Talk:George W. Bush

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed.
Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

This article had a peer review request that has been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

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

1 MONGO's old tricks
2 George W. Bush and John Kerry debate
3 Correcting MONGO
4 James Hamilton
5 Bush's Mental Status Section
6 Depression, erratic behavior and paranoia
7 WP:POINT I'm Guilty
8 Restoration of NPOV tag
9 Explanation of why Tony Sidaway prefers one version of the paragraph on Justin Frank to another
10 Psychiatric Analysis
- 10.1 Frank's Book Unethical
11 James – Stop, Please
12 Ground Control to James
13 More Reverts, Zero Discussion
14 Repeated wholesale removal of Van Wormer and Justin Frank paragraphs
15 Hatfield
16 The suggestion of "don't revert without discussion"
17 Why Democrats dispute the election results
18 Katherine van Wormer
19 Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of 67.101.67.167's edit of 22:43 UTC, 14 May 2005
20 Regarding War Criminal Status
21 Vote on Drug and alcohol section
- 21.1 Structuring a vote
22 "were less impressed"

MONGO's old tricks

Mongo just rv'ed yesterday's work on the first paragraph. Numerous editors contributed to it, Mong apparently didn't like it, so he reverted. MONGO – will you please either edit constructively or not at all? You are not the arbiter of what is and isn't 'correct'. If your revert attempt fails, will you arbitrarily return the TotallyDisputed tag, because you're unhappy? — RyanFreisling @ 15:10, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted to an earlier edition...that's all. It was my opinion that the current edition was POV. I stated when I removed the NPOV tag that I agreed that the edition at that time was the most neutral version yet. The introduction then changed and I decided to revert it. I have just as much right to edit this page as you do. That we are disagreeing is the reason we have a discussion page...eh.--MONGO 00:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your right to edit isn't what I took issue with. I will welcome the first non-destructive edit that you make with great fanfare. Until then, you haven't demonstrated any actual editing at all. Reverting is easy. Thinking is hard. — RyanFreisling @ 00:19, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quoted from an earlier statement you made:

"By the way, I am not an editor of noteworthy major contributions to this article. — RyanFreisling @ 20:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)"...it's hard for anyone to assume good faith when all I see as your contributions are an effort to attack the editors.--MONGO 18:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that you take your own advice – don't look to pick a fight. What few contributions I have made have been contributions to clarity, readability and POV of passages I found wanting, not deletion of facts I found inconvenient. Which is what I described your actions as – deletion based on personal POV. I did not mean to pick a fight with you, but is that what I have achieved? If so, I apologize. — RyanFreisling @ 18:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apology accepted.--MONGO 06:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have edited fairly and have added neutral content and have been doing so for months now...don't pick a fight here for no reason.--MONGO 05:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted the second paragraph to a version that has stood for some time. Specifically, the paragraph is from the version of 03:39, 15 Apr 2005 by User:RyanFreisling. The edit and revert wars are getting a bit old. This paragraph is an introduction and this version conveys the necessary information. Details should be included in other section and articles. Carbonite | Talk 15:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The is some merit in mentioning that the popular vote was not gained but that the election was won nonetheless. Many users come from countries where the president is elected by popular vote only, and such informations might not come intuitively to their minds. The very same piece of information is extremely valuable on the article about Abraham Lincoln, for instance. Rama 15:48, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We must mention this information in the article, for all the reasons you mentioned and more. However, the introduction is not the place for details. The introduction has been refined by dozens of editors over many months (since the 2004 election). It's finally reached what I consider to be a "stable" state. There really should be strong consensus for any changes to the introduction since edit and revert wars inevitably ensue. Carbonite | Talk 15:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. This article is probably a good example of those which would be better off with preliminary discussions on the talk page. Rama 20:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Indeed – or at least, parallel discussions... — RyanFreisling @ 20:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, no arguing. There's no need. Fix the artical, make it unbiased (as much as possible). The whole point of Wikipedia is that NOBODY is better, NOBODY made the page, it's a communal effort. We can all make it right if we stop arguing. --SuperWiki 01:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush and John Kerry debate

What was the object in the back of George W. Bush's suit? --Contrib 16:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this is relevant to the article. First of all, there's no real evidence for any 'object' being present at all. Second, if there were an object, then there's no evidence as to what sort of an object it was. I think it would look ridiculous to have some sort of overview of this controversy in the main article because, honestly, the whole controversy about this issue seems a bit ridiculous. If there were some sort of factual information that came to light, then naturally something like this can become relevant and factually-based. This holds true for any controversy like this, but without facts to back it up, I believe I wouldn't be the only thinking it was ridiculous. I believe staying with the relevant facts and opinions of the primary groups and issues surrounding the presidency both politically and in the respectable popular media is the way to go for this article. I don't mean anything special by 'respectable popular media' other than using sources that are non-tabloid in nature and are backed up by their relevancy and basis in factual reporting. --Xaliqen 00:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's worth reporting, but it's too minor for the main Bush article. We already have it covered, with a photo of the bulge, in U.S. presidential election debates, 2004#Controversy. JamesMLane 02:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Why is it worth reporting....so we can add conjecture or so we can add fact. If you have facts, lets here them, but I fail to see how the ongoing effort to use opinion based only on antiBush rhetoric is encyclopedic.--MONGO 19:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Because people might get the wrong impression and think its some sort of communication device, as clearly from the picture its just a perfectly symmetrical wrinkle. --kizzle 22:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's worth reporting because it got a lot of media attention. You think the media attention was disproportionate? Well, I think that the media attention to Jennifer Wilbanks was disproportionate. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is here to describe the world as it actually is. In the real world, the Bush bulge and Wilbanks both became notable. JamesMLane 22:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I could care less about that nutjob runaway bride. It is not our job, as you wish to see it, to mirror every "big story" that breaks out....I have no problem if the bulge is discussed if we knew what it was without speculating, or are you now advocating that we speculate and then consider that to be encyclopedic? Would that then fit your definition of encyclopedic merit?--MONGO 08:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

As to what would fit my definition, and (more to the point) Wikipedia's definition, I've explained that to you several times already. If there's widespread speculation about the bulge (or about Kerry illicitly taking something from his pocket during the debate), then we ourselves do not speculate, but we accurately report what's said, with attribution. And if you come along and pronounce from on high that you evaluated what some notable source or spokesperson said, and you've concluded that it doesn't meet your evidentiary standards and isn't adequately substantiated and isn't worthy of belief, guess what? We don't care. We have adequate substantiation for the fact that it was said. If you disagree with this policy, stop whining about it here — or, more accurately, stop acting as if your personal definition of encyclopedic were the one in effect, instead of the one actually in effect. If you think we shouldn't report on big stories about trivia, like the runaway bride, go list Jennifer Wilbanks on VfD and see what happens. I predict 80% or more for keeping it. If you disagree with our treatment of the Bush bulge and the Kerry pen, start an RfC about removing those passages from U.S. presidential election debates, 2004#Controversy. Here again, I predict a clear majority for keeping the material. JamesMLane 09:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You act as if you are the spokesperson for Wikipedia which I am sure you are not. I only asked that if information be placed here in this article that it follow the normal rules, which are wikipedia rules by the way, of neutrality and encyclopdic merit. I repeat that I fail to see how unsubstantiated opinion qualifies as encyclopedic and believe that folks like yourself that are opposed to the subjects in articles such as this one are here only to preserve your own political bias against the subject matter. I mean, what purpose does your presence here serve if all you wish to do is perpetuate an anitBush ramble in this article in light of the fact that you are hostile to the right?--MONGO 10:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

It's funny that you accuse me of setting myself up as a spokesperson. Repeatedly in these discussions, I cite actual Wikipedia policies, with wikilinks to them. You don't. Case closed. JamesMLane 10:24, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Using the words "us", "we", and your constant lectures are the evidence that I use to support that hypothesis....sorry I don't wikilink items like assume good faith...I assume good faith that you already knew where to find it.--MONGO 10:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Mongo, if you know where assume good faith is, then start acting like it. The fact is, this was also the topic on several national television news programs, it was asked to Jon Stewart on his infamous Crossfire debacle, clearly it was part of the discussion of the public at the time. Of course, we cannot say exactly what it is, just reproduce that there was a box-shaped wrinkle in his back, (his tailor even had to comment) and move on. The discussion of public perception of an event/person/object is just as important as the event/person/object itself, otherwise we could just delete the SBVT's arguments entirely, as they are all perception and no truth. I assume you're used to throwing your weight around in real life, stop shoving your opinion down other people's throats from up high on all-knowing Mongo's platform of truth. Be a little bit more like your namesake. --kizzle 23:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Your support of this kind of sensationalism isn't proof to me that you wish to be encyclopedic, but rather to find and incorporate less than worthwhile trivia that distorts the subject matter to fit your politics.--MONGO 08:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

find and incorporate less than worthwhile trivia that distorts the subject matter to fit your politics

Sounds like SBVT's credo. --kizzle 16:25, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

As for the validity of "The Bulge" this article from fair.org is an absolute must read.TitaniumDreads 06:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Correcting MONGO

MONGO has favored us with this edit summary: "Iraq – Block quote over a silly opinion piece is unnecessary,....it is no more reveiling [sic] than any other quoted source here anyway." The point isn't hugely important, but:

The quotation is not from an opinion piece. It's from an official document of the UK government, reporting what a UK official was told in the course of his conversations with Bush administration officials in Washington.
Anyway, the issue in blockquoting isn't whether a quotation is more revealing. It's normal style, endorsed by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, that a short quotation is embedded in the text using quotation marks, while a longer one is indented without quotation marks. (On Wikipedia, indentation can be accomplished with a colon or with the <blockquote> tag; each method has its adherents.) One standard I've seen elsewhere is that a quotation should be indented if it contains two or more sentences or fifty or more words; this quotation meets the first criterion.

I'm not going to bother reverting to the correct form because I'm just sick of dealing with MONGO's constant sniping. I did, however, want to correct his latest attempt to impugn the good faith of other editors. JamesMLane 07:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The only thing you wish to do here is utilize this medium to promote your obvious left wing bias. I have added items here of greater intergrity than this one and don't utilze block quoting. If you have a "hostility to the right wing" then why don't you go work on articles that are left wing. How anyone can expect you to be without bias against the subject matter of this article is a mystery to me. Furthermore, the additon you talk about doesn't appear to me to be anything other than heresay...not official as you wish to see it. I have yet to see you add anything of substantial encyclopedic merit to this article yet.--MONGO 08:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I remind you for the umpteenth time that you're coming to a project that's been running a while and has numerous well-established policies. One of them, which I helpfully summarized and linked for you above, is that indenting a quotation doesn't depend on whether it's "reveiling" or on its "intergrity", but simply on its length. As to how I can make fair edits given my personal bias, the answer turns on the same point: Wikipedia has general policies that are applied to all its articles. I try to conform to those policies, regardless of how I personally feel about the article subject. If you believe that, despite my efforts, I've failed to contribute any substance to this article, well, your disapproval is just something I'll have to try to live with. JamesMLane 09:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I myself have added citations to this article and to others that exceed the length requirement and have not utilzed that format because I feel that it oftentimes is done to present the "evidence" in a light making it more illuminating than it probably is. The citation does not appear to be from an official source as you mention, but rather from a news medium that has a tendency to be sensationalistic rather than authoritive. That I removed the block quotation is not an effort to supress (in which case I would have edited the citation out) but rather an attempt to ensure the NPOV tag is not reinstated. It would be in your best interest to assume good faith and stop starting off discussions with such a hostile tone, calling my comments "sniping" making comments such as "MONGO has favored us with" or you can expect the normal self defense from such personal attacks as might be necessary.--MONGO 10:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Your personal opinion about indented quotations is noted; I'll nevertheless continue to follow Wikipedia policies. Your personal opinion that the Times of London has a tendency to be sensationalistic is also noted; I disagree. As for assuming good faith, your edit summary that I quoted struck me as assuming bad faith on my part, in that it implied I was indenting the quotation for some POV reason rather than to conform to the MoS. At any rate, if you choose to expound further on the indentation issue, I'll probably let you have the last word. It's in questionable taste for both of us to be bickering about a minor matter like indenting the quotation, when the substance of it confirms that all those thousands of deaths in Iraq occurred because of Bush's duplicity. (Yes, that's my personal opinion, and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to insert that conclusion in the article.) JamesMLane 10:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

James, there is no doubt that Bush is a lousy President...I also think he did lead the U.S. and other countries into a war in Iraq...a war most everyone, even Bush secretly himself to be sure, has questioned. But I do not see that there is evidence that Bush with cold and or calculating self righteous abandon, led us into a war in Iraq for purposes that many of those opposed to the war suggest...ie: cheap oil, defense and or construction contracts, revenge for Daddy. I cannot guarantee that the Iraq war will go down in history as a good decision...but I do think that the world has become too small a place to allow dictators with a known history of producing and using WMD's, ruthless oppression of political opponents, a history of invading neighboring sovereign nations, and an ongoing refusal to fully abide by repeated UN resolutions, to not face "serious consequences".--MONGO 10:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Fortunately enough, Saddam didn't produce the WMD that he used to invade neighboring sovereign nations – those weapons were given to him by the United States under the Reagen Administration and the first Bush Administration, for the explicit purpose of invading neighboring sovereign nations. I would like to also add that in light of the consequences of these actions, perhaps those responsible should face proportional retribution – as MONGO said, "serious conseqeuences". Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:52, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

On that vein, Eisenhower did state that (though he was a military man and may have been only trying to look as though he was opposed to a strong military) that we need to remain guarded against the military establishment, that we should never allow the military establishment to determine our economy, our international relationships and our appearance to the rest of the world. No doubt, this has failed. We should eliminate and all other countries should also eliminate the distribution for any apparatus that may allow one country to harm another...when that happens, the world will be a better place. Let us not forget that the U.S. is not the sole provider in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction....that France, the U.K., Russia, China and many other countries also provided Saddam with weapons in which to wage hostilities. That countries of military expertise provide weaponry and assistance is ongoing and makes each one of these countries guilty of the deaths of millions since the end of WWII is not something to be anything other than ashamed of. Had the money spent been used to help establish infrastructure and to promote democracy with the use of the gentle hand, more adherents would surely be found. But I do stand to correct, and the evidence does suggest that Saddam did produce WMD at least in the 1980's...not all the chemical weaponry he utilized was provided by outside sources...though the expertise and advisement was surely partly from American sources.--MONGO 04:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheers to that! Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 05:10, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

James Hamilton

We've had the Van Wormer and Justin Frank references in this article for a while now. Along comes a comment ascribed to a self-styled British "psychotherapist" called James Hamilton. What are this guy's qualifications? Van Wormer and Frank are professors in their field, but I searched in vain for qualifications of any kind on his website (you don't need any to call yourself a "psychotherapist" in the UK). Since this just seems to be a random comment by an amateur, I'm inclined to exclude it. It should be possible to get comments on the Van Wormer and Justin Frank works from actual psychologists and psychiatrists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm presuming that Hamilton was brought in to counter-balance the Wormer and Frank references. All in all I'd say this entire section is garbage in the form of people trying to sell books. I wasn't aware "addictive personality" had DSM criteria that could be met nor the type of respected "social worker", "psychoanalyst", or "psychiatrist" that would make such a diagnosis without sessions with the patient. I'm sorry, this section is just another one of those areas that hurts our credibility and makes this page look nothing more than POV pushing balancing. --Wgfinley 05:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with Wgfinley's comment. We've set out the facts. If the reader chooses to conclude that the criticisms are garbage from people trying to sell books, fine; we leave that choice to the reader. As for Hamilton, I checked him out when the passage was added. The "psychotherapist" statement convinced me to leave him in, although finding that he was also an NLP practitioner undercut his credibility in my eyes. (I thought about adding that fact about him but decided it was too peripheral.) I don't recall the specific sources I looked at. My general impression was that Hamilton was a psychotherapist with a penchant for writing an awful lot in his blog, where I think this quotation came from. Tony, do you mean that he might be just some retired plumber who decided to call himself a psychotherapist? If he has no independent, verifiable professional credentials, then I'd lean toward removing the comment. JamesMLane 06:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to point out this article is comprised of tit for tat POV pushing and this section is yet another example of one such section that should go. It's not notable and it's hardly credible just because an "academic" said it on either side. By all means, the alcoholism and other drug issues are fair game but some long distance mental health diagnosis is unadulterated garbage that just damages our credibility.

Similarly this article has several paragraphs about polling data from other countries regarding who they thought should be president. I think it should take one sentence to say "Bush's popularity abroad has been the source of much criticism". Sorry, I'm just venting a bit here but I think, without a single solitary doubt this is the worst article on WP with the back and forth POV pushing, lack of coherence, virtually no logical flow of information whatsoever and a total and utter disregard for that which is notable or concise. --Wgfinley 07:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Amen to that...I mean, since when did the international community vote for U.S. Presidents anyway? I applaud your concise summary of the problems with this article...I have been adding opposing information after my attempts to eliminate hocus pocus lefty jargon were treated as censorship.--MONGO 09:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Bush is a controversial figure, so part of his bio is to report praise, criticism, and (to some extent) criticism of the criticism, although I agree with you that we need to draw the line at some point. The foreign polling information is worth more than your one sentence but could be considerably trimmed from the current level of detail. Overall, though, what you disparage as "the back and forth POV" seems to me to be necessary if we're to do a fair and informative article about a controversial figure. JamesMLane 07:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy...I say none of the garbage about van Wormer, Frank or Hamilton is worthy for this endeavour....but if the van Wormer garbage stays then so does Hamilton's facts that he stated these opinions....regardless, there is no doubt that van Wormer and Frank are not conservatives as any google search can find this out....so their opinions rendered from afar are just pure politics anyway.--MONGO 08:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you, by chance, have anything to contribute to the question of whether Hamilton has some kind of credential, as opposed to being just a random blogger? This article doesn't quote random bloggers, whether they're pro- or anti-Bush. JamesMLane 10:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

James, you ask: Tony, do you mean that he might be just some retired plumber who decided to call himself a psychotherapist? If he has no independent, verifiable professional credentials, then I'd lean toward removing the comment.'

Yes, in UK law he could be a retired plumber who has decided to call himself a psychotherapist.

I just checked again and found a page where he describes himself as MA(Oxon) DPH MIAH. The Oxford degree means he did the basic undergraduate degree course. Traditionally that university awards all its graduates a MA, not a Bachelor's degree.

DPH is Diploma in Public Health. This is a postgraduate degree course normally involving six months of full-time study.

MIAH means he belongs to the International Association of Hypnoanalysts (IAH), whose membership criteria can be satisfied by undergoing a distance learning program "of approximately six months duration", with "optional one-day seminars and also Instructional Weekends in the UK, which Students may attend if they wish."

The IAH website makes it plain that "Hypnotherapy in the United Kingdom, is not the subject of specific legislation, so there are no formal qualifications which can be obtained. Neither is there a Statutory Register of Hypnotherapists. However, subject to your satisfactory performance in a postal examination at the end of the Course, you will be awarded a DIPLOMA IN HYPNOTHERAPY." So we're comparing the opinions of two professors with the opinion of a bloke who has taken a six-month correspondence course.

So, he's "just this guy", really. Van Wormer is a professor of social work at a community college in Northern Iowa. Justin Frank is currently the Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at George Washington University. He has a MD from the University of Louisville. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Searching for relevant professional comment (rather than just some blogger who practises hypnotherapy) I encountered an article with opinions by two prominent professors of psychiatry, a psychotherapist who is a registered Republican, a former childhood friend and a former Secretary to the Treasury. All of them concur with Frank's analysis to a certain extent. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Also found one incident last July in which Bush went completely hatstand and ended up on antidepressants. I've created a new section about this because it doesn't fit into the "public perception" section. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony, this is exactly the kind of garbage I'm talking about. It starts out as a little jab at Bush when, on the face of it, this is a couple of academics trying to play armchair psychologist on someone and sell some books. Next thing you know you're adding blurbs about the commentary on that commentary of that book. Then someone will see the jab isn't at clear as it once was and see fit to add some more stuff from Capital Blue like you did, it's a never ending cycle.

Go and look at Clinton's page, for pete sake, his impeachment is only about 5 graphs long and the rest is broken out in a separate article, we have almost as much information on allegations of Bush's mental health by people who have never treated him. This stuff is not notable, ever little issue from every individual book that comes out on Bush need not be in this article, why are we adding more and more on it? --Wgfinley 17:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Sidaway hates Bush as do a number of others here that profess neutrality. I fail to understand why these people bother to edit here when the only contributions they make are ones based on sensationalistic referencing from known left wing and in some cases tabloidish junk sources such as Salon et al.--MONGO 00:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Bush's Mental Status Section

This seems roughly the equilivant of speculation that President Bush has dyslexia or any of the other learning disabilities he's been diagnosed with from afar. Son of lucas 06:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What mental status section? Maybe it was already removed? --Golbez 07:34, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

It's tagged onto the bottom of the alcohol and drug abuse heading (another reason it doesn't belong). Basically the last thing in the article before the trivia section. --Son of lucas 09:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like the above section also mentions this. Sorry for the double post I suppose, had no clue what James Hamilton meant. --Son of lucas 09:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway just tried to insert that POV garbage again, I've cleaned it out. ElKabong

Firstly, I'd like to remind you that personal attacks are strongly discouraged.

Secondly the section complained about above has nothing to do with the section I inserted this afternoon (UTC)--which is entirely new. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Depression, erratic behavior and paranoia

This has been reverted by ElKabong with the following edit summary: "The "Aides" were unnamed and CapitolBlue is a propaganda page, nothing more. See Discussion section on Mental Health Status, your insert was POV garbage".

I don't think that's justifiable. Non-attributable briefings are not uncommon in political journalism, and the White House was contacted on the story so they could have denied or rebutted. This is very strong evidence that Bush is being treated for depression. It just isn't good enough to dismiss the source as "a propaganda page, nothing more." I am open to the possibility that there was a POV slant in the section but I cannot see one in the language that I used:

"On July 8, 2004, after being pressed to answer reporters' questions concerning his relationship with indicted Enron executive, Kenneth Lay, the President stormed off stage and, backstage, harangued an aide: "Keep those motherfuckers away from me. If you can’t, I’ll find someone who can." Later that month aides reported to Capitol Hill Blue that the White House physician, Col. Richard J. Tubb, prescribed drugs to control his "erratic behavior, depression and paranoia". The aides said that the unidentified drugs as a side-effect could impair his capacity to react in a crisis. "It’s a double-edged sword. We can’t have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally."

I think this is back to the old MONGO position, where reporting facts that convey a negative impression is mistaken for adopting a point of view. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

If it's a fact, find a better source than a propaganda rag quoting "unnamed sources." CapitolHillBlue, as a whole, is simply not credible. ElKabong

Absofuckinglutely right. I am sick of those with a known opposition to the subject matter editing here to push their politics and then labeling me as biased.--MONGO 00:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You don't get to make that call. Capitol Hill Blue clearly has its inside sources. It is a credible news source on what it is told by White House aides. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

They claim they have their inside sources. I found the site pretty humorous and they are definitely equal opportunity (thus I don't think it's fair to call it "propaganda") but I see the site as a tabloid for the US Government. After all, the section for their Congressional updates is called "Capitol Hillbillies", just how reputable of a source can that be? I think the site is funny but what they're putting out isn't notable nor good reference material. --Wgfinley 17:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Is that it? They use a frivolous title for their Congressional Updates section? The news reports themselves are serious, well written, and well sourced where appropriate. Entertaining, yes, but obviously not just the funny papera (Reid Tries Civility). Pretty good stuff. I don't find the attempt to depict this source as unreliable very convincing. They're been around for over a decade. If they made a habit of making stuff up, there would be ample evidence of this by now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And how long have tabloid newspapers been around? So the next time one of them prints a story on "unnamed sources" claiming Bush fathered an alien baby at Area 51 we should put that in this article? --Wgfinley 17:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a very inappropriate comparison. Clearly this is not comparable in any way to a tabloid. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it's an accurate comparison. The site's got about the same level of trustworthiness as Weekly World News.

No, when you're talking about a news source, "trust" is a matter of belief, what is really the issue is not trust, but reliability; the percentage of time the news source accurately reports empirical events; the ability to see that the news source said xxx happened, and then find, in the empirical world, that xxx did, indeed, happen, regardless of to what extent one is inclined to "believe" the information coming from the news source. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 19:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Correct; and there is NO corroborating evidence for this one. ElKabong

I'm really at a loss to understand how Capitol Hill Blue could be compared to Weekly World News. Washington Post has described the website as a "must read for political junkies". With distortions like this, there seems to be some very, very determined discounting going on.

On corroborating evidence for Bush's instability, there's a fair amount of that floating around and quite a bit of it has found its way into the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The CNN reference and the Wead tape are substantiated and fair game, the other stuff is not. Again, get it all out there Tony, Capitol Hill Blue says the Washington Post said they are a "must read for political junkies" I would like to see the reference to that. I don't think going to a source and saying "are you reputable?" is a good way to prove that they are. I may be exaggerating on the comparison to the tabloid press but when you have a "news" entity who's motto is "nobody is safe while Congress is in session or the White House is occupied" I think they have thrown out a fair amount of objectivity. --Wgfinley 07:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT I'm Guilty

Okay, I made a small addition to the article to prove a point, I admit it. After the information on there about Fortunate Son I noticed there was no mention that Hatfield was a felon, the book was yanked by his publisher and he ended up taking his own life. So, I just added a blurb about him being a felon and the book being pulled. Not long thereafter someone tacked on Hatfield's response about pressure from the Bush Administration.

This is the tit-for-tat POV pushing that I'm talking about. One item gets added that's negative, another is added to counter-act that, yet another to counter-act that one. Before too long you have an article that makes virtually no sense at all. I encourage the folks working hard on this page to take a long hard look at it and agree to sections that, quite frankly, need the ax. I've already listed a couple, everything on Hatfield is referenced on his page so I believe just having his book in further reading is all that's needed on this page. James I believe had a proposal about reorganizing this article, I think those would all be good ideas. This article sucks, make it better!! --Wgfinley 16:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought the presentation of the Fortunate Son allegation was better when we reported the allegation, reported the terms of Bush's denial, and left the evidence pro and con to the daughter article. It's certainly not NPOV to put in one side's evidence but not the other, though. I would've deleted your addition but I assumed your good faith. On that basis, I assumed that you really wanted the negative stuff in there. I thought balancing it was better than deleting it and starting another silly edit war. If you're through making your point, feel free to remove both additions (yours about the conviction and the publisher's action, mine about Hatfield's response). In fairness, though, if you want to use St. Martin's to throw mud at Hatfield, then material related to St. Martin's that bolsters Hatfield's credibility should also be noted. JamesMLane 20:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hatfield's book has not one piece of proof to offer. Your wish to see it here is based on the fact that it was published and it discredits Bush...and therefore reinforces your known politics which elminate any chance of your neutrality.--MONGO 00:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You're just illustrating my point though. Putting the info on Hatfield in there without noting that a) it's uncorroborated, b) he's a convicted felon, c) his publisher pulled the book, and d) he was obviously pretty unstable and took his own life is pretty irresponsible. To just put out there (and I'm paraphrasing), "Bush's daddy got him out of a drug charge, see this book" is pretty POV.

St. Martin's only defended the book BEFORE they learned he flat out lied to them about his background. It's Hatfield who said his publisher had fact checked the book, not St. Martin's, if they felt so strongly why would they pull it? St. Martin's is well known to stand behind their authors where they believe the author is substantiated: Len Colodny's Silent Coup and G. Gordon Liddy's Will are two such books that come to mind where they defended both authors in extensive litigation.

The proper solution to this problem? Hatfield's book is relegated to the Further Reading section and all allegations, comments, etc. about it are relegated to Hatfield's page and elsewhere (already well documented). Instead, we have a charge, counter-charge that it's unsubstantiated, counter-counter-charge it is, ad nauseum, it's the #1 problem with this article. I think the first two graphs (graph #1 his own admissions, graph #2 the CNN reference and Wead tape info) in the section are credible, concise, and well documented, the rest of it should go. --Wgfinley 07:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Wgfinley writes:

To just put out there (and I'm paraphrasing), "Bush's daddy got him out of a drug charge, see this book" is pretty POV.

Your paraphrase is misleading. I'm not aware that any of the regular editors have inserted language that would accept Hatfield's allegations as true (as your "paraphrase" would). We report what we know — that Hatfield made the allegations and that Bush called the book "ridiculous". Those points are relevant to an article about Bush. The other stuff is relevant to an article about Hatfield, and is tangentially relevant to an article about Bush, but only tangentially, which is why I think that the pro and con about Hatfield should be covered in the article about Hatfield. Simply listing Hatfield's book would be inadequate because the reader would not learn about this politically notable charge against Bush. Furthermore, the reader who wanted to know more about charges of substance abuse would have no way of knowing that that particular book had further information. JamesMLane 13:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

James, come on, you think that it's fair to just list that Hatfield has a book saying the Bush used coke and his father got him out of it, then just the brief response that Bush called it "ridiculous"? It's not necessary at that point to even note that his publisher pulled said book four days after publication because of his misrepresentations of his background to them? Please tell me you really don't believe that's fair because that's exactly what the version before I edited said. [1] --Wgfinley 20:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

In an article about Bush, the only reason for mentioning that St. Martin's withdrew the book would be its relevance to the charges against Bush. If the publisher's decision is to be mentioned, conveying an implication that it represents a judgment by the publisher about the accuracy of the contents, then other statements and actions by the publisher that tend to undercut that interpretation must also be mentioned. That's why I said that, if we mention the withdrawal, then to be fair we must also mention that St. Martin's responded to the initial criticism by stating in public that the book had been thoroughly fact-checked. All this material is better left to the article on Hatfield, but if one side is to be included here, so should the other. JamesMLane 21:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Restoration of NPOV tag

I restored the tag due to Sidaway and ohers who wish to continue to use this medium as an opportunity to blog their soft referencing in an effort to push their point of view. It is clear from the discussion pages here that I am not the only one who has serious questions regarding the neutrality of this article...recent efforts by Sidaway and others have all been to utilize less than creditable referencing to support their obvious biases.--MONGO 00:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I remind you, not for the first time, that personal attacks are severely deprecated. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition to your quite disgraceful accusations, I must take issue with your most recent edit. As well as adding to the article, you removed significant facts that tended to conflict with the material that you added.

You removed: "has been highly praised by other prominent psychiatrists, and has found supporters among registered Republicans and confirmation from a childhood friend of Bush and Bush's former Treasury Secretary [2].

At the same time you added: "Irwin Savodnik, a psychiatrist who teaches at UCLA states that Justin Frank's book is a "psychoanalytic hatchet job" and that "there is not an ounce of psychoanalytic material in the entire book." [3]".

This is unacceptable behavior. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

MONGO, you've repeatedly said you don't consider opinion magazines a credible source. However, your source for your latest edit is Weekly Standard, an opinion magazine. While I think there's a place for opinion pieces as sources, I doubt it helps your case when you criticize the referencing other editors use while using what's basically the same kind of source.

Regarding the accusations themselves, it pretty much amounts to calling the other editors liars. In fact, your use of the tag, as has been discussed before, has the same effect. The POV tag and other dispute warnings shouldn't be used as a way of forcing people to adhere to a list of demands. "I'll let the tag be removed when you agree to such-and-such changes" is not a way to solve a dispute, it's a way to push a POV. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 06:21, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The tag is there due to the use of less than credible witness to the issues and the POV pushing primarily as of late by Sidaway. He attempts to minimalize opinions by well regarded persons in their fields that don't adhere to his form of extreme political bias...I also think it is absolutely rude to the extreme that a Brit wants to weaste his time lampooning Bush...I don't bother criticing Tony Blair....there is only one reason why those of his political persuasion edit here and it has nothing to do with a spirit of neutraility..it has to do with pushing their form of extremeist left wing sentiment solely as an effort to play politics. My use of weekly standard is done solely to make a point...my point is that the entire esection including my addition are unworthy of encyclopedic merit. But Sidaway and others don;t want to compromise...they want to cast Bush in as bad a light as possible, regardless of the lack of quality control on their part, solely to promote their extreme politics.--MONGO 11:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You say "My use of weekly standard is done solely to make a point". You know, here at Wikipedia we call that disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. That's not acceptable. Also, it shouldn't matter what nationality someone is when they edit this article. Are you seriously arguing that only Americans should contribute to this article, or that only Britons have any business editing Tony Blair? Ok-kay... sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 20:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think my edits are any more disruptive than anyone elses. I also don't think only Americans should edit the article...however, it seems rude to me that Sidaway and others spend their time looking for things to lampoon Bush about rather than anything of a positive vein.--MONGO 02:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the chucklehead that puts Larry Flynt's accussation of an abortion into the article. The use of dubious sources on this page is pretty damn shameful. --Son of lucas 14:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, MONGO, I remind you that your personal attacks and false accusations of POV pushing are far beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Son of lucas-Please don't swear. "Damn", however benign, is in fact not what I'm looking for out of reading this.--SuperWiki 01:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of why Tony Sidaway prefers one version of the paragraph on Justin Frank to another

I prefer this version:

Justin Frank, a clinical professor of psychiatry at The George Washington University Medical School and former Salon magazine writer, has incorporated similar, though apparently independent, observations into a book about the president, Bush on the Couch ISBN 0060736704 [4]. Professor Frank's book has been highly praised by other prominent psychiatrists and has found supporters among registered Republicans and confirmation from a childhood friend of Bush and from Bush's disaffected former treasury secretary. [5]. Some psychiatrists have been critical of Frank's book [6].

The version I replaced, and which I deprecate, read:

Justin Frank, a clinical professor of psychiatry at The George Washington University Medical School and former Salon magazine writer, has incorporated similar, though apparently independent, observations into a book about the president, Bush on the Couch ISBN 0060736704 [7]. Frank's book has been highly praised by other prominent psychiatrists and has found confirmation from a childhood friend of Bush and from Bush's disaffected former Treasury secretary. [8]. Irwin Savodnik, a psychiatrist who teaches at UCLA, stated in The Weekly Standard that Frank's book is a "psychoanalytic hatchet job" and that "there is not an ounce of psychoanalytic material in the entire book." [9]

The points that strike me about the different versions are as follows:

The version I prefer does not omit from the precis of the cited article that some of those who express some support for Justin Frank's conclusions are registered Republicans.
The version I prefer gives equal prominence (which I think is more than generous) to two senior psychiatrists who support Frank and one less prominent psychiatrist who does not. The other version gives more prominence to the latter, which I don't think is satisfactory at all.

I feel that information was being overlooked or downplayed in the other version, for reasons I do not understand. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Your version erroneously says "support from Republicans" without naming any names; I could claim that any statement I wished had "support" from Republicans without mentioning names as well. Additionally, you fail to point out Frank's own political biases in the matter.

Psychiatric Analysis

With respect to the above debate, how is it relevant to an encyclopedia article about the President to list someone's view of his psychological traits? Have the doctors noted examined him professionally? If this is the standard, should we add to the Bill Clinton page a discussion of the psychological implications of serial philandering and lying, for example? I'm just asking, but to me it seems pretty dubious to include remote psychoanalysis; does that have any scientific validity at all? Kaisershatner 16:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

He's got nothing: Tony Sidaway is a Bush-hating POV pusher who just won't give up. Even when confronted with the fact that his "sources" are about as reliable as The National Enquirer. ElKabong

Please stop making personal attacks and discuss the issue – Kaiser's question is the issue, not Tony Sidaway's motives. Personal attacks do not further improving the article. — RyanFreisling @ 17:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

When the section was removed earlier – under that same argument – Sidaway continued to re-add it. Please keep this in mind. He has not been operating in good faith, has been caught trying to introduce misinformation, and I consider his behavior to be vandalism under the Sneaky Vandalism clause. I'll also remind you to note that this is one of the most-vandalized pages on Wikipedia. ElKabong

Geez man, you sound worse than me. Keep it up and they'll probably end up hating you worse than they do me.--MONGO 02:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

He's blocked until he says which of his accounts is the main one and which is the sock puppet. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware of the contentiousness and frequent vandalizing of this page. I similarly am well aware of the degree of personal attacks and willingness to cast away the requirement to Assume good faith. If you feel Tony has not been doing so, there are channels – but attacking someone's character repeatedly isn't the way to make real lasting change to the article. It means not asserting other users are acting capriciously, and trying to focus your passion on the article itself. — RyanFreisling @ 18:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to ElKabong's obvious frustration, I also agree with RyanFreisling that the character attacks just don't help. Furthermore, after reviewing in greater detail the lengthy arguments in the above sections, I noted the gist of this argument has been made (and in my view unanswered) before (I'll reprint):

I have questions on whether this should be submitted at all. It seems to me that a much clearer case could be made for President Clinton having psychological problems (self-destructive behavior, low-grade paranoia, less than ideal upbringing, etc.) but I wouldn't dream of including a speculative section of it on his page. As a matter of fact, I belive it would be correctly expunged. This seems roughly the equilivant of speculation that President Bush has dyslexia or any of the other learning disabilities he's been diagnosed with from afar. Son of lucas 06:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Go and look at Clinton's page, for pete sake, his impeachment is only about 5 graphs long and the rest is broken out in a separate article, we have almost as much information on allegations of Bush's mental health by people who have never treated him. This stuff is not notable, ever little issue from every individual book that comes out on Bush need not be in this article, why are we adding more and more on it? --Wgfinley 17:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So, (1) does this remote psychoanalysis have any scientific validity? (2) is "discussion" of Bush's mental health given a proportionate amount of attention, (3) is comparable attention paid to the mental health of similar figures in other WP articles (eg Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan)? (4) I have a neighbor who is a psychiatrist who thinks that Bush exhibits heroic traits and the personal integrity characteristic of the world's great leaders- by this standard why shouldn't we cite his or her view as well? (the point being that any inclusion of these points of view invites the inclusion of equally poor countersources ad infinitum). I think the whole section should be deleted, and can be summarized by: "Many people don't like Bush and find countless ways of expressing this," which would at least remove the dubious implication that these criticisms have some kind of medical insight. Kaisershatner 19:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear on all accounts. ElKabong, we feel your frustration but the blatant labeling isn't helping. --Wgfinley 20:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the references to both books in the article, the debate on those books can be had on articles for them (there isn't even an article for Frank's book, sounds like a good one for you to start Tony). The reason is simple — this article is unwieldy and this is a prime section where the POV tit-for-tat can be removed in favor of being discussed on pages relevant to those issues instead of flooding this article with them. --Wgfinley 20:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

TonySidaway, you reinstated the paragraphs deleted by Wbfinley; in the edit summary you write "restoring paragraphs that seem to have gotten lost." I may not have the exact wording. The paras were not "lost," they were deleted, as noted above, presumably for the arguments specified in my post. Whether or not this was the reason, your reinstatement of the material without responding to any of the concerns is troubling. Would you do me the courtesy of replying to my four points above? As for the following section on ethics and the Frank book, for now, I'm staying out of that since I don't concede the Frank book deserves mention at all on this page. Will you answer my points? Respectfully, Kaisershatner 01:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

And while I'm giving you time to reply, check this out from the Washington Post: [11]. Should we put this text in the Clinton article? "Washington psychiatrist E. James Lieberman compared Clinton to the Titanic: ""Lots of power. Big. Sexy. Thinks he's invulnerable, like the builders of the ship. And here is this 21-year-old iceberg." I think that makes great copy, but recognize that some random psychiatrist's view of the President from afar isn't worth including in a biographical encyclopedia article – even one about a President I didn't particularly care for- I assume you would argue that it should be added to the Clinton article? Why or why not? Kaisershatner 01:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Any professional insight into Clinton's behavior (which was in some ways even more bizarre than that of Bush) would be relevant to that article. The article you cite seems to be not some little op ed piece in a local rag, but a fairly serious public examination of Clinton's personality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that you are at least consistent in your viewpoint (but I disagree with it). I think in both cases this material is (1) scientifically invalid, (2) easy to manufacture by anybody with an axe to grind against the president or anyone else, and (3) irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. I wont' disrupt WP to make a point, but I highly doubt that including the above quotation in the Clinton article with the summary, "Tony Sidaway agrees that this belongs here" would go all that well. I still think both the above Clinton quote, and the corresponding quotations in this article, ought not to be given so much space. Kaisershatner 11:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Frank's Book Unethical

I knew I would find this if I did some searching so, here it is. The American Psychiatric Association, which maintains the DSM guidelines for diagnosis of mental disorders, has additional guidelines beyond the AMA it publishes as The Principles of Medical Ethics this is from Section 7 – A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to an improved community, Number 3: [12].

On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his/her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he/she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.

Frank gets around this little faux pas by saying he wasn't asked to give an opinion but he made a study [13]. The APA stated the book is in violation according to a Guardian article referenced here [14]. However, Frank gets around this because he is not a member of the APA. Some authority of psychiatry. --Wgfinley 21:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you will look at the URL you yourself cite, Justin Frank actually answers the point made there. He categorizes his analysis as akin to the kind of stuff the US government itself uses to try to predict the behavior of foreign leaders. For instance in 1990 Dr Jerrold M. Post, a leading psychiatrist and now a life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, presented a psychological profile of Saddam Hussein to the House Armed Services Committee. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Post's report to the HASC would not be through the public media and therefore not subject to the guideline, Frank wrote a book and is. The APA said it's in violation. --Wgfinley 21:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds a little odd to me. Firstly, Post made his report about as public as it gets--he presented it to HASC. Secondly, the Guardian article says nothing about "public media". Thirdly, as has been pointed out, Justin Frank is not an APA member. He is not and never was bound by its code. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That response means that since he isn't bound by a code, then his "contribution" isn't noteworthy. It is no more noteworthy than my addition of James Hamilton's comments and that was the point I was trying to make all along. Lose the van wormer and Frank garbage. You stated previously that you had seen it was edited out and that you would not replace it. Now you not only wish to replace it but expand it as well with more "supporting" evidence.--MONGO 02:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony, you are really grasping at straws here, so since he isn't a member of APA we should just accept it's not unethical? Hogwash. The APA is the authority on psychiatric medicine in the United States, it oversees the DSM criteria, it sets the standards for ethics in psychiatry. I can guess why Frank is not a member, because if he was he would have been brought up on charges for writing this book because it flies in the face of good medicine. There is far too much armchair psychiatry going on already and it's something APA combats on a regular basis. To quote Salon's review of the book:

This is a sloppily written and edited book, padded with repetitions and laced with dubious psychological theories. It is also — despite Frank's avowed intention to "preserve a distinction between my personal questions about President Bush's politics and my psychoanalytic evaluation of his character," far too partisan a work to make any claim to being a judicious examination of Bush the man. [15]

Even Salon calls it a polemic. His excuse is that he's done a psychological profile and since that's not his area of specialty or study I consider it little more than a weak attempt to cover up his ethical bankruptcy. Putting this section in will unleash 3 or 4 more graphs poking holes in his book, it's not necessary and should be left out of the article. --Wgfinley 03:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

MONGO: "That response means that since he isn't bound by a code, then his "contribution" isn't noteworthy." I'm sorry I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That if a senior clinical psychiatrist isn't a member of a particular organisation, what he does and says isn't notable? Very odd argument, if that's what you mean.

"You stated previously that you had seen it was edited out and that you would not replace it." I don't recall saying that recently. The Frank sections seems to have been in the article for some time and my knowledge of the support and significance of this book has grown considerably.

Wgfinley: "So since he isn't a member of APA we should just accept it's not unethical?" Well the question of whether or not it's ethical is not under debate. What Hitler did wasn't ethical but we still write about it. However I've already cited an example of a life fellow of the same organisation who did preciselythe same kind of profile on Saddam Hussein for the HASC, so it seem that this kind of study is not (pace APA's spokeswoman) generally regarded as unethical.

"Even Salon calls it a polemic." So is F9/11. Polemics are the stuff of politics. We report all significant opinions on a matter. A number of distinguished psychiatric professionals, apparently independently, trace Bush's sometimes rather odd behavior to psychological causes. This is pretty significant stuff.

"Putting this section in will unleash 3 or 4 more graphs poking holes in his book" Do not make threats to engage in partisan editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Frank's lack of membership in the largest most respected association in his field of expertise certainly would make me question his ability to render a "scientific" opinion on the matter. The entire premise of science is based on it's openness to review by others, primarily those also associated with the expertise. The fact that Frank is not a memeber of this tells me that he may be a rogue, and that his opinions may be biased. Had he been a memeber of the association he would have certainly violated the tenants of the organization and would have faced removal or have been severely chastized for his published work on the matter.--MONGO 02:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

James – Stop, Please

James, I don't understand the edit you made [16] under the guise of "cleaning up" that includes addition of a reference to the NY Times, bushwatch.com, how Gore would have won the election, etc. This is all pretty blatant POV pushing. That section is rather neutral and all of the controversies referenced can be found in the article on said election. Again, including this kind of reference encourages one thing — a response in kind from Bush supporters who will mention the recounts that favored Bush, the study commissioned by the newspapers, etc. It's not useful or helpful and just encourages additional length in the article of something that is thoroughly discussed in another article. --Wgfinley 21:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was the one trying to "push my POV" into the article. James just italicized New York Times. The previously existed sentence described that democrats still debate the election, I just put in why, and I quoted verbatim from New York Times so as to help reduce interpretation on my part. And this was the study commissioned by the newspapers, I actually should have quoted it from the entire news consortium that recounted the ballots, I just could only attribute the graphic to the New York Times. And as for length, its one sentence that already existed in the article. --kizzle 22:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Whoever was doing the POV pushing (the diff is from James) it's obvious, paragraph as it stood:

The election results are still disputed by some democrats, given that a complete recount might have given victory to Gore or to Bush, depending on the rules applied. (See The 2000 Florida Ballot Project.) The dispute, however, is no longer contested in any legal venue.

The revision:

The election results are still disputed by some Democrats, who cite independent findings by the 'New York Times that in a statewide recount in "which all disqualified ballots statewide would have been reexamined...Gore would have received the most votes." [17] (Also see The 2000 Florida Ballot Project.) However, because of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the dispute is no longer contested in any legal venue.

The ballot project has demonstrated there are a number of different outcomes depending on the recount techniques used which is exactly what the article said. this change introduces the NY Times, a reference to Bushwatch (now there's a reputable source), a suggestion that Gore really won and takes another dig at the Supreme Court. If that's not POV pushing I don't know what is. --Wgfinley 03:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying that "Some Democrats" dispute the election because "a complete recount might have given victory to Gore or to Bush, depending on the rules applied"... that's a pretty weak reason to dispute an election. If you're going to include that Democrats still dispute the election, you gotta say why they dispute it, and it sure as hell isn't because they think that it is possible that Gore could have won given some set of circumstances. And the ballot project concluded that in ANY GIVEN SCENARIO, a full recount of the state would have yielded Gore, in other words, the people of Florida, if all their votes counted, voted for Gore. The political process, however, determined otherwise. That's a good reason in my opinion for democrats to dispute the election and that's why I included it. --kizzle 06:22, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Admittedly, the Bushwatch source isn't the best source, but look at the bottom right of the graphic, where it says New York Times... that is all I am citing in this case. If you can find just the New York Times article with this graphic in it, I'd much rather cite that, or even better, cite from the entire consortium's website. --kizzle 06:24, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

There's a reference to the Florida Ballot Project, all the various scenarios about how it would have played out are in there. There are scenarios where Bush would win and others where Gore would win, the paragraph as it is stated is completely loaded, this is NPOV and says quite clearly it's disputed and where to read more. As I've said before, you put the part in there where it favors Gore then Bush supporters have to come back and put where it favored Bush, why not just put the information in there for people to read more and they can get the information?? Finally, the New York Times is but one of the many sponsors of the Florida Ballot Project. --Wgfinley 06:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

With regard to my edit that's described by Wgfinley as being "under the guise of 'cleaning up'" — my actual edit summary was "rv my last edit and substitute the minor cleanups I intended to make". That's exactly what I did. I made an edit that I messed up. (Note the edit summary referring to Hatfield when the actual edit has nothing to do with Hatfield.) I noticed my mistake, so I opened the previous version by CryptoDerk, and used that as the base version for the cleanups. The next effect was seen in this diff of my two consecutive edits. Sorry to disappoint you, but there's no Machiavellian "guise", just routine bungling.

As for the substance: I think this paragraph could go either way. It notes, correctly, that disagreement with the official count, as frozen by the Supreme Court, is held by many people. (I think saying "Democrats" is wrong; some of the Greens who voted for Nader agree, and there are probably even some Republicans who agree). This is a notable feature about the 2000 election as compared with most U.S. presidential elections. Then, so as to provide some context, it mentions people's reason for thinking that. It's not intended as a summary of all the recount issues, but rather as an explanation of why many people still refer to Bush as having been "(s)elected". Note also the vehemence of the hostility expressed at his inauguration, far exceeding what's common from the opponents of an incoming President. Explaining that opinion by saying only that a recount might have come out differently is something of a non sequitur. The correct explanation for why the opinion is so widespread is precisely that many people look at one particular scenario as analyzed by the consortium: a statewide recount of all disqualified ballots.

Obviously, it's a POV to argue for that standard. Someone else could argue that only some counties should have been recounted, or that many of the disqualifications were justified. This article shouldn't state a conclusion about which recount rule should have been applied, though. The reason to include the matter here is to explain why the 2000 election was, with regard to the popular reaction to it, different from most elections. The language that Wgfinley prefers — which, I think, derives from one of my edits — doesn't do as good a job of that. It makes it clearer, however, that the consortium's analysis wasn't definitive in the sense that there were other scenarios conceivable. That isn't relevant to explaining the dissatisfaction with the result, though. We could accommodate both these goals at the cost of going into much more detail about all the different POVs about all the different recount scenarios. That would be too much clutter. Neither of the two versions that have been used is ideal, which is why I don't feel strongly about picking one. I'd like to come up with a reasonably concise third version. JamesMLane 10:08, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ground Control to James

So are you going to discuss anything or just keep putting sections back that there is opinion here to remove?? They're gone again, reverting without discussion is editing in bad faith so why don't you explain? --Wgfinley 06:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a deep desire to remove it. I stated previously that the items in which you have edited the drug and alcohol section down to is all the reader needs. The article doesn't need the additional jargon because Bush essentially admits to using both...perhaps not in words, but there is little room to think otherwise. The rest of the garbage is just the attempts by those opposed to the subject matter an opportunity to utilize this medium to push their point of view....in this manner, the article looks less like an encyclopedic venture and more like a political blog where all everyone does is argue. I think some are angry Bush was reelected, dislike his politics, his actions and other issues about him and his presidency and use this medium as a way to vent this frustration. Furthermore, many of those that wish to continue to support the outlandish innuendos in the article have a definitive bias against the subject matter, which in all liklihood, makes them poor choices for neutral editing in this case. It is interesting that many consider me ultra conservative....but if this was true, I would be POV pushing in places like the John Kerry article or the one on Noam Chomsky or Hillary Clinton...but I don't.--MONGO 06:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

More Reverts, Zero Discussion

Apparently we're not good enough for Tony or James to talk to because they have resorted to reverting without discussing. I have used up mine and I'm going to bed anyway so I will leave it to others to fix. I think it's shameful they can't come on here and make a case for these to be added, if they insist they will stay then I will prepare the many graphs of rebuttal that will be needed that debunk the material. Wish it didn't have to be that way but apparently they can't grasp the point. --Wgfinley 07:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Utterly disgraceful and false accusations. Nobody can look at the history of this talk page and fail to see the discussions on these paragraphs, which you now seem to be determined to remove. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Tony. We have discussed and discussed and discussed, since long before you were here. More immediately, I gave you the key point just above: "Factual reporting of opinions is encyclopedic." This is the answer to the comments we hear over and over, which amount to saying, "I don't think Hatfield, van Wormer, and Frank have established the truth of their contentions." That's not the issue. Furthermore, when you denied that you were suppressing information, I went to the trouble of explaining how information that wouldn't appear anywhere in the article (as a result of your edits) and wouldn't have a link to it was being suppressed, because the reader wouldn't get the information from the article and wouldn't know how to get it elsewhere. In short, I haven't just referred you to all the discussion that occurred before you came; I've addressed your specific points. Your charge of "zero discussion" is simply not true.

Let me ask you the question that MONGO never answers: Do you agree with the Wikipedia policy of giving an accurate report of notable opinions (properly attributed), even when those opinions are wrong? JamesMLane 08:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought I had answered that. The answer is no. But please don't lecture me about my needing to change the policy. It's all about what is encyclopedic...and many of the items you think are encyclopedic are not so in my opinion. I repeat that I think it is bad faith if acticles such as this one are subjected to sloppy referencing. van Wormer and Frank's opinions are without merit and are in all liklihood wrong, especially since the manner in which they voiced those opinions violates the code of ethical conduct recognized by the most respected associations in their fields of expertise. Hatfield's book isn't even in print anymore due to his felony...if I put something here that was proBush yet full of undocumented heresay and written by a felon and wasn't even in print anymore, how long would it remain I wonder. It is our charge to edit and that means making a neutral article. If van Wormer Frank and Hatfield aren't weak arguments, then I don't know what is.--MONGO 02:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If I missed your answer to my question, I apologize. There's been an ocean of talk on this page. So, if you don't agree with Wikipedia policy as to what's encyclopedic, but you don't intend to try to change the policy, it appears that your practice instead will be to continue to make edits to this article that violate Wikipedia policy. For my part, I don't agree with all of Wikipedia's policies, but I believe strongly that the way to achieve fairness to controversial figures like Bush is to have a general rule that's applied uniformly. (Incidentally, that's how Bush got into office in the first place. He got fewer votes than his opponent, but we had a general rule in place that the election is to be decided by electoral votes, not popular votes. There were millions of people who disagreed with that general rule and detested the outcome it produced in this particular case. Nevertheless, they recognized that that was the rule that was in place. There were renewed calls for changing the rule, but meanwhile, even those who disagreed with it abided by the result that it produced. If they'd followed your approach instead, we would've had a civil war.) As for Hatfield's book, it appears to me to be in print. Amazon is selling it, and not just in used copies, either. [18] What happened was that St. Martin's wilted under the political pressure and dropped the book, but another publisher picked it up. JamesMLane 03:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Unsure what that ramble is all about, James. That's good the book is still in print, thanks for the correction. Comparing the events as they unfold here in cyberspace with the election results in 2000 is preposterous. Regardless of what the policy may be, you hide behind it and yet fail to see the light that your argument with me should not be based on what our perceived political differences are, but over what constitutes encyclopedic merit. I think a well known leftist (wormer), a "psychiatrist" that doesn't even belong to the major association governing his discipline (Frank) and a known felon whose book provides not one substantiated claim that can be cross referenced (Hatfield)...all of whom are mostly interested in pushing their politics for financial gain, have been shown by myself and others recently to be tabloidish, immature and silly innuendos that offer nothing of quality control to this forum.--MONGO 07:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Repeated wholesale removal of Van Wormer and Justin Frank paragraphs

Some recent edit warring seems to have caused the longstanding Van Wormer and Justin Frank paragraphs to be deleted in whole from this article at least twice. Please stop doing this. Arbcom has reacted with severity to people who repeatedly engage in removing relevant information from articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to take issue on the false claim that these paragraphs have not been discussed. They are both, in their current form, well sourced and encyclopedic, and have been discussed repeatedly. Please stop removing them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Tony, there have been several others contributors here over the last few days that do not agree that these items are encyclopedic and they have all engaged in discussion here as well. Protecting passages that violate the neutrality or concensus issues of Wikipedia can also result in action by Arbcom. It appears that you are stating that you'll file a complaint if this doesn't stop, which can only be construed as a threat...this is also a violation of the policies of this medium.--MONGO 03:04, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine, leave them in there, counter-point to the source now provided. --Wgfinley 03:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Hatfield

And now someone has gone and deleted the section on Hatfield. How did this happen? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion of "don't revert without discussion"

The heading quotes an edit summary by Wgfinley. The material about Bush that he and others would like to remove has been discussed over and over again on this page. It was discussed extensively long before any edits to the article that I remember from him or from Kaisershatner. That doesn't mean that its inclusion is carved in stone or that they're not allowed to re-open the question. What it means is that there's no basis for demanding that it now be removed unless and until its current critics are satisfied. This is a line we used to hear from the now-blocked Rex a lot — saying, in effect, "There's no consensus so until there is, I can make whatever changes I want but no one else is allowed to change anything." Sorry, but there is no "baseline version" (another Rexian concept) that automatically gets put in place if there's any disagreement. JamesMLane 08:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I concur. I haven't yet reviewed everything above this, but speaking for myself, I am certainly not asserting that anyone has a free hand to change while blocking others from same. (NB that I didn't make any edits per se, just removed the disputed paras because I thought the dispute should at least be addressed, if not resolved, prior to putting the info back in). TonySidaway did reply to me on my talk page, and while I continue to disagree with his view, at least it shows a willingness to engage in discussion of the merits of this information. In addition, I wonder if not adding/reverting the paras back and forth without achieving some kind of current consensus isn't a more collegial strategy than simply jamming and ripping the paras in and out based on whomever has last reverted? Thus, I do think that "don't revert without discussion" is correct in spirit – at least don't revert without justifying it, and saying the paragraphs are "lost" is misrepresenting the issue. They weren't lost – they were deleted, for reasons specified in Talk and reasons that should be discussed with civility. Kaisershatner 11:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

My reasons for removing them were there — both Hatfield and Frank have serous credibility problems, to introduce their respective takes into the article without addressing those credibility problems is misleading. My suggestion was to just remove the sections so that we don't have to have disputed information debated on the article page, apparently this isn't good enough for James and Tony. So, I have let them stand, added this information about the felon turned author who subsequently killed himself because he was going back to jail for violating his parole as well as the esteemed psychiatrist who is not a member of the APA. It would be far easier if it wasn't there in the first place but, so be it. --Wgfinley 03:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you and I both agree we would rather see the elimination of hatfield, van wormer and Frank's garbage and I think you also saw that any attempts to do this would be reverted. The only manner that has any chance of success here on these issues is to find discrediting information. It is sad that folks that have an obvious high intelligence level also fail to see how their politics won't allow them to understand the ridiculousness of some of the referencing here. It is surmised as being okay to state facts about opinions even if those opinions are wrong by those that protect Frank's, Wormer's and Hatfield's profit/politics motivated hypocrisy. So the only recourse is to make the article longer by rebutting these un