Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 58

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

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Nationality Listing

In the article “George W. Bush” the synopsis box contains the label “nationality” with a value of “American”. The name America describes two continents, north and south, in the Western Hemisphere. An American is someone who lives in America. It is also a nickname for a citizen of the United States, but in this sense tens of millions of Americans are marginalized by the denial of recognition. This scenario can be likened to brand monopolization in the commercial world, where the name Coke referred to all soft drinks or the brand Kleenex stood in for all facial tissue. Therefore, the use of the term American as a designation of nationality is inappropriate. Please replace this reference, and ideally, globally across all Wiki media, with one that denotes nationality rather than continental status, e.g. United States.
Thanks
Apachegila (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary says "American" means (first definition) 1. A person born in, or a citizen or inhabitant of, the United States of America. "[1] 2:"An inhabitant of the Americas. More often this is specified as either North American, Central American or South American." "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language" has a similar first definition and second definition.In this infobox, we are using the first definition. Contrariwise, when someone shouts "Death to Americans," they probably are not expressing their hatred for residents of Tierra del Fuego. Edison (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, when a vocabulary entry lists multiple definitions, the first one carries the most weight. And colloquially, the term “American” refers to a citizen of the United States of America, even on the streets of Tehran. Against these odds, little to no chance of altering the article was expected. But a Wikipedia biographical entry, especially one that garners an international audience, should be more than just conversational. Using such a forum to ameliorate this particular type of chauvinism can and should be utilized to appeal to our higher sensibilities. Witness the elimination of offensive sports team mascots or the furling of the Stars and Bars (Confederate War Flag) at our statehouses over the last couple of decades after prejudice had been exposed. And on that most important front and the one Wikipedia should be most concerned with, the linguistic landscape, Merriam Webster Online ([2]) has taken a strong, progressive stand:

1 : an American Indian of North America or South America

2 : a native or inhabitant of North America or South America

3 : a citizen of the United States

By the way, Edison’s quote of foreign protest chants is incorrect. The quote should read “Death to America”, not “Death to Americans”, which connotes an entirely different meaning. The eradication of an abstraction is certainly far less threatening than the notion of actual individual physical assault. Funny how just two little letters can make all the difference in the world!

Apachegila (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about the purpose of this project. People from the United States are Americans, whether you like that or not. It is not Wikipedia's role to attempt to change this fact or "take a stand" against anything. Wikipedia is about facts. It is an encyclopedia. Neither your opinion nor mine matters at all about anything. --auburnpilot talk 16:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Having served no purpose in advancing the argument, removal of the auburnpilot post from the Nationality Listing section is warranted. Not only is it inaccurate, but its noncompliance with WP politeness guidelines is embarrassing. And given what was basically a concession with the words “little to no chance of altering the article”, the gratuitousness of the post was most unfortunate.

All obfuscation aside, the fact remains that the term “American” is ill suited as a reflection of national character (nationality) because, although it certainly describes the inhabitants of the United States, it also connotes (or should) a superset of individuals residing outside the U.S.A.

Ironically, the subtext of the opposition to the requested change pointedly authenticates its very need. Driven by a false sense of honor, the tone of both objections exposes a disdain for definitional precision unbefitting an encyclopedic endeavor, and conversely, given the definition’s third place ranking in Merriam Webster, an inordinate interest in maintaining a colloquial and derogatory connotation. This mindset can be summarized by the phrase, ugly American, and its presence here is disheartening, but on reflection, not particularly surprising given the primary article’s ability to attract apologists for the object of its subject matter and their well documented penchant for vituperation and defamation.

So after all, sound opinion does matter, and that language and its proper use plays a huge role in not only helping us get by, but in helping us get along.
--Apachegila (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not the first time this came up. Go here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_archive_("U.S."_or_"American")_2 and the current standard is explained. As multiple editors/bigwigs have already stated their views and its not going to happen. If you wish to persist in your one man crusade, go back to Manual of Style and complain there because even if everyone here agreed with you, anyone else who came here would be fully justified in changing it back to American... because that's concensus. Have a nice day. As a side note, proposing wikipedia wide changes on an individual article is generally a waste of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.18.30 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Consistent with the MoS discussion from 173.88.18.30 just above, there is really a very easy fix to this, similar to what has been done at the BLPs of many others. So, I fixed it. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Economic Policy

The statistics listed in the "Economic Policy" section only go to 2007, but the rest of the section mentions economic events occurring in 2008. Would someone with access to this article and the relevant statitistics please correct the figures to reflect the last year of this presidency? 65.30.180.228 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We'll get to it later? Most of the info is reasonably updated but if you want changes you gotta be bold man! RTRimmel (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the lowest approval ratings in American history

Whenever people have tried to add the words "receiving one of the lowest approval ratings in American history." at the end of the sentence "Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term, his popularity declined sharply in his second term.", it gets erased. May I ask why it always gets erased? Isn't it a fact that he has one of the lowest approval ratings in history? If you ask me, I think it ought to be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker123192 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because it looks like we are piling on. The sourced text already says that his popularity declined in his second term. What other point is there to make about it? QueenofBattle (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and it was agreed that the most neutral way to describe Bush's approval raintgs is the following:

"Though Bush was a popular president for much of his first term,[9] his popularity declined sharply in his second term.[10][11][12][13][14]"

If we include that he had among the lowest approval ratings at the end of his presidency, it would only be fair and neutral to report that he also had the highest approval ratings of any U.S. president ever near the start of his presidency. But, as Queen said above, that would be "piling it on." And it would stray from generalizing all main points of the subject in the lead, as recommended by WP:LEAD. So we leave both of them out. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No one likes this sentence, which generally makes it a decent compromise I suppose. Bush has the highest approval rating (within the margins of error of 3 other presidents and with a demonstratable bias from Gallup) Bush has several of the lowest approval rating. Bush has the highest disapproval rating. Bush has the lowest sustained approval ratings. Bush has the longest and steepest decline in approval ratings. Bush is the only 2nd term president who's approval rating never exceeded 50%. Bush's approval dropped AFTER he left office. Bah. There is a big section no his approval ratings or lack thereof. We can only put so much in the lead and I'd make the argument that disapproval ratings have been demonstratably show to be more useful than approval ratings in the context of stopping the president's agenda dead, but that's just me. RTRimmel (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about saying his approval rating reached extremes in both directions?--Loodog (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

RTRimmel, that's all and good, but as you said we can only put so much in the lead, and this sentence seems to capture the gist of his approval ratings (all of his presidential approval ratings). Loodog, I think that by adding such in the lead we would be getting ourselves into WP:WEIGHT terrirtory because we can only place so much weight on his polls in the lead. It is best to stick with what we have. And I think it is pretty evident from reading both the large section at the bottom of the article and the daughter article that Bush's approval ratings saw extremes in both directions. Happyme22 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

<undent> Concensus about the prior sentence between me and Happy, IIRC, was that I wouldn't contest it but I thought it wasn't the best example because it would get edited all the time while he thought it was the best compromise and volunteered to police it if necessary. Given the constant tweaking of the sentence, I think that it is not achieving its goal in the article and perhaps more information may be necessary. Lets toss around something. "Bush's approval ratings peaked shortly after 9/11 and then began a long decline, falling below 50% after the 2004 elections and dropped to their lowest point during the economic crisis in his second term." The sources support it and its much less vague than the prior sentence. We don't include the highs and lows percentages, but the 50% mark is usually held out as a useful turning point in an academic light. RTRimmel (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug Use and Inspiration?

Why is mention of Bush's use of cocaine, as well as struggles with alcoholism, not mentioned? He inspired millions by finding God and sobriety at age 40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.41.115 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The struggles with alchohol are, in fact, mentioned in the article. Is there something more to add? QueenofBattle (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

War and Peace

During World War 2 the Allies faced dilemmas such as to bomb or not to Bomb Hamburg. Bomb Hamburg and you kill civilians, don't bomb Hamburg and you leave the Docks and infra-structure in the hands of a Government that will kill civilians. Mr Bush had that dilemma. Invade Iraq, or leave the nation in the hands of a Government with a 100% provable track record of using that nation to attack other nations. Mr Bush made the same decision as Churchill and Roosevelt.Johnwrd (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does that have to do with this article? Happyme22 (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Military service controversy

Zeamays has once again started a bit of a conflict. He is attempting to highlight the George W. Bush military service controversy article by placing it in a {{seealso}} template underneath the level three heading "military service." I reverted per WP:Layout as a link to the service controversy article is already in the section! WP:Layout says: "If one or more articles provide further information or additional details (rather than a full exposition—see above), references to such articles may be placed immediately after the section heading for that section, provided they are not wikilinked in the text." The controversy article provides additional details about the controversy, but not about his military service as a whole -- and that is what the section is about.

Therefore, I see only one reason to elevate the prominence of the link of that article, and that is to highlight the negative aspects of Bush's military service career. Zeamays thought that by removing the link in the text, all the problems would be solved, but that is not so. The link in the text is the long-standing, original link. The one Zeamays just added should be deleted, because it does nothing constructive and violates WP:Layout. Happyme22 (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That wikilink does not deserve any more highlighting than any of the other wikilinks in the Texas Air National Guard subsection. SMP0328. (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22: I see that you want to de-emphasize this issue (Isn't that a POV?). It is only a conflict if you keep deleting the tag. Note that it is used elsewhere in the article,

. My original suggestion, was a "main" tag, as is used in a parallel way throughout the article, including where it is used to denote articles about controversies, such as:

Actually I think that considering how the tags are used in this article, it would be more in keeping with the other sections to use the "main" tag for the Air Guard controversy, but I now think that technically, a "see also" tag is more correct.

SPM0328: Mr. Bush's Air Guard service or lack thereof is not a minor point, books have been published about this controversy, and so a link to the main article should not be buried in the text in a way that the previous link does. --Zeamays (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22: Another comment for you, since you referred to WP:Layout, you probably should review the section WP:Layout#Section templates and summary style, where you will see that my use of "see also" is preferred, and does not require that the linked article cover all of the material as the section where the link appears,

"...You can use one of the following templates to generate these links:
{{Details}} – this generates For more details on this topic, see

{{Further}} – this generates Further information:

{{See also}} – this generates See also

--Zeamays (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not call it "minor". I just don't believe it deserves special mention. Also, please assume good faith. Just because Happyme22 doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean he wants to it to be "buried" (as you claim in the edit summary of your above comment). SMP0328. (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

SPM0328: Others differ with you about the significance of this controversy, which concerns Mr. Bush's character. The character of a former U.S. President is a serious issue, don't you think, and worthy of discussion in Wikipedia? Whatever Happyme22 wants, the current link is in fact buried and is not entitled in a way that accurately captures what is present in the linked article. Such inaccurately titled links are against Wikipedia policy. --Zeamays (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The in-text Wikilink is fine. Anything more places undue weight on a issue that comprises less than 1/10th of the former president's complete life. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So when the Lee Harvey Oswald spends a goodly portion of the article talking about the Kennedy assassination, they are giving it undue weight? Just because an event "comprises less than 1/10th of the (person)'s complete life" doesn't mean it is insignificant. Given the number of controversies surrounding Bush, I could at least see an urge to minimize another one but if we are being encyclopedic, the controversy exists and (most importantly) if enough reliable sources say its important we have to include it. RTRimmel (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Lee Harvey Oswald BLP spends a goodly (actually, I know what that means) portion of the article devoted to the Kennedy assination because it is the sole event for which Oswald is notable. Bush is hardly notable for his service in the Air National Guard. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't expect you'd have a problem with an occasional goodly being flung pretentiously into the dialogue. I might disagree with you from time to time to time, but I hardly doubt that you have a ... goodly vocabulary. That said, your opinion of what Bush is or is not notable for is unimportant. We use reliable sources, and if they say its noteworthy then its noteworthy. Discounting something just because it only occupied a smaller percentage of their life is incorrect, which is what your original statement seemed to indicate as your opinion. From my reading on the topic, it seems to be flipping between the line of important to unimportant. If Zeamays can bring up a little more information to indicate its absolute signifigance, I'm inclined to allow it though at the moment I believe that he is stretching, if only slightly. RTRimmel (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Zeamays: it has nothing to do with what type of template to use; any type of template in this case is unacceptable. The military service controversy article is not the main article of Bush's military service -- period. So we've just ruled out the main article template. And the see also template won't work either because, according to WP:Layout, see also should only be used to direct readers to a more detailed article dealing with the subject of the section (i.e. Bush's military service as a whole). I'm not trying to "de-emphasize" anything, rather I am trying to give the link the proper weight it deserves. Queen is correct in that elevating the link places undue weight on the issue. Happyme22 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Happyme22: It seems that you either didn't follow my suggestion to read WP:Layout#Section templates and summary style, since you persist in the idea that a topic with a {{See also}} must cover the entire topic. That section does not support your claims, just read it.

Your opinion of what weight this links deserves is not the same as mine, and it's just that, opinion. Basically your view is that my opinion on the weight is POV, while yours isn't, n'est pas? It's a fair difference of opinion, so the link should not be buried to give the reader a chance to make up his/her own mind. --Zeamays (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The controversy about Bush's military service may be better folded into the proper article, but more and more keeps popping out about Bush's service after he's essentially a non-factor so maybe it is worthy of some level of inclusion. The additional information that keeps coming out may force some additional changes to various sections of the article, for example all of the new information about Torture occurring under the Bush administration is going to have to go under the appropriate section. RTRimmel (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A slim majority believes that "the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals" in Iraq

There is a line in the Public image and perception section of this article that says "A March 13, 2008, poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that 53% of Americans—a slim majority—believe that "the U.S. will ultimately succeed in achieving its goals" in Iraq. That figure was up from 42 percent in September 2007 and the highest since 2006."

If you ask me, this has very little to do with President Bush, and what people think of him. It simply describes what people believe about the Iraq War. Shouldn't this line be removed from this section of the article? Joker123192 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The two are inextricably linked. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? That doesn't make sense to me, QueenofBattle. I think that the first user brought up a valid point. I'm still not seeing how the results from a very specific survey made at a specific point in time are relevant to a general article about former Pres. Bush. Can you give more than a one line (and slightly dismissively toned) argument as to why you think the two are "inextricably linked" (the results of the Pew Survey and the presidency of George Bush)? Otherwise, I agree that the results of the survey should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.20.83 (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Should state Pro-Israel stance

It says he took a cautious stance - thats not accurate. Sharon visited Bush more times than any other leader by far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.3.1.132 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Why noone mentions Bush Family Laden Family Oil Partnership

I didn't check the whole article, but searched a bit and cannot find oil partnership between Bush-Laden families. Why it is not mentioned. Kasaalan (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it is not notable, if even true. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

2004 election anomoly

Closing unproductive forum-like discussion QueenofBattle (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why isn't there a section devoted to the 2004 election anomoly? According to university statisticians, presidential candidate George W. Bush lost the popular vote in each of about 40 states. The statistical loss was based on data derived from numerous exit polls conducted by several independant organizations including the mainstream U.S. media. Study of the causes of this anomoly point to election fraud committed by Republican party operatives.

14 JUN 09 Tinfoilhelmet (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because Presidents aren't elected by popular vote. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's most likely mentioned in the 2004 Election Article, and if not should go there, not in the biography Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can bring some reliable sources for your assertion that "Study of the causes of this anomoly point to election fraud committed by Republican party operatives" this discussion is over. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:George W. Bush/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed. I have already made minor corrections to the article, but have included issues below that I believe need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA.

1 ~~The lead should state what he is doing now that he is out of the presidency.~~
2 At the beginning of the Presidency section, a brief paragraph detailing his inauguration, a few tidbits about the presidency, and the handover for Obama would be beneficial. As it currently stands, the first mention of his presidency is on economic policy.
3 ~~North Korea section could use an update sentence about the current restart in their nuclear efforts.~~
4 ~~"On May 10, 2005, Vladimir Arutyunian threw a live hand grenade" It would probably be beneficial to mention what nationality the attempted assassin was.~~
5 ~~The "Other issues" section has multiple single sentences or brief paragraphs. Consider expanding on the sentences or incorporating them together with other paragraphs.~~
6 ~~The article bounces back and forth in using "%" or "percent". It would be beneficial to choose one and stick with it.~~
7 "Views of him within the international community are more negative than previous American Presidents, with France[300] largely opposed to what he advocates and public opinion in Britain, an American ally since World War II, largely against him." Address the citation tag which has been there since December 2008.
8 There are a few instances of some statements followed by five or more inline citations. Try to cut some of these down to three at most (perhaps the most reliable/informative) if possible. The article is large enough as it is, and the extra sources are not helping with the load time.
9 ~~There are multiple dead links/redirects that should be fixed. Consider using the Internet Archive to help you fix them.~~
10 ~~The Template:Persondata needs to be filled out.~~
11 This isn't required for GA, but I tagged a few images to be moved to Wikimedia Commons. If you have an account there, consider moving the images over so that other language Wikipedias can use the images.

If the above issue is addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which then can later be renominated at WP:GAN. I will contact the main contributors of the article and its related WikiProjects to ease the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1 Done
2 Several other presidential articles don't do this, my read of good article policy doesn't seem to mandate though it is a good idea.
3 This is a BLP about Bush, that information may belong in a section about his presidency, however my read of policy doesn't mandate it here nor does it appear to be a GA criteria requirement.
4 Given the utter failure of the attempt as well as the appearance of a lone madman, I'm unsure that providing any additional information about this man are required. Bush was not in danger, his security was not changed afterwards, the attempt was not repeated.
5 I've looked into that. Unless we are required to remove sourced data if it is in a single sentence paragraph, perhaps to the relevant sections of the Bush Presidency articles, its not worthwhile to do anything with them. In BLP terms, their inclusion is... questionable.
6 Done.
7 I'll find a cite.
8 Multiple editors on this page require a massive amount of cites for information to be included. Any situation where there are 3 plus cites are typically due to situations such as these. My read of GA criteria does not mandate that excessive cites are an issue.
9 I'll dig up 4 cites on those tonight.
10 I'll fill that out, this does not appear to be a GA requirement however.
11 Not a GA requirement, I'll leave it to someone else to handle.

RTRimmel (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Summary looks good. Per WP:LEAD, it should be limited to four paragraphs so perhaps the added statements can be merged into the fourth paragraph.

2. Well I figure there should be something to bridge the results of the election to first talking about his economic policy. For example, Barack Obama's article starts with the announcement of his inauguration, then continues on with the major events of his presidency.

3. Of course I understand we are dealing with BLP here, and that's why I'm attempting to ensure we address the raised issues. These events did occur outside of his presidency, but it may be beneficial for the reader to know that two years later North Korea's nuclear ambitions were restarted. A brief mention of this could work, but it's entirely up to you if it should be mentioned.

4. Despite that, this was still an attempted assassination and he was convicted for it. By providing the nationality readers can see if the attempted assassin was a citizen of Bush's country or from elsewhere. Just because it took place in Georgia may not mean a Georgian attempted it.

5. Can any of them be expanded on or worked into other areas? It is also possible that leaving it as it is will cause it to continue to grow as random editors/IPs add more other details about his presidency. Do you think it should be worked into other sections and/or moved to the articles about his presidency or left as is?

8. It's great to have so many available sources to verify a statement, but having so many citations after a statement appears to break up the flow while reading. Obviously some statements may be disputed and the sources help to combat that, but I figure that some of the strongest sources (most detailed/most reliable sources) could be used to remove one or two occurrences.

9. If you follow the link (may take a while to load), the ones that appear red are dead links.

10. It's not a requirement of the criteria, however it should be used for all biographies. It's simple to fill out and will be helpful for metadata searches.

--Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1 Shortened it to 4 paragraphs.

2 I'll review the information and add in a 4 paragraph cited encapsulation of his Presidency. We will need an extension and there is going to be a significant amount of arguments based on POV issues based on my experienced editing every other topic that is in this article.

3 I'm inclined to leave it out but its not that hard to add so boom, we have the reactor restart.

4 The assassin's nationality is of less consequence than his ethnicity in that area, really, but I've added that in. I don't think anyone is going to understand the significance and its not worth putting in sufficient detail to explain in this BLP which is why it was left out initially.

5 They haven't been a problem in the past. Again, I'd rather just delete the sourced information than attempt to expand them as they have marginal influence in a BLP.

8 Several other editors have mandated an unusual number of cited sources for certain topics. For example, when adding in information about the economic crisis, I had to produce an utterly ridiculous number of sources before they would stop deleting the sections because of lack of valid sources. Removing them will ultimately destabilize the article so I'm inclined to keep them because they are not in violation of GA rules. And making the article unstable is a violation.

9 Ah... I see them now. I'll dig up sources for them later tonight.

10 If its not a requirement, it will wait. There is enough necessary stuff to deal with ATM.

RTRimmel (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Since progress is being made, I will extend the hold for another week. I'll keep an eye on this page and cross off the rest of the points as they are addressed. I'm glad somebody stepped in to further improve the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Points 2, 5, 7, and 9 still need to be addressed. I filled out the persondata, so don't worry about that. One more week should be sufficient in addressing the remaining issues, I really don't want to have to delist the article. If you need assistance with any of these points let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've written an introductory paragraph at the beginning of the presidency section, as recommended at number two. It starts with his inauguration and briefly overviews the main aspects of his presidency. I disagree that a "handover for Obama" sentence needs to be added; the section is about Bush's presidency, not Obama's, and introducing how he handed over power to Obama in the last two months of the last year of his presidency would be off-topic and provide undue weight to a two-month period of the presidency rather than the full eight years. Happyme22 (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I had mentioned the handover (this was referring to just mentioning that Obama succeeded him) for readers to know who the successor was (mainly for other country readers or really oblivious Americans). The only reason for it to be mentioned is if it is also mentioned that Bush took the reigns from Clinton. It's up to you if you want to mention the predecessor and successor. Good work, I struck through this issue. Only a few more remaining. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing several of the issues. Since the other issues weren't addressed, I went ahead and made the changes. Please review them and correct any errors. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and has a great source of free images. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the online sources and fix all of the citations so they are consistent (I only fixed a handful of them). If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

IPA pronunciation

See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (pronunciation)#Do we need to tell people how to say George W. Bush?, where I've started a broader discussion on this. Flowerparty^☀ 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this really needed? I would've thought any halfway competent speaker of English would know how to pronounce George Walker Bush. Flowerparty^☀ 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly standard item in almost all BLPs. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which articles you've been looking at but that's clearly not true. Category:living people contains some 387,423 articles; category:articles including recorded pronunciations and its subcats contain 859 pages, biographies or otherwise; {{IPAr}} is used in 26137 places in total and {{IPA}} in 13182 (according to here). To my mind the pronunciation information is only useful if a speaker of English could not be expected to deduce the pronunciation from the spelling, so for foreign names, mostly; wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't suppose most readers can read IPA anyway, and if they don't need to be told how to pronounce something then the transliteration is just clutter. Flowerparty^☀ 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced, as it doesn't matter to me; I know how to pronounce his name. What do others have to say? QueenofBattle (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd keep it. A number of non-native enlish speakers view this page and its a handy refrence that doesn't really add much clutter. The article just made good article status with that header so I just can't see it as all that critical for removal. RTRimmel (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they do, but even not-native speakers should surely know how to pronounce George if they can read English? If they can't manage that then they're not going to get very far in the article. I'm not against this file being included in other wikipedias - I inserted it into the Swahili version of this page the other day in fact. But /ˈdʒɔrdʒ ˈwɔːkər ˈbʊʃ/; to me actually seems rather a lot of clutter if it's not packing any demonstrable utility - bear in mind this is smack in the middle of the very first sentence. The question is not "why not" include, you need to make a case for why - why should we include it? The fact that it wasn't questioned by the good article reviewer does not make that case. Flowerparty^☀ 23:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't need to make the case for inclusion. Its already here. You need to make the case for exclusion after many current BLP's specifically include it. Having the official American English pronunciation of our former president's name in the article is handy. Of course, I work with many non-native speakers of the English language who do not pronounce George Walker Bush the same way I do, so I can see the utility. You may not have such experience. I have seen several of my coworkers use that actual guide to be able to properly say certain names, including the former president's. So, again, I'm inclined to keep it. RTRimmel (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Teaching the pronunciation of common words/names to non-native English speakers is collateral to the goals of an encyclopedia. George, walker, and bush are at wiktionary, which is where indicating the pronunciation of common names and words is appropriate. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a silly argument. Do you really think that it's helpful for users to have to navigate to three separate Wiktionary pages to search for what we can easily do here? Additionally, the argument made above that WP:DICT dictates that we don't have a pronunciation guide in this article is a misrepresentation of the policy. WP:DICT is in place to keep Wikipedia articles from looking like dictionary entries. This article most definitetly is not such a case. Also, RTRimmel is correct. The IPA guide is already here and has been for some time, so the burden falls on those wishing to remove it to make arguments for its exclusion, which hasn't been done very well up to this point. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't have strong feelings either way, I'm inclined to side with RTRimmell. A case has not been made for why the pronunciation should be removed. And it could help non-native speakers pronounce President Bush's name. Happyme22 (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the fact that it's there now somehow means that there's a greater burden for those who wish to change it. Per WP:CCC], past agreements are always subject to change. The IPA pronunciation hasn't gone unchallenged, either. I tried to delete it about a year ago but User:Timeineurope reverted it (leading to a discussion that I didn't feel passionately enough about to continue). With the logic people are arguing for including it, every Wikipedia article would allow for a pronunciation guide. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I didn't cite WP:DICT. My point was that, as useful as it might be to foreign learners of English, learning the pronunciation of common English words is not what Wikipedia is about. If it adds clutter, as Flowerparty pointed out, it can be distracting to readers. This is augmented for readers who have difficulty with IPA. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that every time it has been changed it has been reverted and the consensus has always been to allow it or at least restore it if it was removed. While consensus can change, obviously from the editors above it has not. Your case for removal is not strong and several editors have expressed a desire to keep it. At this point, and unless you can bring forth some new argument, I don't see this going much further on this page. The 'clutter' argument is silly as the page is covered in info boxes and pictures, if one small bit of text adds clutter, what about the several redundant pictures or the overstuffed info boxes? Do they add less clutter? What other text is on this page that you view as clutter that should additionally be removed? You are attempting to get some MoS guidelines to support your position, if you can more power to you and this page will obviously reflect the MoS, but until those guidelines exist I see little reason to remove information that is used by our readers to satisfy your desire to remove clutter. RTRimmel (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically speaking, this discussion shows no consensus. Half of the people in the discussion agree that it should be removed. It's probably appropriate, though, to contain the discussion to the MOS talk page at this point. It seems that things are getting more productive there. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why Calgary?

Why did he go to speak in Calgary? His support in Canada is much worse then in the United States, so why go to Canada? Or is Alberta the much more conservative Province? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Who knows and who cares? QueenofBattle (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not very nice. To answer your question my fellow Anon IP compatriot, Alberta is very much more conservative than the rest of Canada with the exception of the city Edmonton (sometimes called Redmonton) and you could say that Calgary is the capital of conservative Canada. Of all the major Canadian cities, Calgary is arguably the only one where there would be the lowest level of drama due to his visit. Alberta is also a land of cattle and oil which makes the province somewhat analogous to Texas, a cultural familiarity Bush may have appreciated. This being said, in all likelihood, it was probably favourable conditions of the contract (format, fees, etc...) that made him decide. Have a nice day!--72.1.222.126 (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it is not relevant to the article; a response that my sarcasm prevented me from making nicely. Sorry. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheerleading Statement

After reviewing the sources provided, it smells as though the comment about Bush's cheerleading skit designed to mock rival schools was an attempt to degrade the former president by giving him the title of cheerleader. The detail is relatively insignificant, and was taken out of context by not including the details about the "cheerleader" title being unofficial, and casual. It could be misinterpreted that he was a part of the cheerleading team.

Overall, it is a very minor and insignificant detail about Bush. I think it is better that this not be included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonked116 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the references is coming up as an error, and the other one seems to verify he was the head cheerleader. Why would you say that adding that he was head cheerleader is insignificant enough to remove? Dayewalker (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling Waterboarding Torture is factual

Certain editors are again pushing around waterboarding trying to come up with a rational that 'some consider' or it critics suggest or some such nonsense. Waterboarding is torture. All RS dictate that it is torture. Dozens of POV pushing discussions on the waterboarding page have not managed to push waterboarding is torture from the lead because it quite simply is. See these discussions over Waterboarding is a form of torture. Talk:Waterboarding/Definition The fact that we are trying to sugar code this incident is beyond laughable and I've been content with 'commonly considered a form of torture' in the past, after reviewing all available information again, that's simply a cop out. Waterboarding is torture and the article needs to reflect as such. There is no 3rd party position that falls under what we would consider a reliable source that says otherwise. If we wish to apply this standard that some consider waterboarding to be torture, we would have to say some consider osama bin laden to be a terrorist, certain individuals propose that 9/11 was a terrorist attack, some critics contend that the world to be flat, some historians consider Washington to be the first president. RTRimmel (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the "earth being flat", "some propose 9/11 to be a terrorist attack" and "Some (or many, whichever) claim waterboarding to be torture" is significant. The first two were fringe theories, meaning that a significant minority of people feel that way, and thus their views should only be given a distinct minority opinion, if any opinion at all. But in the torture debate, we have credible evidence to the contrary; many high profile individuals, including Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush himself, have maintained that waterboarding is not torture. Labeling it as one thing while disregarding the other side completely in this context and in as high profile a debate as this is, is simply not adhering to the principles of WP:NPOV (i.e. giving both sides). BTW, I thought you and high had discussed this before and agreed on "commonly considered a form of torture." But I would like to get others' input on this one to settle it once and for all. Happyme22 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another editors declared it to be weasley and changed it so we move onwards. And George W Bush and crew are not reliable 3rd party sources in this discussion. If it is torture they are guilty of authorizing it and it is illegal under US and International law. Expert opinion is universally on the side that it is torture. I'll head over to the waterboarding page, maybe some of the editors that have partaken in this debate for years will have a more satisfactory opinion. RTRimmel (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I threw it up on talk:waterboarding and will let them resolve this. If they participate in this, I'll take whatever they put out as valid given their much greater mastery of the sources than any of us. RTRimmel (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, you are imposing you're POV on the article. You believe waterboarding is torture. That is certainly a reasonable belief. Where you go wrong is when you claim that nobody can reasonably believe the contrary. Having the article say it is torture, without it also saying that many believe it to be not torture, is a POV push. SMP0328. (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly, you are wrong. If you research the topic you quickly discover that 100% of RS declare its torture. All Medical Experts, All Legal Experts, All military experts. You have a handful of US politicians and partisan political commentators that believe that it may not be torture in all circumstances(and the ones of them who have been waterboarded have all stated that it was torture, Mancow only lasted 6 seconds). But I'll bite, Waterboarding is torture in the US now. It was torture prior to 2004, though legal memos were drawn up in 2002 saying that it MIGHT not be torture (we'll ignore that the lawyers that drew them up are busy getting disbarred and maybe imprisoned). And waterboarding was suspended from 2003-2004(Justice Department thought it was illegal, but someone in the administration overruled them), so it was allowed in 2002, and then after 2004 to about 2006, then suspended again. And after Obama got into office its torture again. Regan signed UNCAT which said it was torture. US legal precedents say it was torture. Texas recently handled a waterboarding case where then Governor Bush declined to pardon a convicted torturer... who was arrested for waterboarding. So saying that in the past it was considered a form of torture is bunk, as it is currently a form of torture was torture for the majority of Bush's term in office. So we can say what, Waterboarding is commonly considered a form of torture, though Dick Cheney says its not (Bush isn't on record saying Waterboarding is not torture, just that we don't torture, and most of the rest of his administration has sense broken with his position and admitted it was torture) So how about... ", which from 1776 - 2001, probably in 2002, 2003-4, and 2007+ was legally classified to be a form of torture by the US while the rest of the world has always viewed waterboarding as a form of torture," would be the obvious replacement. RTRimmel (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition of torture is subjective. Reading this long unnecessary post was torture to me, but that is irrelevant. Read this, and you will see why you shouldn't use labels like "torture." --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources say that it's torture. To call it anything but torture violates NPOV. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say calling it anything else violates NPOV, I would say it constitutes a misunderstanding of what torture is. Though I am about 100% positive that it is torture, other opinions have come up, though they are minorities and they are NOT the official, legal or technical voice of the RS. But hell, you could call a fact an opinion and vice versa, but that would make for a hilarious edit war don't you think? It seems that it is almost entirely politically driven to state that waterboarding is not torture (international law labels it as such and forbids it, I mean come on...), though we must remember that both the right and the left authorized this, so I'm not sure how saying that it is torture is NPOV for the left-leaning Wikipedians. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it is torture. We don't say, Some critics attest that the foxtrot is a kind of dance or certain individuals believe that the Ford Mustang is a kind of car because in both cases, that is what they are. Waterboarding is a kind of torture. It meets the technical definition of the term torture. It meets the legal definition of torture. 100% of reliable sources as we use them describe it as torture. 'The definition of a commonly used word' is subjective is a scummy argument that I'd expect out of a bad high school debate club. Our readers expect better. 'Hitler was a bad man' is subjective. Waterboarding is torture is not. A bad man is subjective, what standards do we use? Torture has meaningful standards and legal precedents, and waterboarding has been called torture for its entire existence which is why I consistently mention the RS's. All US legal precedent on cases that have come to court indicate that it is torture. Bad wikilawering aside, calling it anything but torture is a POV push and it needs to stop. RTRimmel (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's important to remember that there is a distinct difference between a POV (point of view) and something that violates WP:NPOV (a policy requiring that we maintain a neutral POV). There is no question that the opinion that water-boarding is torture is a POV, but it is the majority POV and should be the one we present. That's not to say, however, that we shouldn't also note that GWBush (since this is supposedly his bio) doesn't agree with that point of view. In this case, it is important to note both POVs because of the fact that one is held by the majority while the other is held by the subject of this article. --auburnpilot talk 13:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

George Bush isn't on the record saying that Waterboarding is or is not torture. He is on record as saying that the US does not torture. Cheney is on record saying that Waterboarding is not torture. Further, GWBush's administration was that Waterboarding was not 'legally considered' waterboarding, which is different than saying that it is not torture. We have noted that GWBush said that the US did not torture because that is what he said. We also say that Waterboarding is torture because it is torture. Arguing that Waterboarding is not torture because an individual said it, no matter which individual, is as silly as saying a Suzuki Hayabusa is not a motorcycle because a Harley-Davidson rider says it isn't one. The rider might honestly even believe that, but in the end it is still a motorcycle and all RS say that. All RS point to waterboarding as a form of torture, because it is. The best we can do is, "waterboarding is a form of torture, however the Bush administration believed that President Bush was allowed to determine what constituted torture on non-uniformed combatants outside of US soil due to the torture memo" Unfortunately, then we have to mention that the legal justification of that, the memos, have been discredited and the lawyers in question are being disbarred, and Obama had to pardon the interrogators because it didn't look like the memo was going to stand in court. RTRimmel (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that if we say that most authoritative sources consider waterboarding a form of torture (as has been stated above), that would "speak for itself." If we do otherwise, we are at risk of contradicting the waterboarding article. We shouldn't say "in the past" that it's been considered torture (since it never ceased being considered torture) and we shouldn't gloss over the controversy by just saying that it "is torture" since either may misrepresent the controversy around the administration and waterboarding. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are these "authoritative" sources? All we can say in Wikipedia is that it is "widely considered torture" or "considered by many to be torture" or "considered by [insert source] to be torture..." All of these are true statements from reliable sourcing. Calling it torture in such absolute terms is a POV presentation of a fact that can never be universally proven. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How many sources do you want me to put in here to say that its always been considered torture. Waterboarding has a convenient 100+ sources that all say its torture and ... I think 0 that say otherwise. We don't say the earth is widely considered round, its round. We don't say a hammer is considered by many to be a tool because its a tool. Waterboarding is a form of torture because it is. 100% of reliable sources say so. If you have any reliable sources that says it not torture, please provide them and stick them on the waterboarding article as they are desperate for them. Further the legal position of the Bush administration isn't that Waterboarding is not torture, as you are proposing, it is just that waterboarding is not legally considered to be torture when applied to non-uniformed combatants at gitmo. RTRimmel (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, 400 years ago Wikipedia would have said the earth was flat and many, many reliable sources would have widely considered it to be flat. None of these authoritative sources would have made the earth flat when it really is roundish (egg-shaped, really). Hammers are not always considered to be a tool, sometimes they are a weapon. Now, let's see: Joseph Farrah says waterboarding is not torture. Jim Meyers says waterboarding is not torture. Former congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo says waterboarding is not torture. Former Attorney General Ashcroft says waterboarding is not torture. And, Anish Mitra says waterboarding is not torture, just to name a few. So, it’s clear that not 100% of everybody thinks that waterboarding is torture. Is waterboarding widely considered torture? Absolutely. Universally considered torture? Not really. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe the flat Earth myth still turns up. Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#There_was_once_a_time_when_most_scientists_believed_the_earth_was_flat.21. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh, whaddya know? I guess I'll stop using that analogy from here on out. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes even the best available sources are wrong and when that happens we can do nothing but keep our policy of verifiability, not truth. So, 400 years ago, Wikipedia would have said the Earth was flat (or at least given more weight to it) but once it was clear that this was incorrect and once reliable sources dropped the idea, it became fringe.

Weapons are tools (shall I draw a Venn diagram for you?). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In sum, you have a) the editor-in-chief of crank website WorldNetDaily, b) a congressman who is in no way an expert on such issues, c) a former member of the Bush Administration. I'm not quite sure who the other two people are, but I read their articles and they are both pure rubbish. You'll have to provide better sources than that. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't. Neither you nor I are the arbiter of the credibility of the reliable sources. That is infusing POV, which is clearly against Wiki's policies. The fact that there are credible reliable sources that say something is so (or not so in this case) is good enough for inclusion. Certainly a congressman, the former VP, and at least two former Attornies General are credible enough, if you don't like the rest of the authors and find their work to be "pure rubbish" in your expert opinion. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, WP:RS has standards. Otherwise POV pushes could bombard virtually any article with junk sources that serve only to further their own agenda. A congressman stuttering through a response, badly, on youtube, is not a reliable source. Dick Cheney is not a 3rd party, so therefor not a RS in this instance. So are the AG's. If we allow a political body to self correct, then there really is little point. Overwhelming evidence saying that what they are doing is one thing can easily be bumped out of the article by literally any yahoo with a website under your viewpoint here. The source must be a 3rd party with no stake in the outcome in cases where criminal activities may have taken place or the article has no credibility. Dick Cheney saying waterboarding is not torture prevents him from possibly being tried under US law for authorizing torture, as with both Bush's AG's. The other sources were either quoting a memo which, as I mention again, got its author brought up on war crimes charges and someone who fails any serious test of wikipedia's RS policy due to a basic lack of understanding of the subject matter. RTRimmel (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

But, the point you are missing I think is that reliable sources are not people. Reliable sources are magazines, newspapers, TV shows, etc. Saying Dick Cheney's viewpoint should be discarded because he is "not a 3rd party" is slightly nonsensical, because he is not required to be a third party; the publication who discussed his viewpoint must be a third party (generally). Dick Cheney's viewpoint is a valid observation from a knowledgable and relevant individual that was published in a reliable, third party source. Conditions fully met for the inclusion of his viewpoint in Wikipedia. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that the viewpoints of the subject must be excluded. Actually, our neutrality principles require just the opposite. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One is rationalizing the John Yoo memo, and doing a good job of it. Course John is up on war crimes charges for that memo. The other guy just obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Painful read. RTRimmel (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Be careful, my old friend, just because you don't think he knows what he's talking about, doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is talking about. It's about what the reliable sources say, not what we think about the reliable sources. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're right, but what does matter is that I don't see how any of these are reliable sources. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So according to Queen, if I find a published website that says "George Bush is a duck." with an expert who explains, medically, how this is true, I should be able to include it in the article as a reliable source? "George W Bush served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009. He was the 46th Governor of Texas from 1995 to 2000 before being sworn in as President on January 20, 2001, and according to some experts he is also a duck." Previously I would have argued that the medical expert in question here obviously has no idea what he was doing, however just because I don't think he knows what he's talking about, doesn't mean he doesn't know what he is talking about. Its about what the reliable sources say, not what I think about the reliable source! RTRimmel (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The vastly exagerated example really is off point and not germane. GWB clearly is not a duck, but in some people's opinions he was a poor president and we have seen fit to include that right next to the viewpoint that he was a great president. Whether GWB is a duck or not is a matter of fact. Whether waterboarding is torture is a matter of legal opinion and not a matter of fact. Hence, your example and analogy doesn't work here. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but it was funny. The fact that a solid majority of Americans believed that Bush was a bad president is well supported by reliable sources. Waterboarding is torture under 100% of us legal precedents, GWB didn't get any that support the not torture viewpoint. It also falls under the definition of torture as found in a dictionary. Legal precedents are reliable sources as they are found in US Law, and all of them say its torture, your viewpoint that they are legal opinion and subject to interpretation is fine... but all precedents have interpreted the same way. Basically we have pre Bush, 100% change of torture. During part of Bush's administration, it was torture on everyone in the world except for 3 people, after Bush it was torture again. We could say its torture 99.999999998 percent of the time, thought I may have missed a few 9's. RTRimmel (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a an old guy who shows up for karoke every Friday night at a local bar, with a 50's style haircut, his own CDs and dressed all in black. Now, he is a duck, in fact, we call him "Duck". But, I digress... You are starting to get my point. The fact that a solid majority of experts believe that waterboarding is torture is well supported by reliable sources. But, the fact that not all experts believe that waterboarding is torture is also well supported by reliable sources. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that except for the words "well" and "reliable". The decision is supported by sources. Given the number of sources, reliable or not, that view waterboarding as not torture vs the number of sources that believe it is demonstrates the purpose of WP:Weight. They are a tiny sliver of a percent of the total sources and all of the other sources describe it as torture. Even if you can manage to get some reliable sources, again none that you've presented are qualified 3rd party reliable sources, the massive and overwhelming weight of the existing sources is a rock of gibralter vs a spec of dust. Further, the not torture opinion is being badly misrepresented. The fact that not all experts believe that waterboarding is torture when applied to certain individuals in certain locations by certain individuals is a far cry from its not torture under any circumstances. According to Bush's legal opinion, only 3 people on earth qualified. For everyone else, it was torture. And again, the author of Bush's legal opinion, which Bush's department of justice didn't even agree with, is up on war crimes charges for his legal opinion. RTRimmel (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

AEB 1

Well, since we got all that out in the open, lets see what we can do to improve the current section which is wholly unacceptable.

Bush authorized the CIA to use waterboarding, which in the past was classified to be a form of torture, as an enhanced interrogation technique.[160][161][162] Between 2002 and 2003 the CIA considered certain enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, legally permissible.[163] The CIA has exercised the technique on certain key terrorist suspects under authority given to the agency in a memo from the Attorney General. While the Army Field Manual asserts "that harsh interrogation tactics elicit unreliable information",[163] the Bush administration believed these enhanced interrogations "provided critical information" to preserve American lives.[164][165]

Lets try to hit all the key points:

Bush has stated that "The United States does not torture." Bush authorized the CIA to use several enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. Waterboarding is a form of torture, however the Bush administration maintained that waterboarding did not legally amount to torture under a legal opinion stated in a memo from John Yoo, from the Department of Justice. The memo was first drafted in 2002 and was controversial within the Department of Justice, which suspended the memo from 2003-2004 before being reinstated by the Bush administration. The CIA has exercised the technique on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida a total of 266 times. After it was discovered that the United States was waterboarding certain terrorist suspects, the White House sought additional legal opinions to support their position. After leaving office, President Obama declared waterboarding was a form of torture and pardoned the CIA interrogators that were involved in the process. John Yoo is currently under investigation for war crimes and professional misconduct for his part in the memos.

The actual legal opinion that it was not torture, in brief, is 'enemy combatants' captured in the Afghanistan War and held in Guantanamo Bay detention camp did not qualify under the Geneva conventions allowing enhanced interrogation techniques as that were currently considered torture by the justice department. RTRimmel (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

My take is that your suggestions smell a bit of "leading the witness" with the sentence structure a kin to "Bush said this, then did this, then said this, then did that..." Plus, in his BLP I don't find it necessary to take a set of policies and expand the discussion even further. I believe the opposite direction should be taken, namely move this whole discussion to the much more relevant Presidency of George W. Bush article and keep it out of the BLP. There we can deal with getting to the bottom of whether waterboarding is torture or not, if we'd like. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the most egregious part of the passage, which stated that waterboarding "...in the past was classified to be a form of torture". That's a bit weasel-y because it implies that waterboarding is not currently considered a form of torture, which isn't true. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this right. An opinion becomes fact when a majority says so? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We use reliable sources at wikipedia. 100% of them says its torture. The waterboarding falls under the common definition of the word torture. RTRimmel (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

So if 100% of reliable sources also say that "torture is bad" then that must be included as well, correct? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you're not getting it. We're not into making subjective judgments such as saying this or that is bad, however, our use of the word torture in this article is factual; there's no subjective judgment being made. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we use what the reliable sources say. Most of the reliable sources say that most of the experts say waterboarding is torture. Some of the reliable sources, however, say that some of the experts say that waterboarding is not torture. So, making a statement that something is a universal fact when it is merely a widely-held belief (very widely-held, as the case may be) is inappropriate here in Wiki-land. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Some and Most, lets look at those words. By most we mean tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of sources, including legal precedents hundreds of years old, international treaties, us legal precedents (Waterboarding was torture in the Revolutionary War, it was torture in WW2 and Nam, Regan signed treaties saying it was torture, Bush supported the sentencing of waterboarders as torturers), etc. Most actually means 100% of RS in this unique case. By some we mean: Dick Cheney, Ted Poe and Jim Mayers, all Bush officials and so they don't qualify as RS however. We also have John Yoo... but he's being charged with war crimes so he's also not a good example. Andrew McCarthy was another good example, well respected as well, he believed "that some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive" would not be torture, but he also said "[t]here shouldn't be much debate that subjecting someone to [waterboarding] repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture" and 2 of the subjects of US waterboarding were waterboarded 266 times between them, and he's self admittedly out of the discussion. Those are all the sources I've ever seen that support waterboarding is not torture. If you move out to conservative talk show radio land you have Rush, Glenn and Mancow... but mancow was waterboarded and figured out it was torture in 6 seconds. Per WP:Fringe and WP:Weight we don't need to give them much space. So, what we would say in wiki land is that Waterboarding is a form of torture, though (prominent adherent) says its not. Obviously, then all you need to do is find that prominent adherent that is a 3rd party. Problem is that he doesn't appear to exist, as such we leave out the second part. RTRimmel (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources in Wikipedia are the newspapers, TV shows, magazines, etc., not the people who say the things. The news media are often the reliable sources, while the subject of the reliable source is the one that advances a position. So, we can not assert that something is a truth when it is not, regardless of how many reliable sources say it is. Wikipedia is not about tallying votes or collecting the most reliable sources for a particular position. That waterboarding is torture is a very widely-held matter of opinion, but regardless of the number of reliable sources that say it is torture, we should not refer to it as an accepted fact, because there are those that believe it is not. So, by definition, it can not be the truth or a fact. Facts are irrefutable. That waterboarding is torture is refutable and refutted, regardless of whether one agrees with the refutters. Wikipedia's NPOV policies require that "none of the views should be judged as 'the truth'..." Waterboarding is widely-considered to be torture, that's as far as we can take it. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So do we refer to "the alleged Holocaust" and say that "some believe that al-Qaeda perpetrated 9/11"? No, of course we don't, because we don't have to present fringe theories and we don't have to appease a loud and obnoxious minority. Make no mistake, based on the opinions of relevant experts and scholars (i.e. not Glenn Beck), the idea that waterboarding is somehow not torture is a fringe theory. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This simply is a definition and is open for interpretation, its not an event or historical occurrence. To ignore that is just plain ignorance. Some people believe that 80 degrees is hot, others say 100 degrees is the threshold. We can't say 80 degrees is hot even if all reliable sources say so. It's a feeling and interpretation. This is like writing on an article about a city and stating that "the average summer high is 80 degrees, which is hot." That's not how things work on here. There should be no opinion in an article, and if you don't believe that the statement "waterboarding is torture" is an opinion, then I assume you also believe it is not an opinion to say "abortion is murder." --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding is torture is not an opinion. Torture is not hot or cold. It is a term with a technical definition and a term with legal precedents. We are not saying an average of 80 degrees is hot, we are saying A Mustang is a kind of Horse. Waterboarding is a form of torture. This argument is convoluted enough without getting an abortion debate going. RTRimmel (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Under the Administration of George W Bush, waterboarding was legal, because for whatever reason President Bush did not think it was torture. He said we do not torture, therefore he did not believe it was and therefore authorized it. It is irrelevant whether it was illegal prior to or after his administration. It was legal at the time, just like alcohol was legal prior to prohibition, illegal during and then legal again after. You want to call it torture at any other time, have at it. But it doesn't change the fact that it was legal during the Bush presidency. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what the article should say. Under the Bush Administration waterboarding was (1)legal; and (2)considered not to be torture. That should be worded so as not to allege Bush was being dishonest (e.g., "While waterboarding is considered to be torture, Bush claimed..."). Also, the article should mention that there was large scale disagreement with the Administration regarding waterboarding. All of that can be backed up with RS, would be balanced and would be factual. SMP0328. (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the underlying logic is not sound. Prior to the prohibition, alcohol was legal and alcoholic. During prohibition is was illegal and alcoholic. After prohibition it was legal and alcoholic. Prior to the Bush administration waterboarding was illegal and torture. During the Bush administration is was legal when performed on certain individuals by certain individual in certain environments and torture. After Bush it is illegal and torture. Applying the standard you are seeking here on other articles gives Holocaust deniers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists ample opportunities to present their viewpoints with considerably more weight than policy ascribes to give them. Further, Bush's 'legalization' of torture is under some massively listed constrains so, for example, waterboarding a us citizen is still torture, a us citizen waterboarding anyone else is torture, waterboarding a uniformed enemy combatant is still torture, having one of our soldiers waterboarded by an enemy combatant is torture. Just saying it is legal and not torture isn't accurate or backed by RS. Bush believed that waterboarding non-uniformed enemy combatants by certain CIA agents at Gitmo was not torture and legal. That was it. Saying otherwise is not backed by RS. Additionally, the memo that authorized that was of questionable legality and suspended by the justice department for a time and the writer is up on war crimes charges, and it should also probably be mentioned and Obama had to pardon the certain individuals who did the interrogation to avoid having them charged for torture. RTRimmel (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

So then place in the article that under certain circumstances waterboarding was not treated as torture during the Bush Administration. SMP0328. (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

RTRimmel, which of these do you think would be better in a similar situation: "Saddam Hussein murdered 148 people and tortured women and children," or "Saddam Hussein was found guilty by an Iraqi jury of killing 148 people and torturing women and children." ? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem here Bill, is basically we are saying "Sadam is a human being." "Waterboarding is torture" Do I need to get a million reliable sources to dictate that Saddam is a human being? Of course not. A human being is a clearly defined term, so is waterboarding. And onto the serious question, what do you want, "George W Bush believed that when applied to non-uniformed enemy combatants by CIA interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding was not torture. George W Bush has consistently maintained that the US does not torture" The problem is that if they follow the link to waterboarding or are at all aware what waterboarding is, then that is a POV push because Waterboarding is torture. Basically, whitewashing the torture out of waterboarding makes the entire section violate NPOV. We need to say that it is a form of torture to maintain compliance with NPOV, otherwise its like saying a Hammer is not a tool. To paraphrase, The Bush administration did not consider a hammer to be a tool when it was being used on a board to force nails into it. A legal opinion by John Yoo stated that it was an enhanced nail mover. The bush administration has consistently stated that it does not use tools. Does that sound at all plausible as a portion of the article? Is it well written? Does it make sense? When the average reader sees that isn't he going to cry foul? RTRimmel (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Because of the political controversy about waterboarding, I might have been willing to go with option 2 of William Saturn's allegory, but the waterboarding article throughout largely assumes its status as torture to be factual. If we force ourselves to weasel the wording in this article, we'd have to do the same there. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 01:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

So? If it's the right thing to do to have a fair and accurate representation of the subject matter, then we should do it in as many places as needed. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but the discussion we're having here has occurred at great length atTalk:waterboarding (check out the archives) where, among other things, they argue that political pundits and politicians with a conflict of interest or an axe to grind don't count as reliable sources on this particular matter. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What does and does not constitute torture calls for the rendering of a legal opinion, which is equal in weight to the law, as passed by congress and signed by the president, that allowed the president to determine which interogation techniques constituted torture and which did not. Waterboarding is considered torture by most, but clearly was not considered torture by the one person (the then-POTUS) who, at that time, was allowed under federal law to determine what acts constituted torture. So, some of you are missing the point. Let me try again. Yes, most relevant experts and scholars deem waterboarding to be torture, but not all. Just because one may disagree with the expert source who says that waterboarding is not torture, and thereby try to dismiss the source as somehow being a "crackpot" or "fringy", does not an exclusion make. Let me repeat, not all reliable sources say that waterboarding is torture. It matters not if one agrees with the reliable sources who say waterboarding is not torture. It matters not if the sources who say that waterboarding is not torture are Glenn Beck, or the former U.S. Attorney General (who I think qualifies as a non-fringe expert), or the former VP, or the POTUS, or anyone else for that matter. The fact that there are several credible sources who say that waterboarding is not torture requires us to give that viewpoint some air time. Not a lot of airtime, mind you, but certainly some. Especially, on a subject as delicate and controversial as this one. The fact (yes, I mean "fact" when used here) is that there are reliable sources that have reported that there are several knowledgeable, credible viewpoints that say waterboarding is not torture. We report what the reliable sources say. The comfortable compromise seems to be "...widely-considered to be torture..." Can we try some compromise? QueenofBattle (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that political pundits are not a reliable sources in this matter. This isn't just to throw out people I disagree with, but because such individuals are rarely experts and usually have an axe to grind. I agree that this is a delicate and controversial topic, but there are other ways to represent that there is a controversy. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[Out of sequence] No, you are right in that political pundits are not reliable sources. The magazines that report what the political pundits say are the sources that are required to be reliable, hence the term "reliable sources." There seems to be some confusion over what Wikipedia refers to as a reliable source. "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." You see, reliable sources are not the subject of the particular article in a newspaper, but rather the newspaper itself? So, Dick Cheney saying that waterboarding is not torture has nothing to do with reliable sourcing. A newspaper, with a history for fact checking, reporting that Dick Cheney says that waterboarding is not torture is a reliable source. At Wikipedia, we use what the reliable sources say, and there are several of them that say that there are several experts (i.e., POTUS, VP, AG's) that say waterboarding is not torture. There are many other reliable sources that say that there are many other experts that say that waterboarding is torture. The article needs to reflect this divergence in opinion. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Your parsing between the "source" (e.g. a newspaper) and the subject of the source (e.g. Dick Cheney) seems very much to me like wikilawyering. What counts here is the people (the source of the ideas), not the newspapers (or journalists) that publish their words. Reputable newspapers can (and have, I've seen it myself) discuss flat earthers. This doesn't give more authority to the flat earth hypothesis. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To the contrary, Wikipedia cares about the reliable sources and not in the source of the ideas. I might suggest, my friend, that you refresh yourself with Wiki's policies, specifically, that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Truth is subjective. Also, please re-read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks in the future. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of what determines the reliability of a source is the person(s) connected to it (this is the "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" part you quoted above). Thus, a journalist quoting Glenn Beck on torture doesn't count as a reliable source since neither the journalist nor Beck are authoritative when it comes to torture.

In retrospect, describing your argument as "wikilawyering" may have been inaccurate as it seems you're ignoring this aspect of WP:RS. I don't want this discussion to get derailed because you believe I'm being uncivil. If you'd like to discuss my behavior any further, please take it to my talk page. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" part refers to the author of the reliable source, not the subject of the reliable source. Thus, an author of a publication that has a reputation for fact checking would be reliable as to Glenn Beck's view of something. Your reading of the policies on reliable sources is, respectfully, just wrong. But, there is a straight forward path to resolution to this: we'll ask for others viewpoints through dispute resolution. We are quickly approaching an impasse, with three or four editors believing that it is a fact that waterboarding is torture, while three or four other editors think otherwise. I'll get us some help. Oh, and thanks for the apology, I guess... QueenofBattle (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to explain that waterboarding may or may not be toture? If, as has been discussed, waterboarding is generally considered torture, why does it need to be defined as such in the article? Simply stating that waterboarding was used and approved by the Bush administration should be sufficient.Smedley3cd (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The fact that waterboarding is torture is what has generated so much controversy over its use against detainees. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy shouldn't really be the measuring stick here. Waterboarding has it's own article. Simply link the word to it's own article and leave it at that. Defining it as torture in this article is the same as saying, "George W. Bush was the 43rd President of the United States, an elected office that heads the Executive Branch of US Government".Smedley3cd (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But then it would gloss over the controversial nature of the decision. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But is that the goal? To make the article controversial by defining the term waterboarding in an article about George Bush? I still think that as long as the term is thoroughly explained in it's own article, the term waterboarding should be able to stand on it's own without further definitions being applied. Particularly definitions that can be deemed controversial in the first place.216.153.192.27 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If stating that waterboarding is torture is controversial, then the waterboarding article itself is controversial. My point is that we ought to allude to the (politically) controversial nature of his policy. I agree that we don't want to derail and get off topic, so any mention of waterboarding as torture should be brief. The way I see it, the important thing here is that the policy prompted a political controversy that carried on into the media about whether waterboarding is torture. If it didn't, then I'd agree with you. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It was legal in the previous administration, that's all that matters. RTRimmel, go read your statement on your user page, then talk to me about open-mindedness. You want this article to say that Bush promoted torture, that's not open-minded. Your talk page proves this as well. If you're going to be biased, then you should recuse yourself from this article. Queen of Battle makes the point of law on this clearly. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Founder, WP:Civil look into it, and don't confuse open-mindedness with foolishness. As for Queen, lets analyze this. First off Bush never said waterboarding was torture or was not torture. Bush simply issued a blanket statedment that the United States does not torture. He does have a legal opinion that he cannot do anything illegal under the war powers act. He also has a legal opinion that CIA Interrogators at Guantanmo were allowed to waterboard non-uniformed enemy combatants. Both legal opinions were questioned by the Justice Department. The author of those opinions is up on war crimes charges. President Obama had to pardon the interrogators involved in the events to prevent them from being charged as torturers. So, we can use language to describe this on the page but its not going to be pretty. "President Bush has stated that the United States does not torture. Bush authorized the waterboarding of 3 individuals in excess of 300 times during his term as president. Bush's legal opinions that waterboarding did not legally constitute torture when performed by CIA Interrogators at the Guantinamo facility on non-uniformed combatatans as authorized by the President. This decision was controvertial due to all US legal precedents describing waterboarding as torture. President Bush's legal opinion was that he was able to determine what constituted torture under the War Crimes Act. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice, here's one for you. WP:COLLAB Why don't you work to find a compromise, instead of insisting we try to make Bush look like an evil little man? What do you have against just saying he authorized waterboarding, and let it go at that? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly, I'm sorry stating facts make him look bad. I'd rather he not have done it. But glance at Richard Nixon and know that he did a bad thing. He came and said "I am not a crook" and then they state the facts about his actions and leave it to the reader to decide. Compare the section on Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust, where he is on record as denying it was happening while it was going on. Both are examples of what amounts to highly negative parts about either article and both are handled better and in a more NPOV than our article is handling the treatment section. They base their arguments in fact, even facts that are highly damaging towards their articles subjects, because they are events that did happen. I am suggesting nothing less. Bush said we do not torture, yet he was actively engaged in water boarding which is a form of torture though he had a controversial legal opinion that said otherwise. In the compromise you are suggestion, largely ignoring factual statements about commonly used words, we would stop there and not discuss anything further, "Bush said we do not torture. Bush engaged in weatherboarding prisoners." This places considerable weight on the waterboarding is not torture view, weight that it absolute does not have the RS to back. The opinion it is not is at best a viewpoint with a few prominent adherents, at worst WP:Fringe. Further, this argument is as much about WP:Weight and WP:Fringe as it is about anything else. The number of quoted experts is at 4 vs what amounts to the entire history waterboarding is torture. Lets say that a compromise is reached and this is used as a precedent in other articles, the viewpoint that waterboarding is widely considered a form of torture may end up on the waterboarding page, where it doesn't have enough sources to really pull off but further makes us look silly to all other English speaking people because only in America is this viewpoint even possible. But lets move forwards, given the weak sourcing we can easily move forwards with the 'alleged holocaust' or 'some critics attest that 9/11 was a terrorist attack, though others feel it was an inside job' because they actually have more sources that some editors interpret as reliable than the waterboarding is not torture crowd. Also, WP:Civil RTRimmel (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

RTRimmel's political stances are irrelevant consideringhis arguments rely upon facts and sound logic. Ad hominem arguments will get you nowhere. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A beer might do you some good. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw this on the RfC. I'm not sure why this issue is being discussed on George W. Bush, since it should be a matter of maintaining total consistency throughout Wikipedia: Waterboarding begins with the lines "Waterboarding is a form of torture that..." I see no neutrality or factual accuracy dispute on the Waterboarding article. These two facts suggest to me that either special pleading is at work on this article, or one of Wikipedia's most important current-events articles, Waterboarding, is receiving far too litle attention. A good rule of thumb to follow is: "Whatever the waterboarding article says, goes." This is not at all because the waterboarding article is necessarily already correct (I'd be very hesitant to assume that an issue of legalities, political disputes, and wavering definitions would be a matter of straightforward "fact", at least in most circumstances), but rather because this rule of thumb will ensure that all discussions of whether waterboarding is torture be centralized to one place (Talk:Waterboarding), allowing everyone to share the same information on each side's argument. This will also ensure that, if consensus at Waterboarding changes, other articles will maintain consistency by immediately switching to correspond to Waterboarding. In contrast, if we let things become decentralized and let each separate article on Wikipedia decide this issue for itself, we'll end up with a thousand fragmented little debates, with the different particular constituencies of each article (e.g., more Republicans on George W. Bush than on Waterboarding), rather than the overall consensus of Wikipedians, shaping our treatment of waterboarding. If you think Waterboarding is wrong, go there, put a POV or disputed tag on it, and debate the hell out of it until this is worked out. Either way, GWB should follow the other article's lead on this issue. -Silence (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Bush has been out of office six months. Can we try removing edit protection? How heavy is the flow of crap and vandalism onto this talk page?--chaser (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There's enough vandalism on the talk page to make me think that unprotection would be a short-lived experiment, although I admit that I've thought about trying it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, there are enough idiots out there that unprotecting this talk page would last just long enough for those idiots to catch on. After that, semi-protection would quickly be restored. SMP0328. (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, folks.--chaser (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: What are reliable sources when it comes to waterboarding?

The operative dispute between the various parties centers on whether waterboarding is torture, fact or opinion? There are two primary viewpoints here:

Viewpoint A: Waterboarding is, in fact, torture: This group of adherents believes that waterboarding is commonly viewed and defined as torture, an assertion that this group believes is supported by all reliable sources on the subject. This viewpoint asserts that individuals who claim that waterboarding is not torture are not reliable sources because they are either not third parties (i.e., have some conflict of interest; Dick Cheney was an example given) or are not authoritative on the subject (Tom Tancredo was cited as an example) or that various authors that reported the views of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales in the news media are reporting on the viewpoint of these individuals rather than supporting the viewpoint of these individuals. This group seeks to have the words "...waterboarding, a form of torture..." used in the article.

Viewpoint B: Waterboarding may be torture, but it is not an established fact that it is torture: This group of adherents recognizes that there are a majority of those who believe that waterboarding is torture, but that not all experts on the matter believe it is torture, as reported in various reliable sources. This group also believes that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales are experts on this subject and have valid viewpoints represented in reliable sources. Hence, this group seeks to have the words "...waterboarding, widely-considered a form of torture..." used in the article.

There is also disagreement as to what constitutes a reliable source. Is it the news media that reported the viewpoint (e.g., CNN), the holder of the viewpoint (e.g., Dick Cheney), or a combination thereof?

The issue has been discussed at length above, with little give on either side. While it has generally remained civil, there are signs that it will digress into personal attacks, and charges of wikilawyering and bias. I welcome others who have been involved in the discussion to correct anything that I may have unintentionally misstated. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Before commenting on the substance I'd "suggest" that you get rid of the scarce quotes. Italics for "reliable" might be fine to stress that point. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are generally there to represent the views of adherants to Viewpoint A. For example, some of them claim that Dick Cheney is a not a reliable source becuse he is not a third party. Others believe that Dick Cheney is not a reliable source, regardless of whether he is a third party, because he is the subject of the news article, which is the reliable source. I don't have a big heartburn about removing them, but they were inserted intentionally to emphasize and area of contention. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. They left a funny taste in my brain... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support A, disagree with B. Three additional points. In A: "in the news media are not knowledgeable enough to accurately report the views of these individuals." is inaccurate, we are saying they are not reliable sources because they are 1st parties. Per RS Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations). As there is a plethora of 3rd party sources describing waterboarding they should be used instead of people directly involved in the situation. This author would find the language "in the news media are not 3rd party sources and therefor due to the overwhelming number of 3rd party sources should not be considered reliable sources." B: The individuals in question are first party sources with a direct stake in the outcome of the debate. As there are countless 3rd party sources, they should be used in precedence. The fact that the second group has not been able to dig up any reliable 3rd party sources speaks volumes for the WP:Weight we should give this issue. Artices that describe "Bush official says waterboarding is not torture" only serve as a RS to state the individual in questions position and does not suddenly convert a major newspaper into a RS for waterboarding it not torture. The third point is that the "waterboarding is not torture" is not supported by the Bush's administration's actual position on the issue nor has Bush ever stated 'Waterboarding is not torture'. Bush's actual position is 'Waterboarding is legally not considered torture when applied to non-uniformed enemy combatants by CIA operatives at Gitmo.' This is far different than a broad 'waterboarding is not torture'. RTRimmel (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to foster a debate, but rather to be an encyclopedia of all relevant aspects of a particular subject and then let the reader decide (I've seen that somewhere in Wiki's policies). That the former POTUS, fomer VP, former AG's and various others have a point of view on this is what should be included. That they have some "stake in the debate" is irrelevant. I suspect that those individuals who were waterboarded also have a "stake in the debate" as well, but their viewpoints are not presented in isolation as doing so would endorse a particular POV

Again, the assertion of this editor is that reliable sources are the news media who report what the subjects say, not the subjects of the reliable sources themselves. The viewpoint of the former POTUS, former VP, former AG's, etc. is clearly relevant to the discussion and has been accurately reported by various reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a debate society, so there is no need to recuse certain viewpoints because they have a "stake in the debate". Wikipedia is not a decider of right and wrong. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth or fact. And, Wikipedia is not an international court of law. Wikipedia is simply an encyclopedia that presents all relevant views of a particular subject. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The assertion of this editor is that a reliable source stating a quote of Dick Cheney is only a RS to the opinion of Dick Cheney, not a RS for the overall position of whatever the person said. WP:RS specifically says to primarily rely on 3rd party sources, and an opinion of any that individual is just that. If the viewpoint that Waterboarding is not torture is anything other than fringe, you should easily be able to find reliable 3rd party sources that indicate that. As of yet, you have not and as such there is no debate. The viewpoint is WP:Fringe and policy already determines what happens. If your viewpoint is correct, an article quoting a source on Flat Earth becomes a RS and can be used on other articles to undermine that overwhelming majority of opinion. RTRimmel (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because you two seem to be talking over each other a bit, it might help for me to say that there are two issues. Queen is talking about the phenomenon of the controversy, something that isn't well presented if we say "Bush waterboarded, which is torture." RTRimmel is saying that, under our criterion of what's reliable and accurate, waterboarding is torture and saying "Bush waterboarded, which is widely considered torture" misrepresents the facts.

Perhaps, rather than look at the waterboarding article to help RTRimmel's point, we should look at other instances where a controversy occurred and one or more sides were completely wrong in the facts. How has Wikipedia addressed this?

Oakland Ebonics controversy: the popular misconception that the resolution sought to teach AAVE is reported and corrected; mention of it in the AAVE article reports the claim that AAVE a Niger-Congo language and corrects it.
Intelligent design: reports that advocates argue it to be a scientific theory and describes the contradictory scientific consensus as "unequivocal."

These are two that I can think of off the top of my head, though perhaps others can add to the list. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 04:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems at the moment to be an argument about the meaning of the word 'torture'. In this particular context there must be some specific definition that could be referenced, for example, if there is a statement anywhere that torture must not be used by US interrogators this might include a definition of what the word means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The RFC appears to directly address waterboarding. Don't we have dedicated articles on torture and waterboarding? This article is about George Bush. The discussion about waterboarding as a policy under the Bush Administration is relevant here and other Bush articles; but the discussion, of the details of what waterboarding is, is not. It should be obvious to any reasonable person. Frankly I think the entire waterboarding issue has been blown out of proportion because the politicalization of it. This is not a torture article, it an article about George Bush, let's keep it that way. Waterboarding was not the defining issue of the eight years of the Bush Administration. There are even separate articles on his presidency, but the discussion of torture just has to be right here, doesn't it? Why, I ask? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Because Waterboarding is a form of torture is already on the waterboarding article and all debates there have universally ended with waterboarding is a form of torture. Having a debate there is pointless as per WP:Weight and WP:RS it qualifies as torture and anything else than that is a pov push due to WP:Fringe. Here, due to differing rules for BLP's there is a slight potential that the definition of the term may not be used allowing the whitewashing of some of Bush's record on this. And as for the importance of torture regarding his Presidency, google torture president. RTRimmel (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, what a convincing argument!!! Google "torture presidency" and that will tell us its importance. Maybe consult a crystal ball afterwards. Let's add a big Google rule to Wikipedia, since its weight is so darn important. Are you kidding with this stuff? You didn't even listen to what I said. I don't care whether it was torture or not, it was not the defining issue. Many things occurred in the last eight years. I hope you're equally as zealous on those, especially the positive ones; your good faith is beginning to look partisan. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. What you are doing is a WP:PA I will be kind, one last time, and step back. You may want to review WP:Civil and WP:PA prior to any more postings to me. Your opinion about the first US president to authorize torture being a non-defining issue is fine, you'll note that it has been in the news since 2004 and is still in the news 5 years later and has been denounced by the current President. WP:RS dictates that it is both notable and significant to his presidency. If you care to read the talk pages, I am not somehow devoted exclusively to painting Bush as some sort terrible person. The facts about portions of his Presidency may paint a poor picture of it, however. However, your argument seems to be that because it makes Bush look bad we should ignore it... which is hardly an encyclopedic opinion. The policy under the Bush Administration was to allow techniques that were torture. Saying otherwise slants this article in a POV fashion. Looking at watergate in the Nixon article, we see a fact based approach explaining the situation. You seem to be making an effort to ignore portions of the situation that factor in negatively towards Bush, which is not in compliance with the policies at wikipedia. RTRimmel (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Having just looked at the Waterboarding article, it seems to me to be pretty clear that waterboarding is almost universally described as torture. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But, I'd note that "almost universally" is not the same as "universally," hence another reason I think "...widely considered torture..." is the most reasonable description. Waterboarding is considered torture by the vast majority of people, but not by all people QueenofBattle (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as we are willing to ignore WP:Fringe and WP:Weight that is perfectly correct. RTRimmel (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That definition is disputed by Webster's dictionary, and is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

William is discussing the definition on the Waterboarding page at the moment. The webster's definition is also under dispute as it is missing several critical applications of the techinque for it to actually be effective (mainly head at a downward incline and holding the detainee immobile) and is the only primary source that describes it as such. Webster's waterboarding =/= waterboarding would be the simple way to put it. On this page, the way waterboarding was done under the Bush administration does not come even close to the Webster's definition and so I'd argue that its not the best source. RTRimmel (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The most authoritative sources on whether or not waterboarding is torture are probably found prior to the U.S. state use of waterboarding as an interrogation techinique. My guess is that most sources published after the revelation of U.S. use of this tactic in the war on terror are bound to be heavily influenced by that revelation. A more neutral stance is probably found prior to that. Just my thoughts.--208.82.225.245 (talk) 09:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I think this sets a very bad example and is counter productive to collaboration, to make changes to this material until we can either reach consensus, or the RfC period expires. We are having a reasonably open discussion about this, and are making some progress to consensus (even if it doesn't look like it on the surface). Let's just proceed with the dialogue? QueenofBattle (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The dialogue is still ongoing? After the waterboarding page finishes their latest its torture/not torture debate on the side of its torture again I figured that this would be over. After all it went to onto 2 admin boards and everyone agreed that saying it is torture was NPOV and saying that its not torture or widely considered torture was POV. And changing it over to widely considered and then opening up a RFC for 30 days and complaining when others switch it back to the agreed NPOV language from multiple other wiki pages seems silly. Following the link from out page which says widely considered to the waterboarding which points out how that viewpoint is actually a pov from a fringe minority makes this article look at best silly, at worst a pov push. RTRimmel (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That is one article, and this is a different one. The two have little to do with one another, as Wikipedia itself, although a tertiary source, should not be used as a source within articles. No one has agreed on anything here. There are 3 or 4 for the use of one terminology and 3 or 4 for the use of another, with a few comfortably on this sides. Seems like a classic example of a content dispute to me, which is not yet resolved. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You are defiantly correct there. One is an article exclusively about waterboarding done in a NPOV fashion. The other is an article that mentions waterboarding briefly in a POV fashion. Or are you arguing that the Waterboarding article is POV or not well researched? Or is the [[3]] NPOV board biased? Especially when the same issue came there twice [[4]]? Or the fact that the click through to the well researched NPOV waterboarding article seriously debunks the 'widely considered' argument and makes this BLP look poorly researched and pov in comparison? Or the fact that WP:RS says that we should use 3rd party sources and you are seeking to redefine what constitutes a 3rd party source because otherwise there are none? Or WP:Undue because even with your questionable sources the overwhelming majority of sources on an overwhelming scale say otherwise? or WP:Fringe which doesn't even support the language that we are using right now and says we should list prominent 3rd parties in minority viewpoints as opposed to weasel words like widely considered? I mean, aside from the fact that it makes the Bush article look like an amateurish pov push that should be on conservapedia I suppose I don't see any other problems, as long as we are willing to ignore policy and precedent. This is a different article after all, we can reinvent the wheel and attempt to be internally inconsistent because of that, right? RTRimmel (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cute, but I'm not sure what all that means, as the dictum (or dicta) is a bit hard to follow. But, I read both of the discussions you referenced related to the continuing debate over whether it is or isn't torture, with many of the same arguements that have been made here being made there. And, in all those discussions I never once saw consensus or an official position, a Wikipedia policy, administrative edict, or even a Jimbo musing that resolves the issue. The "it's torture" side merely claimed victory (twice) by dismissing the "it's not necessarily torture" crowd as fringy, completely ignoring that not all reliable sources (which are "credible published materials with a reliable publication process," not the subjects of the publications, for the 20th damned time!) say it is torture. But I did see something in all that discussion that resonated with me, namely that waterboarding is a torture technique. I can agree with that without conceding the legal and opinion arguements that it is, in fact, torture. So, in the spirit of moving this along, as we are smack dab in the middle of the intersection of Impasse Road and Disagreement Avenue, I'll propose this: why not just have a wikilink to waterboarding, which is already there, and remove the "...a form of torture" or "...widely-considered torture" qualifiers all together? If we already have an article on waterboarding that is so "well researched", it can speak for itself. We no longer need to debate the same consensus-less arguement here as has been debated without consensus there. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, I appologize for quoting relevant potions of wikipedia dealing with the task at hand. The reason that it is torture stays is because that is the controversy. Not that waterboarding is torture, that's quite obvious (especially considering HOw it was used under the Bush administration) and falls under WP:Weight etc, but rather that the Bush administration is arguing that it can change the definition of a word to prevent itself from getting in trouble. Removing waterboarding is torture is a pov push, whitewashing the issue out of the article because it makes Bush look bad. But I digress, the 'torture technique' was quickly dissected on the Waterboarding page as a poor second choice when compared to simply calling it what it was and, as at least one editor from the not torture crowd pointed out, won't actually solve the problem. And it was policy that said it was torture on the waterboarding page, not concensus. Saying it is not torture is a pov push for a fringe minority opinion. Its the same policy that keeps flat earth out of the earth article and creationism out of the evolution article. Using that arument here says we should call it torture for the same reason. RTRimmel (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and, umm, is it here that flat earth theories are not discussed in the Earth article, or here that creationism is not discussed in the Evolution article? I'm sorry, what was your point on this again? QueenofBattle (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(after ec)First, no one (at least not me) is saying it's not torture; merely that it is not a universally accepted fact (like the earth is round). Asserting an opinion (even a widely-held one) as fact is the classic definition of a POV push. What the Bush administration did was apply the law that Congress passed, which stated that the president can determine if waterboarding constitutes torture when used in military interrogations. So, that waterboarding is torture is not "quite obvious," no matter how many times one claims it is. It simply is not a fact, but rather a widely-held belief. In fact, the waterboarding article itself only uses the affirmative language once (in the lede), so can you show me this policy decision? Lastly, what say you to my proposal? QueenofBattle (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Bush had a secret memo that authorized that it was possible, though that memo was later withdrawn. So that's part of the problem here, your opinion of what happened doesn't match what the RS say about what happened. If what you said was true, then this argument becomes alot less... lopsided. And you read through the waterboarding article and actually get that its just widely considered torture... okay. I didn't. Not at all actually. The waterboarding artcile describes waterboarding as a form of torture... a form of torture developed in the 1400's, a form of torture used by ... well, okay I suppose if one were to cherry pick out a few select passages and then view it from a certain angle that it might be possible to interpret it as 'widely believed' of some such nonsense, after 2004 and until 2009. 5 years out of a 600 year history, yup that's a good argument for WP:Weight. And, as I mentioned earlier, the 'torture technique' was shot down hard on the waterboarding page so I'm disinclined to use it here, consistency is important when dealing with controversial subjects. RTRimmel (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OH, and the full quote is 'Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.' So the trustworthy or authoritative to the subject at hand is the point. I fully believe that a journalist reporting that Dick Cheney says waterboarding is not torture... is saying Dick Cheney says waterboarding is not torture. Someone is reaching to interepret this as somehow supporting the 'not torture' viewpoint. But that was pointed out to your, like 20 times, earlier. RTRimmel (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh?! I think you are making my point for me. If Dick Cheney says waterboarding is not torture, and that is reported in a reliable source written by an author who has followed Dick Cheney for many years, then Wikipedia can include Dick Cheney's viewpoint. And, it should include Dick Cheney's viewpoint if it meets with the similar opinions of others. That's what the "N" in "NPOV" is all about. Look at the sources in either the waterboarding article or the passage in Bush's BLP; a few make affirmative statements based on the opinions of the subjects, and a number of them say that it is widely held (or some derivation thereof) to be torture. Neutral news media are not going to put their necks out on a block by saying it clearly is torture, as they are reporters not policy makers. In fact, footnote 230 from Bush's BLP, says "...were subject to waterboarding, a procedure that simulates drowning and is widely regarded as torture." Dick Cheney doesn't believe waterboading is torture. Many others believe waterboarding is not torture. Many, many more believe waterboarding is torture. Both views have been reported by reliable sources. At Wikipedia, we go with the reliable sources, so "widely-considered" is the most neutral presentation. And it is, ironically enough, the presentation that one will find in the bulk of the waterboarding article, except for a single sentence in the lede. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Again... see the RS is reporting the viewpoint of the speaker rather than supporting the viewpoint itself. Dick Cheney is not a reliable 3rd party and therefor his viewpoint should be avoided. We don't ask a criminal the the status of property he has stolen, we don't ask a politician who could possibly be arrested for warcrimes if waterboarding is torture. You should be able to find someone not directly affiliated to the Bush administration to make your point, then you move out of [[WP:Undue and WP:Fringe to the happy land of a massive minority viewpoint. Basically you are making an argument against applying Wp:Fringe here, we should list waterboarding is torture, however certain conservative republicans affiliated with the Bush administration believe that it may not be in all cases. NPOV doesn't translate to grant undue weight to minority viewpoints held by fringe groups. Many others is literally dozens of sources beliveing it not to be torture, compared to tens of thousands that say it is. Are you making an argument that 50 sources vs 100,000 give or take should be granted equal status? Your argument sounds like there are two large groups saying that it is and it isn't. In reality there is a massive and overwhelming group saying it is verus a small shrinking group of conservative republicans that say it might not be in all cases as supported by withdrawn secret memos. I can't see how that second group gains enough weight to push out the first. RTRimmel (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, we are not getting anywhere with this discussion, because we are failing to see each others' points and despite all the words typed here, still aren't able to change that. Suffice it to say that I disaree with just about all of your points. So, again, the proposal I was asking you about is merely having a wikilink to waterboarding, which is already there, and remove the "...a form of torture" or "...widely-considered torture" qualifiers all together? Let's just make this a moot point here. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but then the next sentence has to mention the controversy over waterboarding. I'm thinking "Bush authorized waterboarding as an enhanced interrogation technique. This decision was controversial as the United States had always considered waterboarding to be a form of torture, however Bush had a secret memo that authorized the technique though the memo was later withdrawn." Or something similar to avoid the appearance of whitewashing a controversy that has been ongoing for what... 8 years now? RTRimmel (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I sure hope you are kidding with the suggestion for the next sentence, or we are going to be at this for a l-o-n-g time. Nobody is trying to whitewash anything. The Wikilink will take the reader to the waterboarding article that is held in such high esteem, and the rest of the passage clearly discusses the circumstance around the legal opinions, letters, etc. Doesn't your suggestion strike you as just a teensy, weensy bit POV as well as devoid of, umm, reliable sources about this "secret" memo? QueenofBattle (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

... YOu know the secret torture memos?[[5]] [[6]] [[7]] I can provide a few thousand links from tons of WP:RS concerning them. this link has copies of all of the various memos released during the Bush administration, though all were later dropped [[8]] Or just hit Bybee_memo for a quick refresh. They have been around for months now... Wait a second, this is your weird sense of humor again. Okay, you got me there is no way you are this inattentive over something that has been this up and front in the news for months now. Why did you think Cheney had that press confrence anyway? What is your actual viewpoint here? RTRimmel (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Outside responses to RFC

I do not believe we can use statements of people inside the U.S. government as "third-party" sources to evaluate whether acts of the U.S. government are torture. Consider the more common case where a military forces an illegal coup: we would not use the opinion of the generals who led the coup to argue that the legality of the coup was in doubt, and we would not consider those generals to be experts on the legality of coups merely because they engaged in one. In the specific case of waterboarding, it seems the vast majority of evidence is that waterboarding is torture, so I think option A is preferable.. Perhaps we could say something like "waterboarding, a form of torture which the Bush administration argued did not fall under U.S. laws against torture, ..." — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues

Under the Administration of George W Bush, waterboarding was legal, because for whatever reason President Bush did not think it was torture. He said we do not torture, therefore he did not believe it was and therefore authorized it. It is irrelevant whether it was illegal prior to or after his administration. It was legal at the time, just like alcohol was legal prior to prohibition, illegal during and then legal again after. You want to call it torture at any other time, have at it. But it doesn't change the fact that it was legal during the Bush presidency.

(Statement copied from above.) While slightly OT perhaps, I disagree with the above claim. I don't live in the US and I'm not an expert in US law, but as far as I'm aware, the president has limited ability to change laws and also limited ability to interpret laws in a legally binding way. In other words, Bush's opinion that waterboarding was not torture would likely have been largely irrelevant in its legality. If waterboarding was illegal under US law before Bush, unless Congress changed the law, it would almost definitely be legal during Bush. Bush opinion may have some effect on the courts, but as far as I'm aware, their primary purpose is to intepret laws, perhaps with some consideration of US society's views. Therefore unless US law specifically allows the President to determine what is and is not torture, which I don't believe it does (see Torture and the United States), it is unlikely the legal status of waterboarding in the US changed much between the time before Bush and Bush's time. Bush's legal opinions may have some effect on whether people who followed those opinions could be prosecuted for waterboarding, but that doesn't mean waterboarding was illegal. Comparing this to alcohol prohibition in the US, which AFAIK involved a constitutional amendment, is a bit silly. Of course, unless there is ever a case before a US court (and I think such a case is quite unlikely), we may never know whether waterboarding was illegal, but this doesn't mean it's accurate to claim waterboarding was legal under Bush just because he said it was. Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"unless there is ever a case before a US court (and I think such a case is quite unlikely)"

It turns out that such a case is very old news indeed. After World War II, several Japanese soldiers were tried, convicted, and executed as torturers because they waterboarded U.S. soldiers.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All those legal precedents always say its torture. And the Waterboarding article has ended up with its a form of torture after a pair of editors went all over the wiki trying to say otherwise. I'll assume we are going to eventually follow their lead and call a duck a WP:Duck. RTRimmel (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast my friend. This article stands on its own, so we've got to make this one encyclopedic and keep it neutral by not taking sides between the "it's torture" and "it's not torture" crowds. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

...except that there is no "it's not torture" crowd - there are a few self-serving and a few deluded individuals -, and that of course saying nothing is not "staying neutral". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That is blatantly false. Of course there are people who believe waterboarding is not a form of torture, that it is not the moral equivalent of breaking or severing limbs. They deserve a fair share of weight, but it must be a fair share. Because the torture crowd is larger in size, they have the upper hand, but the other side's argument cannot be discredited immediately by a few Wikipedia editors. Happyme22 (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The assumption that all forms of torture are morally equivalent is what's wrong here. For me, they are all morally reprehensible, but yes, there is a spectrum even within the meaning of the term. And I did not say there are no people - I said there is no crowd. The "not torture" argument has been discredited - after careful examination - by human rights groups, lawyers (both military and other), law professors, judges (both military and civilian), physicians, the Red Cross and other international organizations, and essentially every uninvolved expert ever published. Christopher Hitchens changed his mind about this, for what it's worth, and he needs some convincing... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And, I might add that we don't get to decide who is "self-serving" or who is "deluded". We just see that the views are presented without passion or prejudice. There are many who think that waterboarding is not torture, and their viewpoint has a place here. Wikipedia is not censored. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But Queen, to comply with this we have to ignore WP:Undue. Given the lack of reliable third party sources saying that it is not torture versus the sheer overwhelming number of reliable 3rd party sources that say it is, we have to, to comply with policy, call it torture and be done with it. I'd be willing, because this is a WP:BLP, to go with "Waterboarding is a form of torture, however President Bush had a legal opinion that the President had the ability to declare what legally constituted torture under US Law." That follows the examples in WP:Fringe to a reasonable level despite the fact that Bush is not a 3rd party source in this instance. RTRimmel (talk) 12:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, I think the point that we seem to have trouble relaying to you, is that your opinion does not matter at Wikipedia (sorry). Your opinion that something is "morally reprehensible" is unimportant. Your opinion that a certain viewpoint has been "discredited" is unimportant. Your opinion about the motives or mental stability of the "it's not torture" crowd is unimportant. But, guess what? My opinion is equally unimportant. There are a great many that think that waterboarding is torture (including all those groups you referenced). There are also those (a smaller group) that think it is not. Both sides get to have their views represented in proportion, hence "...waterboarding, widely considered to be a form of torture..." QueenofBattle (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position. In fact, my opinion that waterboarding is torture is irrelevant, as is my moral reprehension. But my opinion that I'm offering as relevant is on the meta-level. The "waterboarding is torture" position is so overwhelmingly supported by reliable sources that the opposite position falls under WP:FRINGE. Take this as my contribution to any possible consensus, where it is as relevant as that of every other editor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

But remember friend that just because a million people support something does not necessarly make that thing right. If 300,000,000 people make a mistake, it is still a mistake. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure enough. But on Wikipedia we go with the weight of reliable sources. Of course the fact that the slow, intentional and repeated suffocation of a helplessly bound prisoner is torture is self-evident. If you claim otherwise, walk up two flights of stairs (to simulate a minimal stress level) and the hold your breath for 40 seconds... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Coast Guard rescue swimmers and Navy SEALs do it all the time. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not asking it of Seals or Rescue divers after serious training. I'm asking it of you - assuming you are an individual of not much more than average fitness. Walk up two flights of stairs, exhale, don't breath in for 40 seconds. Of course this is harmless compared to waterboarding. Of course the psychological stress is negligible. Still, have you done it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And doing it to yourself in a controlled situation is identical to having a stranger do it to you repeatedly without your consent for the purposes of extracting information that you'd rather not tell them. RTRimmel (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about the "controlled situation" part, but I do think most SEALs and rescue swimmers in training might take issue a bit with the "consent" part... QueenofBattle (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that Seals and rescue swimmers don't consent to the training? Comparing the two? Seriously, its kinda insulting to the rescue swimmers and the Seals a bit, don't you think? Lets drop this line. RTRimmel (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the original inanity of asking one to hold one's breath for 40 seconds in an attempt to understand what it feels like to be waterboarded is, well, insulting to those who have been waterboarded. Dropped, as requested. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions in the ANG section need to be removed.

"Why is this in there?

"Critics, including former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Russ Baker have alleged that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot despite his low pilot aptitude test scores and his irregular attendance."

from the wiki guidelines:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views —Preceding unsigned comment added by Someguyxyz (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC) --Someguyxyz (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear!!!! Let's apply this to the WATERBOARDING issue. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

... applying this to the waterboarding argument is calling waterboarding torture because of WP:Weight and removes the widely believe line due to WP:Undue. RTRimmel (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical commments from a spokesman of the other party have to be evaluated with a critical eye. This goes with Clinton, too, not just Bush. Calmano (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't. Significant criticisms of the bio subject should be included, even if some Wikipedians, having evaluated them with a critical eye, conclude that they're ill founded. The applicable policy states: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (emphasis in original) The mere existence of allegations that Bush received favorable treatment isn't enough basis for us to assert as a fact that Bush received favorable treatment. It is, however, enough basis for us to assert as a fact that McAuliffe and others have raised this charge. That's a fact about opinions. To give a fair presentation of the issue, we should summarize all significant opinions (with attribution, i.e., who says it, and citation) and note the major factual points upon which each side relies. JamesMLane t c 05:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the sentence is that it states as fact that his attendance was irregular and that his test scores were low. Both of those terms are somewhat subjective. I'd recommend removing the word cite, as per WP:WTA, and properly attributing those two statements.– DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 05:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Bush' military service section sanitized

Closing redundant discussion QueenofBattle (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The section on Bush's military service has been heavily sanitized. Not a word about the widely reported allegations that Bush went AWOL for at least a year from his National Guard duty in Alabama in 1972. It's quite a contrast to the main Wikipedia article on John Kerry, which rounds up every right-wing nutcase allegation ever made about Kerry's service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.65.102 (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Most probably because they are merely allegations, rumor, and innuendo, none of which is includable in Wikipedia. The community has dealt with the question many times before, most recently here. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this Bush assassination plot be mentioned in the article?

Israel Arrests 6 Arabs In Plot Against Bush On Friday, Israel arrested six Arabs in connection with an alleged plot to attack helicopters used by President George W. Bush during visits to the country, Reuters reported.

Two of the men are Arab citizens of Israel, both of them students at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, according to Shin Bet, Israel's counter-intelligence agency. The other four are Palestinian residents of east Jerusalem. The men range in age from 21 to 24.

One of the Israeli Arabs, a 24-year-old chemistry student, lived in a Jerusalem college dormitory overlooking a helicopter landing pad used by Bush during a visit in January, Shin Bet said.

Using his cell phone, the student filmed helicopters taking off and landing, and sent a message to a Web forum linked to al-Qaida asking about shooting Bush's helicopter down, according to the Shin Bet.

Israeli officials claimed that four of the six suspects had gathered at a mosque in Israel in attempts to organize a local Al Qaeda cell, Reuters reported. As part of the investigation, the suspects’ computers were seized and reportedly contained bomb-construction manuals.

The men were arrested in June and July, the statement said. But the information was only approved for publication on Friday, the day the men were to be indicted in a Jerusalem court.

Links: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/israel-arrest-6-arabs-in-plot-against-bush

http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Plot-to-assassinate-Bush-folied-Israel

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,385682,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4358423.ece

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN9173242220080718 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.232.149 (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: This story is from July 2008. SMP0328. (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't he used to do coke and pot?

Clinton's "I didn't inhale" bit made it into his article; Obama's candid acknowledgment of both pot and coke use is mentioned in his. Surely, a quick note is in order?--Louiedog (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to find the reliable sources to support the rumors. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty well-covered in sources here. It would just be a matter of importing them.--Louiedog (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That link goes to allegations that he used narcotics. Nothing there says anything definitive on the matter. SMP0328. (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The only source is the Wead tape, which isn't exactly unambiguous. -- Zsero (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a secondary source AP story, which is acceptable, regardless of what the primary source may be.--Louiedog (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Be careful Loodog. There's not a reliable source here, and for something as controversial as this, BLP rules will clearly require multiple reliable sources, as you know. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with an article put out by the Associated Press? If it's made it through the publication process of a reliable secondary source (which AP emphatically is), then it's acceptable. Quote:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."--Louiedog (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs, Wikipedia is more careful than with other articles. If your claim is accurate, you should be able to find an additional reliable source. SMP0328. (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The AP story on the Wead tape does not say that he acknowledged drug use. It implies such a conclusion, but doesn't connect the dots. So stating it as a fact would not rest on RS, and remains speculative. -- Zsero (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And thus would be original research. Happyme22 (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

He said he didn't want kids trying "... what I tried". The phrase "I tried" is explicitly there, if only as a subjunctive clause. The meaning is plain as day with no interpretation necessary.--Louiedog (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Or if that doesn't satisfy you because you construe my argument as personal interpretation you have articles like this which explicitly interprets Bush's comment "Bush admits using marijuana". It's a secondary source making a statement, which our own personal interpretation of the primary material shouldn't override per above, ya?--Louiedog (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick google search gives the following: Express India.com. talkleft.com transcript of radio program, anchor: "A so-called family friend of US President George W. Bush secretly recorded the then Governor Bush apparently admitting to using marijuana."--Louiedog (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You've still got a few problems with this: 1) There is nothing in any of these about cocaine, 2) they are all reprints from the same original Reuters piece, which represents one person's viewpoint, and 3) for controversial edits (such as this) in BLPs (such as this), you'll need more than the same piece picked up over and over by such "news media" as www.talkleft.com. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The one from rediff is useless; it's an anonymous writer at some web site. Talkleft is certainly out. You've counted the Reuters' story twice - once at Express India and once at TVNZ; but it doesn't say that he admitted it, just that he "indicated" it, whatever that means. The same thing goes for Tony Eastley; he says that Bush "indicates" it. The same word, implying perhaps that he read the Reuters story in prepping for his broadcast. At any event, none of these amount to a reliable source reporting the drug use as fact. It's all speculation, and Bush being deliberately ambiguous.

Here's the cold hard truth: All Bush actually said is that he won't start answering questions about what he did and didn't do, because somewhere along that chain there will come a question he'd have to answer "yes" to, and he doesn't want kids emulating him. We don't know what question that would be. It might be cocaine; it might be marijuana; but it might be something quite different. No amount of media speculation can substitute for verifiable fact. -- Zsero (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Its unfortunate, but the sources all come from one source and one side of the debate. There is quite a bit of controversy about some of Bush's youthful indiscressions quite frankly, however they either didn't exist or have been covered up to the point that no hard evidence remains, though it was probablly cocain and his family probably used their inside connections to get the case expunged from his records. We can't use one individual's viewpoint or one small group with a stake in the outcome, no matter how many reliable sources back it up, saying otherwise would be going against what WP:BLP rules indicate. It would be the same thing as taking a small minority viewpoint that is unsupported by the vast majority of sources, overwhelming really, and saying that it should be used with equal weight to the other. Sourcing is important, and consistency is important. If you honestly believed that, then waterboarding is not a form of torture, for example, because a small minority of people believe it to be so inspite of a massive overwhelming number of sources that say otherwise. As Queen has pointed out you need to have multiple viewpoints that support your argument. Arguments from one side of the issue, especially when that side is both small and has an axe to grind, undercut the argument tremendously and is why we have WP:Fringe. If you can find some additional sources, 3rd party sources, then it is worthy of addition. RTRimmel (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Bush having used marijuana

It has been argued that inclusion of Bush having used marijuana violates WP:FRINGE and is a original interpretation of source material. Opposing this argument are claims that appearance in the above sources (Associated Press and Reuters) are not fringe, and that many of the above articles explicitly call Bush's statements admissions of use and so are not personal interpretation.--Louiedog (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not telling the truth. The Reuters story says he "indicated" it; the AP one says he "appears to acknowledge" some kind of drug use, not necessarily marijuana. So far you have not come up with a single source that actually states it as a fact; and you won't, because it isn't. -- Zsero (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to the titles: "Bush admits to toking on tapes", "Bush caught on tape admitting to Marijuana use", "Bush admits to smoking marijuana". Please AGF.--Louiedog (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Headlines are written by local sub-editors, and are never reliable sources. It is thoroughly dishonest to attribute them to Reuters or AP. -- Zsero (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a whole article on it. There are 19 sources to pick and choose from. I'd argue that its either worth adding in something about the controversy during the 2000 primaries/election or early life. At minimum the controversy about his potential use of drugs and alcohol did affect his 2000 Presidential campaign and therefor is worthy of addition on that alone. Reading through the sources, its pretty evident that Bush did use some form of controlled substance but Bush didn't want to admit to it, at that point Al Gore had admitted to his own drug use and frankly marijuana use in the US is disturbingly high with low numbers saying that 1 in 3 Americans have smoked pot and 1 in five do so regularly. The trick ultimatly is that he hasn't admitted to doing it, but he has specifically stated he has not denied using marijuana. If its worthy of addition to the article, and I feel that it exceedes the bar for such an addition, what would we enter? "When asked about illegagal drug use, Bush has stated his refusal to acknowledge the marijuana question was 'Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried.' Bush is on record as having not denying the use of marijuana, though he has never acknowledge use of the substance either." Sometimes life's weird. I'd have to think about fitting in a better sentence. RTRimmel (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That is way too long and unwieldy. More to the point, it's not that he has refused to deny using MJ; he has on principle refused to deny using anything, and has explained many times that once he starts denying things he'll just be inviting a fishing expedition, and eventually he'll be asked something he can't deny. That's essentially what he says on the Wead tape; while the implication (at least if the excerpts that were printed are correct and not missing essential context) is that the question he wouldn't be able to deny is on MJ, he does not says so, and it might be anything at all. Oh, and BTW, what 19 sources? There's only one source: the Wead tape. -- Zsero (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am always amazed at how some editors can read a plainly obvious source and interpret it though a keyhole to have it come out with whatever they have predetermined as the 'correct' answer. I mean, from the context of "I won't answer the marijuana question" and "You know why? 'Cause I don't want some little kid doing what I tried." and "Do you want your little kid to say 'Hey daddy, President Bush tried marijuana, I think I will'?" (all Wead tape quotes from George W Bush) Certainly context is important and fortunately there is quite a bit of the Wead tape available to get the context from, I remember a detailed discussion between us on the midterm attorney dismissal where context was a front and center concern, its nice to see that you've come around to its significance these days. And yes, there are 19 sources on the article... they are all not relevant to this discussion but they are there about Bush's substance abuse problems. According to the Wead tape, Bush was concerned about Bush's early substance abuse problems and since its his BLP we might want to take his viewpoint under consideration. Its the old, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and an audio tape of the President certainly qualifies. RTRimmel (talk) 11:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Though never having explicitly answered questions concerning past marijuana use, Bush has made tacit admissions that he has used the drug, saying his refusal to answer questions were out of concern that he would serve as a poor role model."--Louiedog (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a conclusion that no RS has yet made. There's a reason for that caution. -- Zsero (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What would be an acceptable proposition, to your eyes?--Louiedog (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No mention of drugs at all. It is not an established fact that he ever did use them, let alone which ones; and it's not important enough a part of his story to justify speculation — even well-founded speculation — being included in his biography. -- Zsero (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying a direct quote as printed in a secondary source from the tape would be speculation?--Louiedog (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no direct quote admitting anything specific. -- Zsero (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Then you would have no objection to posting the quote itself: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried." and letting the reader interpret for himself.--Louiedog (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would object. On its own that sentence is meaningless, and with minimal context the reader would not know that it was part of a conversation about Bush's refusal to answer any question about possible indiscretions in his past. Giving the entire context would require a paragraph so long as to be undue weight. There is no reason to include this at all. Had he simply admitted to drug use, we could simply state that in one short sentence, which would not be undue weight; but it's simply not important enough to justify a long passage let alone a long paragraph. -- Zsero (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It would require less space that that in which you just explained it. If it merited an entire daughter article, it certainly merits mention in the parent article. The convention is to use the daughter article to remove excessive detail from the parent article, leaving behind a summary of the daughter, not to exclude the subject altogether.--Louiedog (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No. It's been alluded to, but never directly addressed in the reliable sources. Therefore, it does not belong. Unit Anode 01:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
No -- It has never been definitely established, it's all speculation, it may have been alluded to and claimed to have occurred but has never been proven. Happyme22 (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe -- Something needs to be added. The only good source we have is a series of quotes about George W. Bush's drug use from George W. Bush off of a tape with his own voice clearly saying them. If nothing else, Bush's concerns that his 'wild youth' would be the most difficult hurdle he had to overcome for his Presidential campaign should be included. RTRimmel (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment, if Bush holds a press conference, says a few quotes, and those quotes appear in 20 different secondary sourced news agencies with similar stories, are you guys saying this would still only count as one source? The only *primary* source is the tape, but wikipedia doesn't run on primary sources or wikieditor interpretation of them: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves".--Louiedog (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  - Reply, of course that's not what it means. All of those sources are, of course, separate. A press conference or an audio tape of Bush with quotes from Bush like "Hey daddy, President Bush tried marijuana, I think I will" should further be considered an exceptional source which, according to policy, is fully admissible for a BLP. Well, according to policy at any rate. And given that the President before and after Bush are on record as smoking MJ, and its overall percentage of use in the US I don't really think this is all that controversial. I'm honestly surprised that its garnered this much attention. RTRimmel (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Q, do you then take the stance that Zsero has taken above concerning headlines explicitly saying "admission"? (e.g. "Bush admits to toking on tapes", "Bush caught on tape admitting to Marijuana use", "Bush admits to smoking marijuana")--Louiedog (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Headlines are absolutely never reliable sources for anything. They are written by subeditors, who often have not even properly read the story, let alone carefully considered it; they are certainly not fact-checked, which makes them by definition not reliable sources. -- Zsero (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not our role as Wiki editors to combine, interpret or judge sources. The articles are there. The headlines are there. All reliably sourced.I do not find any of the arguments put forth above to be legitimate cause for disregarding this peice of Bush history. The discussion we should be having is not whether it is a legitimate point for the article but rather, how do we want to word it so that it is fair, accurate and has context to the article as a BLP. -- — Kbob • Talk • 00:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Headlines are not reliable sources. Ever. -- Zsero (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is above: "Though never having explicitly answered questions concerning past marijuana use, Bush has made tacit admissions that he has used the drug, saying his refusal to answer questions were out of concern that he would serve as a poor role model." or we could back it off a bit to "When questioned on past usage of cocaine and marijuana Bush would neither confirm or deny use. His stated reason for not answering is that he didn't want kids trying "what I did."--Louiedog (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Patently unacceptable. POV-ladened wordiness, coddled together with original research, which seeks to grind the axe. Pass. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Queen's evaluation of your proposal but I do think it needs to be cut back a bit and summarized. I would suggest a sentence like this: "Bush has never explicitly answered questions about his alleged marijuana usage" (we can find a better word than alleged, but you get the idea) Just something simple. No need to go into the tacit admissions and kids thing. What section to you propose that this be placed in?-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you must have something about this, how about:

"While questions have arisen regarding Bush's potential use of marijuana, he has refused to address the matter."

Seems basically factual, based on the few reliable sources that have been found. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources might be based on a tape laden with quotes from George W Bush about George W Bush... how many sources do we really need at that point? This is pooling down to a Birther argument, we have a tape with recorded conversations from Bush here. Not second hand information, not a white house aide saying something, but George W Bush talking about himself. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, this certainly qualifies. RTRimmel (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"While questions have arisen regarding Bush's potential use of marijuana and cocaine, he has refused to address the matter, offering his reasoning as, 'You know why? 'Cause I don't want some little kid doing what I tried'"--Louiedog (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If we can mention that he won't answer questions, surely it's worth it to mention why.--Louiedog (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, another source from the BBC: "Bush hinted at use of marijuana: Private discussions held by George W Bush before he became president suggest he used marijuana, but would not admit it for fear of setting a bad example."--Louiedog (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, another source New York Times: "But when Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything."--Louiedog (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, nope. Why on earth do you seek to have the last bit included? QueenofBattle (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because its important? RTRimmel (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it's true, notable, and relevant. Why on earth would you seek to have the last bit excluded?--Louiedog (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How about, "While Bush was concerned about his wild youth and alleged use of illicit drugs would prevent him from running a successful Presidentail campaign, the overall effect of the allegations were not sufficient to stop his 2000 campaign. During the 2004 elections private tapes with quotes from Bush including "Hey daddy, President Bush tried marijuana, I think I will" brought the issue to a head, however Bush has refused to comment publicly on the matter. The tapes were later turned over to Bush." Remember, the reliable source that was found was a series of quotes from George W Bush on the matter of his alleged drug abuse, not some conjecture based on something half heard across a room. Then throw a link over to the substance abuse controversy and move on. If what George W Bush said is true about George W Bush, and I'm beginning to agree with some of the editors here that George W Bush might have an axe to grind with George W Bush, then he's just another US president smoking the wacky weed, like Clinton, Obama, and 1 in 3 other Americans...RTRimmel (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll treat the last suggestion as humor, as to take it seriously is beyond reasonable expectation... QueenofBattle (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is it unreasonable?--Louiedog (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Because, appearntly, Queen believes that George W Bush is not a credible source. RTRimmel (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. More like I don't believe you liberals should be trying to use anyone's words against that person in an attempt to discredit that someone. RT, you really don't see what's wrong with your suggestion? Really?! QueenofBattle (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Really. I admire your exhaustive efforts to defend certain otherwise indefensible situations, muddying topics that are clear etc, but much like secret torture memos that you were unaware of, this is of some importance and the why of it is of some importance. RTRimmel (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Easy you guys. The debate here should be on merits of the argument, not the editors.

That said, "unreasonable" is the conclusion of an argument, not the argument itself. Please explain what parts of it you deem to be unreasonable and we can incorporate your concerns into what gets inserted into the article.--Louiedog (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this suggested sentence from Queen is OK:

"While questions have arisen regarding Bush's potential use of marijuana, he has refused to address the matter."

I know that it seems very understated to some of the editors here but we have to use extra care with Biographies of Living Persons. WP:BLP says: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." So while I am in favor of including the topic in the article, I am also in favor of making the sentence a conservative one, especially because his MJ usage has not been clearly established by multiple reliable sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

KBob has summarized my concerns fairly well. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And wrong. The Weed tapes clearly have Bush addressing this. He refused to deny remember. So how about this. Though I'd stick in a few more sentences discussing Bush's thoughts on Bush concerning this, fortunately we have a good set of quotes form him about him.

"Questions have arisen regarding Bush's potential use of marijuana, however Bush has refused to deny the allegations."

RTRimmel (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1 for navigability

No. You are mischaracterising the tape; he continues his long-standing policy of refusing to address any allegations about personal misdeeds in his past, and explains why. He does not confirm or deny anything. And that is also why I object to Queen's sentence; the questions that were raised, and which he repeatedly refused to address, were not just about marijuana but also cocaine and who knows what else, and that was precisely his point: he was not going to allow the press to go on a fishing expedition, by throwing all sorts of unfounded questions at him and seeing which ones he denies and which he doesn't. Instead he refused to answer any question unless it could be framed in a way that gave it some foundation.

Thus, when asked whether he could have passed the FBI screening to join his father's administration he answered that yes, he could; this implied that if there was any drug use in his past it must have been no later than a certain date, but it said nothing about whether there had been any use before then. And naturally the press ran with this as some sort of admission that he had used drugs before that date! That ridiculous reaction is surely all the evidence one needs that his policy of neither confirming nor denying anything was correct.

All the Wead tape adds is confirmation that the reason he didn't want to start down the path of denying allegations is that there is some potential allegation that he would not be able to deny honestly. It can be taken to indicate that that question would be about marijuana, but it's also possible that this was merely an example, and his true concern was something he didn't even want to mention. We just don't know, and without telepathy we can't know, and we can't explain all that without a paragraph so long that it would give the whole thing way too much weight. That is why I say we shouldn't address it at all; any sentence short enough to justify inclusion will inevitably be inaccurate and unfair, because the truth is genuinely complicated. -- Zsero (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

An impressive 3 paragraph rationaliztion for WP:Whitewashing the situation. I love how you can determine what is 'implied' in the second paragraph, but everyone else, including all the WP:RS who 'implied' anything are obviously wrong. The we must have a "paragraph so long that it would give the whole thing way to much weight" about this is also a good setup, we could just pop in a sentence and head over to the daughter article but its probably best not to mention it at all per your logic. If the WP:RS even remotely backed this viewpoint I suppose I could see it... but they don't so unless you can pull some out that are more credible than the ones already available I suppose that all you can hope to do is tell everyone its not important and hope they move on. Good luck. RTRimmel (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotta love that RTRimmel. Just when we once again may be getting to a reasonable and collaborative compromise, he stomps his feet, holds his breath, and pitches a tantrum to get things his way. As has been said before, with BLPs we should tread very lightly. That means no reading into anything and no inferences. Just what the words say. I think (and KBob thinks) that my proposed wording does that. So that's the proposal on the table. What say thee fellow editors? QueenofBattle (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I quote... "he stomps his feet, holds his breath, and pitches a tantrum to get things his way". On the basis of these overly childish remarks I nominate user:QueenofBattle for speedy deletion. I know it says sandbox up there somewhere, but they weren;t thinking to attract children you know.

Let's get back to constructive suggestions. "While questions have arisen regarding Bush's potential use of marijuana and other substances, he has refused to confirm or deny any such questions." I personally think it would be a good idea to also include one of his quotes which explain why he refuses to answer and we can just quote him directly so there's no fear of personal interpretation.--Louiedog (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Louiedog, here my issue with that. Wikipedia (like every encyclopedia) is about letting the reader decide. So attempting to address concerns over incorrect personal interpretation seems to be overreaching to me. Personal interpretation will always happen; we all do it. The very fact that we are having this discussion illustrates that no matter what is written, someone will read it the "wrong" way. That's why contract lawyers and plaintiff's attorneys are so stinking rich. Each and every word is subject to personal interpretation. Hell, even the word "is" can't just be "is" anymore. So, here I think less words are better, to avoid being titillating. I am now pursuaded by your original proposal to have something in the BLP about this, but I firmly believe that something should be a very little something. QueenofBattle (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, no direct quotes should ever be included because they could be potentially misread. It's not our responsibility to enforce our reader's interpretation of direct quotes; they're on their own. It is our responsibility to not interpret the quotes for ourselves, especially if WP:RS have already done it.--Louiedog (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No Useless trivia has no place in wikipedia. The people in this day and age who have not tried marijuana would be the exception to the rule. It's as silly as the GW Bush Pretzel incident. Or, should we include on the William Clinton article, that he tried it as well. And in the Barack Obama article, should we add in he experimented with cocaine? No. It's trivia. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It IS in the Bill Clinton article and the the Obama article (including his cocaine use). This is the first thing I mentioned when I raised the issue. This is not trivia and we shouldn't pretend that it is. The BBC, New York Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press report it as notable. BCC says: "Bush said that his refusal to answer questions about illegal drugs might cost him the 2000 election." Yeah. Trivia.--Louiedog (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But let's get back to the point: what's to be included. Can we at least agree on reality before proposing how to word it? I submit that the following are true facts:

Bush has been asked about marijuana use and cocaine use.
When given questions about these substances and others, Bush has neither denied nor confirmed his using them.
Bush has refused to answer the questions because he worried about the example it would set for kids contemplating drug use, saying he wouldn't answer even if it cost him the election.

Can we agree on that?--Louiedog (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Louie for being specific and making an attempt to summarize and build a basis for consensus. I find that progress is made when editors are civil and talk in specifics. I am not familiar with the exact content of the sources in this case so I cannot confirm your points above. But assuming that those basic points come from reliable sources like the sources mentioned in prior talk above, (ie. BBC and the NY Times etc.) then I am in favor of including these points in a one or two sentence summary that is conservatively worded. I am not very much in favor of quotes as they are often taken out of context and can create POV see WP:QUOTE But if we can't get consensus on a summary version than we might be stuck with putting in a quote, but I hope that doesn't happen. I would support either of these sentences:

Questions have arisen regarding Bush's potential use of marijuana and he has refused to address the matter.
Bush has refused to confirm or deny allegations about his potential use of marijuana.

I would also not be opposed to adding a second sentence like this one below, assuming there are solid sources to support it:

When asked about the matter Bush refused to answer, saying that he worried about the example it might set for children. -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I base my assertions on what's been written by journalists in: the NY Times piece, the BBC piece, and a piece from the Associated Press.--Louiedog (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No. - The information is only an allegation, and it is already covered fairly extensively in the fork article on GWB substance abuse, which is linked from this article. - Crockspot (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fork articles should be summarized in the articles from which they fork as per Wikipedia:Summary style. Which of the above statements do you contest? Clearly his actual drug use is an allegation, but you don't debate his refusal to answer as such, do you?--Louiedog (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that information in a 'forked' article should be represented in summarized form in the main article. I also assert that allegations that are well documented in reliable sources like the BBC and NY Times should be included in the article in a responsible and conservatively worded way per guidelines for BLP ie. WP:WELLKNOWN which states:

Well-known public figures: In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.-- — Kbob • Talk • 11:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

*Questions have arisen regarding Bush's potential use of marijuana and he has refused to address the matter.

My issue with this point is that Bush has privately addressed this in the Weed tapes, though he has not publicly addressed it. Now he discussed drug use, his rational behind not talking about it, and a few other choice bits, so I feel that simply saying that he has refused to address it doesn't accurately represent his position. Of course, if we stated "he has refused to publicly address the matter" that leaves the question of his private response. RTRimmel (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

"The matter" is terribly sloppy language. Which "matter"? He has refused to address actual drug use. He has *not* refused to address the addressing of drug use, i.e. he has addressed his refusal to answer drug questions.--Louiedog (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the word 'matter' is vague, what can we change to make it more specific and acceptable so that we can have consensus? suggestions?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2 for navigability

I'd just like to include the 3 facts above, assuming one disputes them: "When asked questions about past illicit drug use, Bush has consistently refused to answer. He defended his refusal to answer in a casual conversation with a friend saying that he feared setting a bad example for the youth.--Louiedog (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)"

One does dispute them, and the presentation of the "facts". This is past the point of just too much mishy, mashy, wiggly, wobbly language for an encyclopedia. We are trying to take a entirely non-notable piece of square trivia peg and fit it into the POV-shaped round hole. Let's see:

"When asked questions [by whom] about [insert "alleged"??] past illicit [POV; there is no source that says any drug usage by Bush was "illicit"] drug use [experimentation? addiction? Who knows?], Bush has consistently [consistently? He hasn't been consistently asked, how could he consistently refuse?] refused to answer. He defended his refusal to answer in a casual conversation [heresay] with a friend saying that he feared setting a bad example for the youth [what "youth"? Hitler youth? Stalin youth? Obama's youth squads?].

I think it's time to move on from this. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Point by point:

1. He was asked questions by numerous reporters over the course of his career as a politician like any politician has to do for his personal life. (Wead only asked why he never answered before.) This is clearly implied and I don't see how failure to identify any of the specific reporters is POV.

2. He wasn't asked "did you allegedly do drugs?", he was asked "did you do drugs". The allegedness is subsumed into the fact that the question's answer is not known when it's asked! We'll include the "alleged" if you want, but I personally think it's more damning and POV against him to leave it in: it makes the statement "someone has alleged this against Bush", which "Bush was asked if he did drugs" never makes!

3. Illicit = illegal, which encompasses marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy and all the other substances he was asked about. Unless you're contesting that Bush has been asked about marijuana use and all questions were only about legal drugs.

4. "Drug use" is nonspecific intentionally. It doesn't mean "experimentation"/"addiction"/"only off a hooker's body" and no reasonable reader would infer one of those specificities from the word "use". The blanket word covers what he was asked about without needing the hypothetical "day in the life of druggie Bush" details.

5. Semantics. If I'm asked once every two years if I'm a male and every time I answer "yes", it's a consistent answer. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consistent "consistent: free from variation or contradiction".

6. It's NOT hearsay because the whole point is it was taped "hearsay".

7. Yes. He wanted the Hitler Youth to not do drugs. That's what everyone reads out of that sentence.

--Louiedog (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And stepping back, which of the three posited facts above do you dispute #1, #2, or #3?--Louiedog (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

All of them. There are very few "facts" in life. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

?? To be clear, you are now officially disputing that he's ever been asked questions about drug usage.--Louiedog (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I think you might want to slow up a bit, as you seem to be getting a little tangled up in all this. I'm not officially disputing anything. You asked about those "facts" I disputed, but we have yet to establish that they are all, in fact, facts. You have unilaterally declared them all as facts, which is best avoided. Let's see:

1. "...asked questions by numerous [which ones? what qualifies as "numerous"?] reporters ...", "This is clearly implied...[oops, be careful; nothing is clearly implied by the text we have];

2 "The allegedness is subsumed into the fact that the question's answer is not known when it's asked!" I'm not even sure of your point, but you are correct in that each time the question is asked, it is done so because the questioner doesn't know the answer, hence by his question he makes an allegation. But, there is no fact that Bush did drugs, only allegations, so it's best to include that these are merely allegations.

3. I'd steer clear of the "oh, that's just semantics" thread. Never has a logical arguement been advanced by attempting to dismiss something as semantics.

4. Well, good. At least we established a clear link from GWB to Hitler, the creepy use of the term "the youth" aside.

So, prove to us the facts, and then we can proceed to step two. QueenofBattle (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Definetly weasel territory there. Other examples include "waterboarding is widely considerd a form of torture" Which of course was your suggestion, and I'd love to read your rationalization between why that was good and this is bad. We can just leave off numerous. The sources support it well enough without unnecessary words.

2. Inserting alleged is fine, unnecesary but fine.

3. Yes, but he was asked and always gave the same response which is why they have a word for it, that word is consistant. The correct form in the sentence in question is consistently. The reliable sources point to that. Several use the word consistent or consistently in front of Bush's answers.

4. You did bring it up. But 'the youth' is a direct quote from Bush. In wiki-land, ours is not a job to interpret, ours is a job to present what the RS say.

So with those adressed we can finally post this? RTRimmel (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder again if you are interested in collaboration or in advancing some whiney liberal agenda. Me thinks clearly the later. Do whatever the f*@k you'd like; you win and I give. I am now officially on a Wikibreak from this, you people have worn me out, and I've got more pressing matters than fending off socialism at Wikipedia. Obamakin and the czars are doing a fine job of digging a hole themselves, being helped by the former Nutjob One. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What? Seriously? Your position flip flops so obiously flip flops between whether information is pro or con conservative it's funny, but yes, You figured me out. I'm secretly in the pay of the vast left wing conspiracy to use wikipedia's polices to put information backed by WP:RS on the relevant articles. Your efforts to remove such information is almost as obvious as your efforts to include it. And learn what socialism is before calling it on placing sourced information on articles. Bluntly, if you get all your information from listening to Limbaugh and Beck you live in a very sad little world. 12.50.240.66 (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont be an ass. IF you live in a sad little word dont drag other people in it.

"When asked questions about past alleged illicit drug use, Bush has consistently refused to answer. He defended his refusal to answer in a casual conversation with a friend saying that he feared setting a bad example for the youth/younger generation/kids."

How's that?--Louiedog (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Good job, excellent grammar, and creative wording. Carry on. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no interest in "winning" from exhaustion. I'd prefer to get everyone to agree to something, even if no one is completely happy. It makes us all less frustrated in the end and prevents future editing conflicts when we get it right the first time.--Louiedog (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are really dissatisfied with "youth" for phrases you believe to be associated with it, for example, I don't think anyone would have a problem changing it to "children".

I mean there are a lot of other places to go with this, the fact that he commented on other drugs, the fact that he explicitly said he hadn't denied cocaine use or that many secondary sources interpret his statement to be admissions, but I think what we have here is a good conservatively worded compromise inclusion.--Louiedog (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bluntly, from the attitudes of certain editors, I doubt a compromise is going to happen. Queen's compromise was its removal, and his constant references to it being a liberal agenda related whatever shows how serious he was about it. As were several other editors. Given the addition is so solidly backed in policy that its just silly. I think what is there is enough, its not worth more than a paragraph, and what is currently proposed is fine. 12.50.240.66 (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

All the same, anon, let's leave it for a day for any last objections, given how contentious this has been.--Louiedog (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No you are wrong 12.50.240.66. Queens compromise was to add a short sentence that other people stated to expand upon. You need to get the facts right before you pop offf.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.220.252 (talk • contribs)

Anon, please sign your posts with 4 tildas like so: ~~~~. Thanks.--Louiedog (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also OK with the sentence proposed above. I vote for using the word 'youth' a the end of the sentence.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got "younger generation" in there now. I think "youth" is less ambiguous but concerns have been raised about associations with the word. I personally think of Christian or Jewish community youth groups and ~~Bob Marley's~~ Peter Tosh's "You can't blame the youth", and google brings up the Matisyahu song. Other opinions?--Louiedog (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)