Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:10, 23 January 2005

George W. Bush and Hatfield's allegations

Someone has restored the section you have repeatedly removed, so I've edited it to clarify the source of the allegations. Hatfield said he confirmed the cocaine bust story with unnamed sources close to the Bush family. Not having the sources, and without any records to support the story, we cannot say whether Hatfield's allegations are true or false. They're plausible, however, and not something that should just be kicked under the carpet.

Rather than a partisan approach, Misplaced Pages adopts a neutral point of view (NPOV). The essence of this can be expressed as follows: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves". The founder, Jimmy Wales. has described the neutral point of view principle on Misplaced Pages as "non-negotiable". It's a rule we must all follow as contributors.

If as appears to me you are fairly new to Misplaced Pages, you may find this a little difficult to get used to, but I urge you to watch how talk pages are used to iron out differences of opinion so that a form of words that conforms to NPOV can be found. If you have problems with the current form of words--for instance, you seem to be concerned that allegations are being treated as facts rather than opinions--please join the discussion on Talk:George W. Bush. We should be able to work something out without engaging in edit wars. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Plausible doesn't cut it

I disagree in regards to the George Bush article. J.H. Hatfield's book has no proven facts, only assertions and inuendo. Therefore, in an effort to be NPOV I still continue to state that the reference to this book and the allegations of cocaine use by President George Bush are not what I can say are good examples of NPOV. They are instead placed in the article purely from the standpoint of POV and that POV is an effort to slander, not an effort to educate. With that much said, and in light of the fact that I obviously have a serious difference in perspective with the major contributors to the George Bush article, I would like to clearly state that I feel that this one point is only a minute part of the problem with that article. I feel that the entire article is rubbish and beyond any hope of repair because the major contributors are those that have a POV of dislike of George Bush to an extreme and it is impossible for them to adopt a NPOV. --MONGO|Talk

I've already laid out the essence of NPOV for you. It's "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves." So in my edit to the restored paragraph about Hatfield's allegations I gave more background detail (the circulated email discussed in Salon, the three people close to the Bush family that Hatfield claimed acknowledged the story of the alleged coke bust and coverup). The section also contains information about the revelations about Hatfield's felony conviction, which effectively killed his credibility and probably led to his suicide. I do this because it constituted a significant investigation of moderately serious allegations about George W. Bush's early adult life; to leave it out would be a serious omission.

If you think I've got the balance of facts, or facts about opinions, wrong, feel free to obtain more facts, or facts about opinions, and add them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discrediting Hatfield

Jeez... are we writing an article about George Bush here or someone else? I don't care to further discredit Hatfield, he did that for himself, and wrote the book just to make a buck...would anyone buy it if he didn't have slander to sell? The article isn't worthy of any credit as far as being a worthwhile enterprise of research...it is just too leftist, angry and well, the main contributors are biased beyond hope. --MONGO|Talk

Could you explain which parts of the article you think are leftist and which parts appear to be angry? I have to admit that the article seems to my tastes to be, if anything, a little dry, but is refreshingly free of the hectoring tones of left and right partisan propaganda. But if you could give an example perhaps we could discuss it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Leftist redundancy

Tony...let's explain so you understand...I think this entire GEORGE BUSH article reeks of leftist redundancy and I am not going to detail it for you. I can say that I would NEVER recommend this source as a point of reference for anyone doing legitimate research on George Bush. I stated that there are published articles, books and related material that portray Adolph Hitler as a different man than the one we know to be true and that these articles are so ridiculous that we would never even mention them on any Wiki page about that man. We accept Hitler as the one of the biggest mistakes of evolution and as a matter of providing a factual based accord of his misdeeds, these published books which cast him in a completely different light and are without basis in fact, are OMITTED. But this rule doesn't apply for the major contributors to the George Bush article. Repeatedly, ad nauseum, references are made that attempt to show that George Bush is a cocaine user or at least was, that he is still a drunk and these references are all from questionable sources. My opponents in this seem to think that the allegations are admissible based on the fact that someone said them...and therefore follow WIKI rules...I say, they are to be OMITTED because they are of a questionable source that has no PROOF and unless it can be shown to be TRUE, they have no place here. I say that they are in the article because the major contributors are leftist and are anti Bush and therefore there is no hope they can be swayed. --MONGO 13:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea for writing an encyclopedia--omit all opinions that are not provable--but would be rather difficult to implement. We wouldn't be able to report Adolf Hitler's belief that the Jews were an inferior race because that cannot be proven. We wouldn't be able to report on any politicians' opinions at all except perhaps very old ones and then only that portion of their beliefs that had been proven true by events. The allegations of criminal conduct by President Clinton and Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater scandal? Special Prosecutor Ray reported to Congress: "This office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." The Whitewater allegations could not stand in a court of law, so we could not report them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:33, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Haven't you heard of Hitler's book Mein Kamph? Perhaps it wasn't spoken that Hitler was anti semtic, but it certainly was spoken that he believed the "Aryan" peoples to be superior to all others. The whitewater scandal is like comparing a mountain to an anthill to the alleged cocaine use by George Bush. Sure, it was proven that there was reasonable doubt that the Clintons had nothing to do with the allegations yet it is reported because it is of a different magnitude. Grand jury investigations, millions and millions of your tax dollars, special prosecutors sure do sound to me to be a little bit more serious than the writings of a convicted felon whose book was pulled from shelfs and a known leftist enterprise such as Salon which has operated on a narrow margin, needs money or attention and has an axe to grind. --MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it...at all. This article is a worthless rag and the only place it is acceptable is here. I'm not going to discuss it any further and you can say whatever you wish as my opinion is different which means that since it is in opposition to yours, we are at an impasse. It is unfortunate that preposterous rubbish like this can be used in what is to be considered a point of reference and is, along with a considerable more unsubstantiated baloney, included in this article.--MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers and books use confidential sources all the time. That's usually the only way to get the dirt -- otherwise nobody would talk. It's an accepted, legitimate practice in journalism. By all means, discredit it (in NPOV language of course), but it was a big enough controversy that it needs to be included. Timbo ( t a l k ) 19:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should not surprise me (although it does) that you can characterize Salon as any kind of leftist enterprise. Goodness, if you ever found a copy of New Statesman, you'd run out of words to describe it. As for The Morning Star, you'd be absolutely speechless. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I find CBS news to be leftist. I consider all of Hollywood to be leftist. I consider Micheal Moore to be a scary leftist. I do not fear these people, but in fact, I think they are extremists. If you read my user page, and fail to see that I set it up to be preposterous, then you miss my point. Folks that call the George Bush article good editing or sound research, folks like Michael Moore and loud mouthed Hollywood types that need to stick to acting, make people like me become MORE conservative. On a political spectrum, our country is far more liberal than it was even 20 years ago. Kennedy would have definitely been to the right of Clinton. Truman would have been to the right of Kennedy, Wilson would have been to the right of Truman. That modern day hollywood types and leftist rags can refer to Bush as an ultra conservative is absurd. He is only so in light of modern politics and would have been a liberal if he held the same perspectives even 50 years ago. He is, however far right of anyone since Reagan, though probably not more so. --MONGO 07:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slanders

It wasn't that big a controversy....the fact that the slanders were ever published were the controversy or did you sleep through that part when the "big story broke". --MONGO 21:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend you visit Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette and Misplaced Pages:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. You're not going to convince other people that you're right by being patronizing and rude. I hope you can separate yourself from your political persuasion and actually contribute constructively. Timbo ( t a l k ) 21:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, let's see, I didn't think I was hot or rude, quite the contrary. I feel that the warnings and etc. I have gotten such as this from you are rude as I don't remember going into your talk page and handing out advice on courtesy. I fail to see how the slander that constitutes the George Bush article is anything other than the political persuasion of the far left and fail to see how the incorporation of so much inuendo and heresay makes for good reporting. Perhaps it is the likes of your political persuasion that won't allow you to edit the article with a NPOV, not mine. As I mentioned, I consider this an impossible impasse.--MONGO 10:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's a self-fulfilling prophesy. Unless you assume good faith, there's no way you'll be able to work with others. You might be surprised to hear this, but you can't rewrite the article to suit your own POV. This is a community. Timbo ( t a l k ) 17:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can rewrite the article to fit my POV because I choose to eliminate National Enquirer type of reporting which is not quantifable and not pertainent except to those that wish to see Bush slandered. It is you and the leftist that seem to think that only their misconceptions are valid. I encourage you to switch your battle to the main discussion pages of the article on George Bush rather than continue to make private personal attacks here in my user page.--MONGO 20:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is your user talk page. An item written here is a way of communicating with you on a one-to-one basis, and is commonly used for dealing with interpersonal stuff such as reminding a user of Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette.

This article can be edited by anyone, they don't even have to be a logged in user, and yet you claim that it shows what you call an extreme leftist bias. How does that work? Is everybody who works on this article, or even the majority, a "leftist"? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, this has become a tit for tat and as I have said before, it is an impossible impasse. I'm sure you won't change your mind because of anything I say, and I know nothing you have to say will change mine. In my eyes, the article is written with a bias and that bais is left wing. I can't make it any more simple than that. I don't know if the majority of those that work on the article are leftist. I do know that the folks that seem to be protecting the existing document, based on what their user pages state, and on their commentary are not centrist and they sure aren't conservative. Being liberal isn't a bad thing, I am the last person to truly condemn it. But I am in disagreement with that perspective because I think it to be short sighted and unrealistic. --MONGO 06:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)