Talk:Joe Bush (organ grinder)

Untitled

 * Do the photos in the LA Times article linked in the story help? --SafeLibraries 16:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should be able to get a freely licensed photo, plus it would be a stretch to claim fair use on a news photo. (see Counterexamples, #5) - SCEhard T 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As the creator of this article who has long left it and just come back to see the resolved commotion, I shall comment on my rationale for the article. I saw Joe Bush's article in The Week and thought it was an interesting story of possibly the most famous person left, at least in the United States, in a dying but historic profession; certainly he must be good to be featured in major publications and to have performed before two U.S. presidents, I reasoned. It was certainly nothing I started simply to promoted the man himself or something I thought of one day "at school". The fact that one person asked what organ grinding is strengthens my case. Certainly the coincidences that this man's last name happens to be Bush, his monkeys have happened to be named George, he performed before the first President Bush, and the second President Bush is said by some to look like a monkey have sent the wrong message to those who did not clearly read the article or the LA Times story. I did not even think of those coincidences and feel sorry for those who jumped to conclusions; Joe Bush and his first monkey had begun performing before George Herbert Walker Bush was even vice president. Minutiaman 06:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) (I keep forgetting to put those four tildes)

Let me further add my responsibility for the errors in my first edits; I should have double-checked my writing, especially considering my tired state when writing the article. But I did not add a photo since I did not know of any in the public domain and otherwise mainly stick to basic Wikipedia functions. One reason I did not foresee misinterpretations was I never call the current U.S. president "George Bush" but rather "George W. Bush" or simply "Bush", so I did not think his father had any relationship to potential confusion at the time. All told, I'd say the discussion deomonstrates Wikipedians' commitment to fair, thorough analysis and decisions, as well as is a triumph for their tendency to get serious about justice even when its execution concerns a seemingly petty matter. Wikipedia's policies and bureaucracy sure seem much more transparent and effcient than government, so here's to the free encylopedia. Consider my comments part of the dispute's record, or a ramble if you wish. Minutiaman 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)