those opinions are not based on facts. I say it should be eliminated.--MONGO 09:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I still say that his staying to read the book to the kids was commendable, and it's authority-worshipping nonsense to think that he could magically have helped in some way, just because he's the President.


 * You keep insisting on comparing this encylopedia to a trial, yet (fortunately for the quest for truth) it's nearly the opposite. It's not about forcing people to only hear what both sides agree is airtight and directly related, but allowing people access to any arguably relevant information, and knowing they can choose what to believe for themselves. It's a shame the justice system doesn't work that way, as well. Anything a judge can hear and decide may not be valid, a jury can also hear and decide isn't...at least it could if it weren't carefully selected for its complete incompetence by the judge and lawyers.


 * I'm beginning to think, considering your constant reference to courts of law, that you might be a lawyer...but it seems even more likely, from your delivery, that you simply watch/read way too many crime dramas. And I suppose I should assume the latter, to give you the benefit of the doubt.Kaz 22:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer nor do I watch or read any crime dramas.--MONGO 11:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * re Video: Shouldn't there then be a complete section for drug abuse in the entries for Bill Clinton, Al Gore and everybody else who has allegedly experimented?--hazmat 14:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Poll on TotallyDisputed tag
Since some people really want to keep the TotallyDisputed tag on this article, let's take a vote on whether we want to keep or delete the tag, a sort of "VfD" for the tag. Szyslak 18:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose that is a useful thing to do. Kaz 18:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP. I just read the article for the first time and it is an embarrasing total piece of crap.  Full of innuendo, rumours, half-truths and Democratic propaganda.Keetoowah 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's certainly full of stuff that a dedicated Bush apologist, if he is for silencing the opposition, would not want included. But it's still stuff which is reasonably arguable. You should be spending more time making sure the equally valid Clinton-embarassing stuff is included in that guy's article, not trying to censor its equivilents here. What happened to that analysis of Clinton as the codependent adult child of an alcoholic, with various power-abuse issues against women? And didn't Safire base his claim that Hillary was a pathological liar on some psych guy's analysis?Kaz 03:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kaz for admitting that the information that you are putting in the article is bias. Good Job!Keetoowah 14:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * delete. I have disputes with the article, but they're more properly sociological disputes, centered around ethics, understanding, and fueled by hope.  As passionate as I am about these things, I know that I have to understand that people prefer happy illusions to gruesome realities, and that they need that, emotionally, to get by.  I want them to get by.  So I vote against the Totally Disputed tag. Kevin Baastalk 19:09, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
 * Replace with POV tag, unless someone can identify what's factually disputed. Accurately attributed opinions, even if their inclusion is disputed, do not justify a TD tag. Gazpacho 04:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the tag as it is. Archiving the previous discussion pages doesn't dismiss the fact that myself and a lot of other folks here do not find the article to be neutral and in that we also dispute some of the information and they poor quality of some of the referencing.--MONGO 07:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the fact that the talk pages are archived is supposed to be some kind of proof of a left-wing plot to make this article biased? Talk page archiving is a pretty common practice throughout Wikipedia when talk pages become very large. The talk page was archived because it was getting to be more than a megabyte long, not because Wikipedia's socialist, anti-Bush cabal wants to hide evidence of a dispute. In regards to the "poor quality of the referencing," that's not proof that the article's inaccurate. Szyslak 08:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You were taking a poll and I voiced my opinion.--MONGO 09:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Taking van Wormer as a much-discussed example: MONGO, it was my understanding that you didn't dispute the accuracy of the report that she had made this comment; you thought that her opinion, although correctly reported, reflected only her political bias, should be given no weight, and therefore didn't merit being reported in the article (even if reported accurately). To me, that sounds more like a neutrality dispute than a factual-accuracy dispute.  An example of the latter would be if the article said, "Bush didn't take his required National Guard physical exam despite a direct order from his superior officer, Jerry Kilian, that he do so."  That would support a dispute about factual accuracy, given that there's a dispute about whether Killian gave such an order.  I thought the disputed facts had all been changed so that Wikipedia wasn't endorsing either side, but just accurately presenting evidence.  If the referencing is, in your opinion, of poor quality, we're being accurate if we disclose the source, so that readers who agree with you can discount it appropriately.  Are there any specific instances where you think something is asserted as a fact that should be qualified in that way? JamesMLane 16:29, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you on all that later so as not to take up all the room here...--MONGO 17:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have major issues with this page, but I know that it will take ages for any compromises.  --BaronLarf 14:17, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least two people have expressed serious reservations with the content.  One would be enough, and we can't accuse MONGO (for instance) of not being forthright and clear about his reservations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:25, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Replace with POV tag. What information in the article is factually disputed? Carrp | Talk 15:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Replace with "Controversial" tag. The topic is inevitably controversial. Anything that makes Bush look bad will offend the Bush apologists, and anything that makes Bush look good will upset the Bush critics...and there is plenty which does one or the other, even when presented neutrally. So there will always be cries of PoV, even if there isn't PoV present. Therefore the most logical tag is "Controversial", acknowledging that anyone with an opinion's gonna dispute something here. Kaz 15:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. We can't slap on a "totally disputed" tag because of every new editor that comes along. Is this article really "totally disputed", or does it just come down to a few minor elements? If we must, a "controversial" tag should be more than sufficient. Gamaliel 18:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well it isn't just any "new editor". It's someone who has come along and made a coherent, if not necessarily completely convincing, case that lots of the pieces in this article are only there to smear mud on Bush's name.  He isn't being unreasonable, he's making legitimate points that have to do with the balance of the article and the effect that all the negative material has.  I think it's a legitimate question whether, for instance, the cocaine allegations are being overstressed and giving a false impression of Bush's character.  Until I can convince both myself and MONGO that they aren't I'd rather the notice remain there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, this is inevitable in a controversial article. Any serious criticism of Bush is going to offend his apologists, and any pro-Bush information his critics. This article would have to be stripped of most of its real value in order to not be disputed. It is, therefore, inherently controversial, but not necessarily biased in such an overwhelming way that it needs the most pejorative of tags. Kaz 21:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete the tag; OK to replace it with the POV or Controversial tag. Several days ago, I commented that the dispute "sounds more like a neutrality dispute than a factual-accuracy dispute."  I asked for examples of alleged factual inaccuracy (as opposed to NPOV violations).  Having seen none, I vote to delete the "Disputed" tag. JamesMLane 08:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't get back to you about that and in honesty, after close analysis of the article, I see that it suffers mainly from a POV controversy instead of any major accuracy problem. However, as I stated in another response, the following passage is food for thought in that I feel that in some cases, the innuendo here is deliberately misleading..."If those opinions are derived from falsehoods, innuendo and or bad judgement on the part of the person or entity providing the opinion, and we are aware of their dubiousness yet knowingly recite them anyway, then our inclusion of said opinion is malfeasence and is a mirror of that distortion.".--MONGO 11:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * We can include significant facts that tend to cut against the cited opinion (although we have to rein in collateral disputes). In many cases of claimed POV, though, all we're omitting is something like "Now that we've told you the facts about this opinion and the facts that some people believe refute that opinion, we want you to know that some Wikipedia editors are among those who believe the opinion to have been refuted." JamesMLane 17:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and Replace with "Controversial" tag. It is obviously controversial - and I do think the contents are moving towards NPOV through the normal editing processes Trödel| talk 16:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * such a tag would be absurd and unsupported by any reasonable argument as MONGO himself admits just above. so, i oppose a "totally diputed" tag. Wolfman 17:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The goat picture has to go
I think this article has major problems. Even if the tone is NPOV, virtually all the information cited gives a negative impression of Bush's background, accomplishments, etc.

Removing that "The Pet Goat" photo would be a good improvement. It's not even mentioned anywhere else in the article, and seems to exist here only to portray Bush as a buffoon.


 * Um, pet goat picture? RickK 06:07, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * All the other pictures in this article appear to be official portraits or posed publicity shots of GWB. If they give Bush a "negative impression", then there is really nothing that Wikipedia can do about that. The "pet goat" picture provides a good counterbalence to the clinical posing of the official photographs.


 * If it would help we can add text about where the "pet goat" picture comes from. DJ Clayworth 06:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I was on the side of it being an attempt to make a naughty point, but if it's an official publicity photo, then I'd say its incidental connotation is no worse than the pro-Bush spin clearly behind all the other publicity photos.


 * If we're gonna yank it, then we should also yank the one that has him looking so presidential, and the one that has him next to another world leader all statesmanlike, the pic of him as a good family man, et cetera.


 * And understand this: While there are many criticisms of Bush which I find credible, I consider the pet goat thing to be sheer nonsense. He could not have accomplished anything by running willy-nilly from the classroom and trying to "take command" seven minutes earlier. That's authority-worshipping silliness. But I still say that, if it's a legitimate, official publicity pic, it should stay...one is taking a PoV stance by wanting to remove it. Trying to censor something which appears embarassing to their "side". And, again, I say this despite thinking the complaint implied in the pic is bogus. Kaz 20:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand the desire for less stilted pictures than official photos (though other presidents' articles don't seem to suffer from any such problem). However, I think the choice of the Goat image is suspicious. It seems more like a tie-in with Fahrenheit 911 than a candid snapshot of the president that just happened to make it onto the page. Anyway, thanks to DJ Clayworth's edit, the complaint is no longer implied, so it's even less NPOV than before. At least the link to The Pet Goat provides some counterbalance, although none is given in the article text. Ultra Megatron 07:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I made this edit because someone complained that the picture wasn't in context, so I put some context in. Feel free to remove it if you prefer. DJ Clayworth 20:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The Goat picture should be there, I think--it's what he did after being informed of the attack. I'm not happy with the current caption, however. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The goat picture is misleading. Most of those who know of the incident can look at it from one of two ways: that he is an idiot and it took him 7 minutes to break free from the excitement of the book about the Pet Goat and deal with the 21st century version of Pearl Harbor (it was worse than Pearl Harbor)or, that it was a combination of shock and digestion and gathering a course of action to handle this momentus event, which is my impression. As far as it being in F911, I didn't see the documentary, but knowing that the director of that movie is prone to putting things out of context (in much the same way creationists do when writing about evolution), I do not consider any innuendo to that documentary as neutral, regardless of how much money it made. I see no reason for the picture to be here...I've got a personal impromtu picture of Bush from just last week of him speaking at a venue where he discussed social security reform that I attended...it isn't flattering and one could make all sorts of deductions from it as well. I do not see that only White House approved pictures should be displayed here, but this one is subversive and is here for one apparent reason only, and that is to cast Bush in a bad light, and can therefore never be construed by me to be anything other than pushing a point of view.--MONGO 20:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why replace an image that will be familiar to the millions with an utterly obscure image? It hardly matters what you think of the movie - the picture wasn't shot for the movie, it just used the footage. Again, if you think that use of an image by a biased source invalidates the image then any images used by GWB's machine (not just created by them) should also be treated with suspicion. The picture is a rare one of a world leader at a defining moment in history. It's hardly irrelevant. Any interpretation you place on it, such as the rather negative one you give, is entirely your own issue. DJ Clayworth 20:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I really, really like JamesMLane's recent edit, making the caption read: Bush reading The Pet Goat in a classroom after being informed of the attack on the World Trade Center. He was criticized by some for his apparent nonchalance, but praised by others for not alarming the schoolchildren. I think that encapsulates the issue very well.  I know people who don't even like Bush who think he did the right thing that morning, and I'm sure there are pro-Bush people who think the President could just stand up and say thank you kindly to the children but he has some Presidenting to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Mongo, the fact that you have an alternative interpretation of the picture proves that it does not push a single point of view. Gamaliel 00:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * IN other words, my alternative...the positive one is the opposite of yours which must be the negative one, hence your argument that the picture is substantive based on your viewing the picture and thinking negatively. If you come here with a liberal predisposition then that will cloud YOUR ability to be neutral.--MONGO 12:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the caption should make clear that Bush has not just been told about an attack, but that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. He actually went into the Florida classroom already aware of AA11 hitting the north tower, which might have been excused or explained as a terrible aviation accident.  As is obvious from the unedited footage (with sound) of the entire classroom visit, which if anything is more chilling than the abbreviated version Michael Moore used (with his own voiceover) in his Fahrenheit 9/11 excerpt, Chief-of-Staff Andrew Card waited for an opportune moment when it would have been entirely appropriate for Bush to rise, say a few words, and plausibly excuse himself.  As has been widely quoted and acknowledged, Card told the President two phrases:  a second plane had hit the towers, and that America was under attack.  Bush didn't move or get up, perhaps out of shock, perhaps because Card had not specifically told him to get up, or perhaps because he didn't want to "upset the children," although I think that was a rationalization after the fact, because he had been given the opportunity to leave.  I think it entirely appropriate for this photo to be part of the George W. Bush page, since indeed 9/11 is the defining moment of his first term.  The use of this photo on Wikipedia's page should have nothing to do with whether Michael Moore used it in his film.  We all remember -- and indeed can never possibly forget -- where we were at the moment we heard or saw what was happening.  We should remember where Bush was, and his reaction. Sandover 00:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. The picture is here to push a POV. The point of view is that the President didn't react fast enough. You can all twist it any way you wish but that is why the picture is here and that is why you all keep pushing this issue. I consider his defining moment of 9/11 as the speech he gave a few days after that event...perhaps one of the finest in Presidential history...where is that picture? I said it once and I'll say it again...you cannot undue the fact that he is the President if you wished he wasn't by slandering him. If it must stay why not word the caption: ''Bush reads the book The Pet Goat after being informed of the second plane hitting the WTC. Some have said that he was waiting for a break in the reading to depart so that the children wouldn't be upset, while others have critized him for not responding to the call of duty quick enough''. Though this is long for a caption, it shows that in this article, the negative must always go before the positive, as far as the way much of it is written. Why not put a positive view before a negative view?--MONGO 09:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The alternative points of view are that Bush went into a funk and that Bush displayed great restraint so as not to upset the children. Those are significant opinions on Bush and should be reported in the article about him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Negative. No one really knows what he was thinking but him. But the critism of that pause, moment of momentus decision, effort to be tactful etc. has been misinterpreted by the liberal media and perverted to make most folks think that he was dumbfounded as to what to do next. That is what everyone has been led to believe. Therefore, the picture is here because it helps the left wingers perpertrate their myth that the President is an idiot. You and yours demand the continuance of it being here because it helps you support your attempt to slander. I say replace it with a picture of Bush deliving the speech he made a few days later. With those pictures, we can KNOW what he said...with this picture, we can only DEDUCE what he was thinking and most folks have been brainwashed into believing that he was not thinking at all.--MONGO 12:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's assume hypothetically that there was a vast left-wing conspiracy to convey a false impression about Bush, and that this conspiracy succeeded in using this picture to brainwash millions of people. On that assumption, the picture is notable and should be included.  That's the issue, not whether some people are drawing an incorrect conclusion from the photo.  We could go into a whole big thing about the different interpretations, giving more detail about each side.  I personally think the subject isn't important enough to warrant that, however.  The photo is notable and should be included; because the subject isn't addressed in the article, the caption should summarize why a seemingly routine photo became important.  I think that's enough detail on it because I don't think there was a vast left-wing conspiracy, I don't buy the anti-Bush argument that there was something useful he could've done in those seven minutes, and I don't buy the pro-Bush argument that he couldn't have politely excused himself without panicking the children.  Therefore, let's not clutter the article with the blow-by-blow about Bush's activities on September 11. JamesMLane 13:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * MONGO, you're absolutely right when you say that we look at the picture and deduce what he was thinking. Nobody knows.  He's the most important politician in the world and the kind of person he is--how he acts in a calamity--is important to a lot of people.  So they look at the video and they try to work out what it says about Bush.


 * Now replacing it with a picture of a guy making a speech would probably be the wrong thing to do. Politicians rehearse speeches, and usually the speeches aren't even written personally by them.  Here is a picture of Bush at a time when, perhaps for the first time in his Presidency, he had to make a decision without access to his staff.  He had to think on his feet.  I look at it and I see a man beset by indecision, others may look at it and see a man being considerate to the children whom he is there to meet.  Whatever you think, it's a pretty powerful portrait of President Bush unmediated by the usual White House smoke and mirrors.  A rare chance to see the man beneath. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think both of you saw too much news coverage of that situation and or F911 and reach the conclusion you do about him being indecisive. I say it is here and you support it here because it supports your biased opinion of Bush. I don't use the word biased in a hostile manner. We all have our biases...no doubt. But I think that the entire issue of this photo is a misrepresentation in that the media, which tends to be leftwing, has looked at it from that manner and has passed it on to all of us. I do not see controversial pictures of this nature in similar articles. I do not see that at all. It sits solitary and alone and is not connected to the article...but due to the bias of the media, we have all been well indocrinated to what that picture was guessed to mean about what Bush was doing which appeared to be nothing. As far as Bush having the chance to show independent thought...well, some of his staff were right there with him...and no President acts alone anyway...I say the picture should be replaced with this one for, as I said, we know what he said.[63] (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911jointsessionspeech.htm). That would leave no ambiguities and would be neutral because it is attributable to a known, not some perception.--MONGO 13:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, sidestepping the issue of whether to keep the pic or not, I don't think people have been biased by the leftwing media to see the photo as an indictment of Bush. Quite the opposite; everybody, without exception, I have talked to who has seen the whole clip of him just sitting there for a very loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time has said the same thing: 1) it clearly portrays him as rudderless and 2) why the hell hasn't this clip been shown in the media before? Gzuckier 15:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree, which is why I think my opinion on this is significant; I think it's utterly ridiculous to pretend that Bush could have accomplished anything more if he'd run out of the room (panicking the children) and started trying to micromanage the situation seven minutes earlier. This is the kind of authority-worshipping nonsense that really irks me about our society in recent years. People "taking charge" doesn't automatically improve a situation or crisis. And yet I agree the pic should stay. Especially if it's a Bush PR pic. If we don't censor PR pics for making Bush look good, we shouldn't censor them for supposedly making him look bad. And, anyway, the fact that the pic is historically significant makes it that much more appropriate, good or bad. One of the most famous individual pics of Clinton is the one of him laughing at Ron Brown's funeral. Because the pic is so famous, it would be appropriate in his article, though of course the Clinton apologists would try to censor it purely out of their own bias. Kaz 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's utterly ridiculous to pretend that the only alternative to Bush sitting there continuing his photo op was to run out of the room screaming. He could have easily excused himself in a calm manner without scaring anyone. Despite what Mongo thinks, all these possible interpretations prove that one single POV is not being pushed by including the picture. This is an important, unrehearsed moment in American history as it is happening and should be included, and is much more important than some varnished, rehearsed picture of a politician's speech. (Incidentally, someone should put a Lewinsky pic in Clinton's article.) Gamaliel 17:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bush's behavior since September 11, 2001 is something about which I have a particular interpretation but that is not something for discussion here. I will simply say that it is possible to have interpretations of Bush's reaction to the incident (and American's reaction in general) other than the one that is loudly promoted by the White House. You can rest assure that, being European, I have never had the opportunity to become "indoctrinated" by the US media, since I do not have access to their output and my local media have their own independent US political correspondents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, let's be realistic here...if the premise is that people might get a bad impression of Bush from the US media, that's true cubed for European media. I still say the pic should stay, but you're not exactly gonna get a positive impression of Bush in Europe. Kaz 17:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you won't. But my point handily demolishes MONGO's belief that there is a small clique of Washington "liberals" or whatever the mot-du-jour is engineering bad PR for Bush. If anything, the Washington press corps is seen by outsiders to be a bunch of spineless bootlickers for Bush. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I used an example of quid pro quo per se in that I stated in another argument that if the Pet Goat picture is going to be here, then why isn't there a picture of Monica Lewinsky in the Bill Clinton article. I don't wish to see either of these pictures in here. The argument was also presented that there are people that are apologists for Clinton and will censor Monica pictures out, and that there are apologists for Bush that wish to "censor" out the Pet Goat photo. I apologize for nothing. But here's the deal. I believe that Wikipedia is dominated by folks who have a left leaning political bias and I am cool with that. In fact, that means that we probably have a large number of academics and that bodes well on items of specialization....but it is bad news for articles such as this one. I now want to leave in the Pet Goat picture because that proves my point. I also don't want to have any photos of Monica in the Clinton article. If the left is watching the pages then it is expected that they would want to leave out a photo of Monica and leave in a photo of Bush reading the pet goat. Neither photo repesents a "defining moment" in either man's Presidency. As I said, the defining moment for Bush was when he delivered his speech to the joint congress on 9/20/01. I am also concerned about the zeal you have with all of a sudden wanting to put in a picture of Monica in the Clinton article...makes me think you are here more to bash our Presidents than to provide a neutral point of view. As far as what the European press thinks of Bush, well that's easy to deduce. I am sorry if I left out the obvious bias of the European media when I spoke only of the U.S. press's leftward bias. If you think that The Washington Post is pro Bush, you are gravely mistaken.--MONGO 08:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Bash "our presidents"? How about allow a full historic perspective, instead of the usual one-sided spin? Since the pro-president censors tend to be the ones trying to hide embarassing news, that's gonna make me seem anti-president, I suppose. But if someone tries to censor the pic of Bush with Fox, claiming it gives one a falsely positive impression, I'll oppose that, too. What's important is that the information around a subject get presented, not that the information giving the impression I desire concerning that subject get presented alone.


 * There are two kinds of people trying to "fix" debatable information in a typical Wikipedia article: There's the kind who wants to present information in the correct, npov format, and the kind who wants to make sure that his "side" is the only one seriously presented at all.


 * The former tends to fix information, by gently changing it to be more neutral and accurate, the latter tries to silence any information he does not like. Both use the same justification..."this is presented with a PoV", "it's not clear that this is true", "this needs some kind of support".


 * But the former, pro-truth kind of editor deals with these justifications by changing the text to a neutral PoV, editing the text so that it says "this is alleged by some", and finding pages to cite in reference to the material in question. The latter, pro-censorship kind of editor simply deletes, deletes, and deletes, if the information in question is counter to his own personal agenda. Kaz 15:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and as for "our presidents":


 * Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.
 * Theodore Roosevelt
 * It is one's job...as an American, a human being, or a thinking entity...to tell the truth, NOT to "help" our "side" get a desirable presentation.Kaz 15:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The absence of a Lewinsky pic is taken by you as "evidence" of a leftist bias. When we agree with you that a Lewinsky pic should be in the artice, this is taken by you as "evidence" that we wish to "bash our presidents". (Never mind the fact that not all of our fellow editors are US citizens.)  Either way, we can't win with you since neither outcome satisfies you.  I can't help but wonder if you're determined to see Wikipedia in an adversarial manner regardless of whatever actions we take. Gamaliel 18:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't resist giving you guys one more pointer. Think about using up the real estate that you are, on a survey article, about a photo from what I would say is a fairly meaningless reaction (and much partisan argument of what that initial reaction even was) in the long-term historical picture of Bush the Man and Bush the Presidency. It would be one thing if this picture was the beginning of months of indecisiveness, withdrawal, etc. But instead, much to either the chagrin or pleasure of many, Bush from within 24 hours onward has taken U.S. policy on a markedly new, determined route. Contrast, for instance, with Joeseph Stalin's reaction to the Nazi invasion. He widthdrew to the Kremlin for over a month (he may have even had a true nervous breakdown) and spent his time fretting over whether rifles should be equipped with double-bladed or triple/triangular-bladed bayonets. All while massive Soviet armies were left strategyless and were crushed by the Germans. Only during the German push to Moscow in the winter did Stalin find his resolve. So again, is wikipedia a serious encyclopedia, and do its survey articles focus on concise first-rate scholarship? Or is it a place where the reader is frequently diverted by Ahab-like focus on pieces of minor carping? No one's stopping anyone from writing an in depth article about, say "A president in the moment of crisis - George W. Bush's movements on September 11". But I think it's misguided and possibly petty to include this sort of stuff in what is ostensably a encyclopedic article titled "George W. Bush". Good luck.--67.101.66.193 14:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, the almost unmitigated disaster that has been Bush's response to a single terrorist attack does not cast him in a good light at all.  Recent worldwide opinion polls on Bush seem to indicate that this is the most common view in the world at large.  Boneheadedness is not to be equated to resolve. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Either you have completely missed my point, or I have completely missed yours. My point is about what belongs in an encyclopedia article entitled "George W. Bush" - which I would take to mean a relatively concise (not a page but not a book) survey article about the man and his presidency. Statements about the kind of things that will matter in 100 years about the man and his presidency belong. Details of every speculation about the man and his presidency don't. This is what elevates the main articles - the big picture, the long view, concise without going down ratholes every paragraph. Not that those speculations can't be covered in other articles devoted to those details. Your point appears to have little to do with this. I am reading your response as an assertion/judgement on Bush's foriegn policy. Which I suppose is because you have mistakenly inferred that I am making an argument/judgement on the effectiveness or wisdom of Bush's policy. I am not. Was it when I wrote "But instead, much to either the chagrin or pleasure of many, Bush from within 24 hours onward has taken U.S. policy on a markedly new, determined route."? That was intended to be a statement on the nature of Bush's presidency, not a judgement on its effectiveness or wisdom. Hence the "either the chagrin or pleasure."--67.101.66.193 16:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That certainly is the common world perspective on Bush, but it's irrelevent. The goal of the pic should not be to convince the reader that Bush' response to 9-11 was bad. Nor should it be removed to ensure that people do NOT get the impression that it was bad. It should be presented neutrally, as a piece of information that is seen as interesting by many people, and the reader should decide for himself.


 * Hell, when I look at the pic, I see Bush behaving in a very statesmanlike fashion. Many men throughout history have been lauded for maintaining a healthy sense of perspective and normalcy for the people immediately around them, when there's nothing better to be done, anyway. At that moment, there was nothing Bush could do to change what was happening. There wasn't enough information to order jets to shoot down the planes, and it didn't take the Commander in Chief to simply have some get up in the air and ready "just in case". Kaz 15:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * All he was told was "America is under attack"... what if it was a nuclear attack? 7 minutes to get into the air as opposed to being on the ground might make all the difference.  Also, decisions need to be made as quick as possible.  There were other hijacked planes in the air, every second counts in a situation like that, so you are incorrect in that other things couldn't have been done.  So you're saying they crash 2 planes so lets kick back, open up a cold one, and chill for 10 minutes, cause its not like there's anything we can do?  In either respect, he choked.  Like Gamaliel said, its not like the only alternative was to run out screaming, he could have simply excused himself and left his seat, but he didn't.  He was stunned like the rest of us, and if he had simply come out and said it, I don't know if I would have minded as much, but to pass it off as not wanting to upset the children is a blatent PR response, and you know it. --kizzle 19:39, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, so you seriously believe that if the United States had been getting pummelled by nukes from Russia, someone would have snuck in the room and whispered "America is under attack", and then left him there? That's just silly. And where did you get the idea that this vague phrase is all he was told? I'm under the impression that he was told that an airplane had run into the WTC. And believe me, I'd be the first guy to accuse Bush of blatant PR spin, if it were the case. I care about truth, not some political "side". That's why I'm defending the pic staying, even though I don't agree with the popular interpretation of it. Kaz 21:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In giving my personal view of the Bush presidency and in particular the foreign policy, I was simply rebutting MONGO's suggestion that events since September 11, 2001 give a picture of Bush that is at odds with the impression that many get from examining the Pet Goat picture. Your criticism is spot on--I accept completely that my impression of Bush is subjective (as is my view of his Presidency). So yes, it's irrelevant. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree that the goat pic is consistent with the impression people get of Bush from media worldwide. Either way, though, the pic would belong, especially if it's originally a legitimate PR shot. Has anyone bothered to check that out? Kaz 21:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked it out fully. The uploader cited the Michael Moore site, so I think it was a press still from F911.  The original source was probably a local TV team that was covering the school visit on that day. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * In summary, the goat pic stays because I am hopelessly outnumbered. But it isn't a picture that was taken, not that that should matter. I am almost positive that it is a vidcap from a local television station and I think it was from a NBC affilliate but may be mistaken. Okay, so he sat around right after being told about the events as they unfolded on 911...but to say he was chilling or popping open a cold one is %$#@$%% unfair. I say it is here because it presents a bad view of Bush...possibly he messed up...should have gotten up and done something...who knows. But no doubt that documentary used it and possibly perverted what he was thinking and what a number of you may be thinking...it doesn't merit classification as editorial excellence that's for sure.--MONGO 08:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you say it wasn't a picture that was taken. Do you mean it is a vidcap rather than a posed picture?  I'm not sure why this is relevant to the question of whether it is a picture of President Bush reading a book with children in a school classroom.
 * You say " to say he was chilling or popping open a cold one is %$#@$%% unfair." You will be pleased to note that the article says nothing of the sort.
 * You say "it doesn't merit classification as editorial excellence that's for sure". Well it's one of the few pictures we have of a President while a devastating terrorist attack was going on.  It may not rank artistically with the Iwo Jima flag-raising picture  (and I'm pretty sure nobody is planning on making a statue based on that picture).  Nevertheless it is clearly a photograph of some considerable importance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Geez, man! I said to leave it in. I think it is biased and I have gone on the record staying as such. I was also responding to the earlier innuendo stated by kizzle: so lets kick back, open up a cold one, and chill for 10 minutes, when he gave his impression of what Bush was doing in the photo, when I made my comment about that being unfair...I know that isn't in the article. I also don't need from you a link to the Iwo Jima memorial...I once lived one mile from where it stands in Arlington, Virginia. We continue to debate what the picture means and that in itself is the reason having it here isn't editorial excellence...it is not a fair treatise on the subject...it is conjecture and has been twisted around by the media. We need to tie it into the text or it has no purpose...what the heck is it here for? The picture is not a PR photograph to whoever asked that question...it is a vidcap...why not link the text to the entire video of events before, during and after that seven minute brain fart to get a better perspective of what was going on in totality. Then get rid of the picture. Regardless, I have bigger fish to fry about this article so unless someone puts a Nazi patch on Bush's shoulder, I won't edit it out for now.--MONGO 13:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * For the record mongo, I don't think that's what he was doing in the photo, I was just illuminating that to assume there was nothing to be done so he was justified in sitting there was wrong. I agree linking to the video would be good, but if we are going to include the information, I don't think the one photo combined with the current caption unfairly represents Bush.  By the way, did you get your name from Blazing Saddles? --kizzle 21:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Examine my user page...it is still in progress...when I learn how to use this format I'll make it better.--MONGO 09:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Great! I think we all know what purpose that picture serves.  We are all curious about how a leader reacts in a situation like this.  For better or worse, thanks to this picture we all know what Bush's reaction was. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You only want it here because it helps your biased case and your opinion, not because it has any other purpose. Your perception of the photo justifies your reasons for wishing to keep it here. It needs to be tied into the text...if that is possible...without creating further point of view.--MONGO 20:21, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally want it here because its part of history. I disagree with spoon-feeding the reader about what was going on in his head, i.e. Michael Moore's commentary over the video in this segment, but it is a significant event that needs to be included.  And I heavily disagree that the inclusion of a single picture of Bush sitting in a classroom constitutes POV... if it is, its just as much POV as the official photo-ops that take up this page. --kizzle 21:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, I don't even agree with the premise that there's something wrong with it. I think it was quite statesmanlike of him, since there was indeed nothing he could accomplish and I'm pretty sure he was just told "a plane hit the WTC". Oh, and Moore is well established as someone who lies with his supposed documentaries. Do a quick google for sites analyzing Bowling for Columbine...it doesn't matter what party you're in, the fact that he cut up speeches to sound like the exact opposite of what was being said is cold, hard fact. And so it wouldn't surprise me at all that he's behind the bizarre premise that Bush was somehow bad for spending seven whole minutes finishing the book for the kids. But it's still a part of history, even if that lying effer Moore is the reason, and THAT is why I don't want to censor it. Kaz 01:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Amen to that! But does anyone really know what was whispered into his ear and when...I mean, did Bush get informed of the first plane hitting the north tower at the WTC, the one hitting the south tower or was it the Pentagon...because that makes a world of difference. If it was the first plane, then he wouldn't have been told that we are under attack. Only that a tragedy had happened. If it was the second plane, then maybe he was assessing whether it really was an attack...but if it was about the Pentagon,after the first two, then he looks like a moron. I say it stays regardless of how it was portrayed in F911 by that pachyderm. Sorry, had to get that one in.--MONGO 09:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * So we've agreed on a few things then:


 * Michael Moore is a misleading douchebag.
 * After being told America is under attack, Bush waited for 7 minutes
 * People can decide to interpret number 2 however they wish.
 * It still is a part of history and should be included.


 * I wish I knew where I got this from, but he was told of the first plane right before he went inside, and then Ari Fleischer whispered "America is under attack"... I'll try to find the source for that. Pentagon and all that wasnt reported yet when he was told. --kizzle 20:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

On 9/11 2001, Bush was Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. Any solider will tell you how important it is to believe that those who give orders KNOW what to do in a time of crisis. And in that clip, Mr. Bush did nothing. But again, that is simply my point of view. I can understand the opposing view, but I really think it is a priceless moment in American history because it is one of the very few unscripted moments when the veil is torn aside and we see the man. That's all I have to say for now. Fergananim

Neutrality vs. Accuracy
Obviously, some people dispute this article's neutrality. But I really haven't seen much of a case made that this article is factually inaccurate. Accuracy dispute gives a list of conditions that merit an accuracy tag. As far as I can see, this article doesn't meet those conditions: it doesn't contain a lot of unlikely information without providing references, it doesn't contain information which is difficult to verify (such as original research, for example), nobody's pointed out factual errors, and AFAIK it hasn't been "edited by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic." As has been pointed out earlier, issues such as whether we should include Katherine van Wormer's view that Bush displays patterns of addictive behavior are about neutrality, not accuracy. For better or worse, that statement merely reflects van Wormer's opinion, but including it is not an "accuracy" issue. It can easily be confirmed through multiple sources that van Wormer holds those views, so it is not inaccurate to say she does. If the article were to come out and say something like "Bush's behavior shows addictive patterns and that is the truth," there would be an accuracy issue. Including van Wormer's statement doesn't make the article inaccurate, but it would if, say, van Wormer had never said anything like that.

The larger point of all this is that attributed statements that can be confirmed from multiple sources, even if some or most people would consider that statement wrong, do not make the article inaccurate, just the opinion of the person being cited. (Obviously, we should treat statements like that as opinion and not fact to maintain NPOV). For example, let's say an article on the Roman Empire included a statement by a historian who thinks the Roman Empire did not extend to Britain in the second century. He has been very public about his claims and has attracted a lot of interest. It's easy to argue that such a claim is inaccurate; extensive archaeological and other evidence confirms that Rome did indeed rule Britain in the second century. However, if we were to include a statement from that historian, making it clear that it is only his opinion, that would not affect the accuracy of the article. It would only be an accuracy issue if the article were written in a way that assumes the historian's claim is correct. If, say, the article included the historian's opinion, gave a lot of time to it and did not give much time to criticism of his opinion, there would be an issue. But it would be about neutrality, not accuracy.

My point is, when we talk about "accuracy," let's be sure that's what we're really talking about. It can be easy to confuse accuracy with neutrality. Szyslak 03:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Wormer is supposed to be an expert on the subject and gives her opinion based on her expertise. As an expert on the subject she would be expected to deliver such an opinion and such a diagnosis only after a standard evaluation conducted by way of a doctor to patient evaluation rendered only after at least one or more visits. Furthermore, since she believes this to be a side effect of years of drinking and not sobering up with proper professional assistance it is the kind of thing that a professional would not disclose to the public as that would be an invasion of the patients rights. Instead, she blantantly violates that code of conduct and spouts off her opinion not as a caring specialist would, but as a detraction of that person. In light of the fact that she didn't provide her expertise in an standard or ethical manner, her testimony is worthless. It has no more weight than if I had said it...but it is in the sources listed and in this article because it allows those that oppose Bush an opportunity, because of her "expert" opinion, to slander him. Hers is an inaccurate statement because it wasn't arrived at in the standard manner normally approved by those that provide this type of evaluation. It is not neutral because of it's inaccuracy and placing it here violates our efforts to remain neutral.--MONGO 08:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't shed any tears if the van Wormer "diagnosis" were removed from the article. However, I wouldn't be too eager to say it's in the article just as an excuse for Wikipedians to "slander" Bush. Whether or not any of us agree with it, van Wormer's views are fairly widely known, so this isn't just something some random Wikipedian dug up out of nowhere because he's an anti-Buah pinko who doesn't support our troops and hates America. As I was saying earlier, the van Wormer statement is no justification for an accuracy warning on the article. The mention of van Wormer's statements just says that she made them, not that they're accurate. If van Wormer had never said such a thing, that would trigger an accuracy warning. See the difference? Szyslak 09:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We keep missing each other in the point. The point is context. That she said the things she said I do not dispute. That she said them using her position as an "expert" but failed to say them based on an expert analysis is the reason that her opinion isn't accurate. She claims expertise to such a degree that she can render her opinion (which is taken by laymen to be a true diagnosis) simply by listening to his speeches or watching his mannerisms from afar? It is accurate to say that she said these things...it isn't accurate to use them here because it is not based on a normal doctor to patient relationship...in which case we would probably never know what her opinion is (that is if she truly were an expert). Regardless, if it was disclosed that Bush was indeed a Dry Drunk by an expert after a doctor to patient analysis then that would be admissible.--MONGO 09:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if her opinion isn't accurate, including her statement doesn't make the article inaccurate.


 * Really, could you point out one statement in this article that (1) you consider inaccurate and (2) is presented as fact. Those would be reasons to dispute this article's accuracy. Not "I don't agree with this" or "I don't like the sources on this claim." Szyslak 19:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you unable to understand what her motivations are? It is easy for me to see what your motivations are. I say that it is inaccurate and is viewed by the general reader as a fact in that she is supposed to be an expert witness...and in that her opinion carries weight...she uses that in an unprofessional manner as an attempt to slander Bush. But, her witness of whether he is a Dry Drunk or not is not based on a doctor/patient relationship. In that the issue of being a Dry Drunk is not a certified condition recognized by any medical/psychiatric board, that she conducted her survey in a manner which would not render her judgement a recognizable one in the view of her peers, and that she belched her opinion on the matter in an unethical manner makes this a poor choice of reference on the subject and therefore makes it an inaccurate statement. That she said those things I don't argue, our inclusion of them without weighing its value as a sound treatise on the matter is the issue. Yeah, Yeah, facts about opinions...but not if those opinions are here to support a biased view. That is why it is inaccurate.--MONGO 20:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Opinions are just that, opinions. They're not right or wrong as long as they're clearly stated as opinions. There's a huge, huge difference between "Ben Collins, professor of history at Southern California State University, claims that the Roman Empire did not extend to Britain in the second century, a claim that has been widely disputed" and simply "The Roman Empire did not extend to Britain in the first century." As long as it's clear that opinions are just opinions, they have nothing to do with accuracy, only neutrality. I understand it's totally possible that van Wormer's statement is just a socialist left-wing anti-American plot to smear our benevolent and glorious leader.


 * What I disagree with is not whether van Wormer's statement should be in the article; I think it should go because I consider it an unverifiable, inconsequential minority view that's unnecessary in an encyclopedic article about Bush. (I wouldn't mind a discussion on the subject in a separate George W. Bush drug and alcohol controversy article, though). So we agree on that. What I don't agree with is the idea that including the statement makes this an inaccurate article that needs a heavy-duty accuracy warning.


 * One other thing: Would you mind answering the question I asked before? The van Wormer statement doesn't count because it's not presented as fact. An example of what I was talking about before would be something like "Midland, Texas arrest records show that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession on July 6, 1971." There's nothing like that anywhere in the article, so there's no accuracy issue unless you're coming from the perspective that all criticism of Bush is wrong and therefore "inaccurate." An encyclopedic article on Bush (and Clinton, and Kerry...) needs to address criticisms to an extent. Szyslak 01:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Like two ships passing in the wind. Using "others have said" or similar phrase, and then linking it to some tabloidish, zany or silly source is the reason the article is inaccurate. Accuracy involves meaning that all the items are accurate...factual...not accurate that the items were said. If we link to silly passages or opinion, then it can't be accurate. Wanting to continue to push these issues is the reason it isn't neutral. I say all the referencing from Salon, Hatfield's book, to some degree the Texans for Truth stuff to be false witness. Not to mention van Wormer as well. I want the tag removed too...but only after we resolve the accuracy and neutrality by proper editing and that doesn't mean I am censoring. I have edited out passages that are based on silly innuendo, false diagnosis, wrongful agenda and slander that is unsubstantiated.--MONGO 10:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, I just don't happen to agree with it. If for some reason you want to continue this conversation, why don't we take it to our talk pages, OK? Szyslak 02:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Both the Van Wormer article and our reference to it make it plain that she bases her opinion on observing his behavior as a President. She is not claiming to diagnose Bush as an addictive personality, but she is certainly sufficiently expert in the subject for her opinion, in a major newspaper, to be of significance.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong. It is not of significance; it is a lie. She claims to be an expert in what...social work? She used a term that isn't even recognized by any medical or psychiatric board as a diagnosis. It is a lie because she hasn't, as an expert witness, performed what would be recognized in her field by her peers, an actual examination per se. Your insistance that it stays in here is not a neutral stand. This isn't an article of science fiction is it? Later.--MONGO 13:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We've been round a few times on this, so I won't repeat my responses to the above points. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the Van Wormer section has been completely absent from the piece for over twenty-four hours, now. I restored it once or twice when it was removed before but I've done my bit for now. So as to avoid edit warring I will not restore it again; whether it resurfaces is entirely up to whether others agree with me that it belongs in this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I wasn't the last person to delete it. I don't know if everything has to come to a vote, especially since other people will surf into this article and have their own detractions, ensuring new edit wars and discussions, but I vote to keep it out. If someone can reference the allegation to an actual doctor/client diagnosis, since it is a serious charge, then it should be included.--MONGO 11:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There has at no time been any claim that there was a medical diagnosis. This is not the issue.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would last (I added it in its original form). I see it's been deleted. Was this the consensus or a pro-Bush editor getting their way? - Diceman 14:35, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)