While it is recognized that many do not like the Wikipedia approach to information because of the ability of anyone to edit or modify entries, in truth our children are using Widipedia as a source of educational material, whether we like it or not.
I would like to point out that there are subtle semantically manipulated entries which tend to absolve or minimize the responsibility of the Bush-Cheney administration for Iraq. This is not only apparent in the Wikipedia article titled, "George W. Bush," but also in the article "2003 invasion of Iraq."
This manipulation, or swiftboating, of our immediate history came to my attention while looking for information about the Bush-Cheney Doctrine of preemptive war. When I noticed that that doctrine was not included in the overview, I added a sentence at the end of the paragraph dealing with the subject in the George W. Bush history. The next morning I noticed my addition had been removed, and looking at the "History" found it had been removed within about 3 minutes after I had posted it. So I replaced the sentence, and went to the "Discussion" are to see if there was any relative discussion. Near bottom of the "Discussion" area there was a discussion of the article’s "Pro-Bush Bias." The back and forth changing and discussion are continuing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
I encourage those who care to visit Wikipedia and look at topics with which they are familiar and keep the histories and interpretations honest. If you are not a Wikipedia editor, then please register as one. We do not need the history to be manipulated as the "Swiftboaters" did Senator John Kerry’s military record during the 2004 campaign.
Pro-Bush bias
Please note that I do not belong to any political party, nor do I support any party. I do realize this probably comes up relatively often, but if this is brought up a lot, the frequency should definitely show there is a problem.
The tone of the article definitely feels more like it glorifies George Bush. I noticed that, for the most part, that it labels much more of the negative comments as "alleged," and the supportive comments as if they could not be contested. Obviously, some of the criticism of Bush has no basis, and some of the positive aspects are certainly valid, but this article is much more supportive of Bush than it is objective.
I'm not particularly supportive of Bush, but I always try to approach politics with a neutral standpoint. I can't claim to be completely unbiased (very, very few people can), but I have actively supported neutrality in politics for many years, and have had a lot of practice blocking out my bias. I strongly urge the editors of this article to take a better look at this article, and try to make a more fair assessment of George Bush's presidency. 66.41.202.126 (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Please specify examples of bias in favor of President Bush in this article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Why was my comment here in TALK about why the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war removed from this discussion and the article George W. Bush? That alone makes me think that someone is filtering out any thing that might reflect negatively on the Bush-Cheney Administration. DuBose (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what your comment was, but if it was not a suggestion or part of a discussion solely for improving the article, it was removed for that reason. As for your contribution to the article, it has to be referenced in order to be included in the article, as this is a "good article".--Abusing (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a subtle threading to minimize the man's failures and maximize his accomplishments, that's my opinion. Factually, lets look at the Hurricane Katrina section. The most noteworthy, often repeated, comment is Bush's quote of "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." Its ironic, because by any standard the job he did was miserable. I saw that sentence in the article awhile ago and moved on, much like Mission Accomplished its a point of criticism around the president, Mission Accomplished (one of the focal points of Bush criticism is buried half way down the article, removed from the lead). Its also not in the section anymore because someone removed it. A sentence was left in the lead stating Truman had the lowest approval ratings in history for days. I replaced it with Bush's record highest disapproval and it was moved out of the lead within hours. The word signifcantly was added before Bush's economic performance in 2003, and the source didn't support that. I don't think there is an obvious hacking, but the subtle minimization of valid criticism makes Bush out to be better than he is. People are quick to jump on the articles of NPOV when anything hints of Bush's failures, but the same voices remain silent with anything pro-Bush comes in. I dislike the double standard. RTRimmel (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, for starters, the section on No Child Left Behind shows it in a much more positive light than it should. The only evidence given supporting it as a success is test scores, and that is a very poor indicator that it is actually working. One of the major problems is that some schools don't have the money to hire proper teachers and decent supplies. Due to the financial problem those schools have, they are unable to teach their students well enough to raise test scores. The No Child Left Behind act denies funding to underperforming schools, which causes the schools who don't have the financial ability to adequately teach their students to get even worse. Also, I have been personally effected by school funding issues. The No Child Left Behind act doesn't address the major problem, which is that schools don't have enough money, even after funding through No Child Left Behind. My high school had one of the best music programs for public schools in the state (in the top five I believe), and they had to consider severely cutting funding for the music program because of their financial issues. this is after shortening school schedules, laying off teachers, and many other money saving actions. This was only a couple years ago, NCLB was well established by then, and my school's test scores were well above average. There are also many other factors harming education in the country that NCLB doesn't address, such as lowered standards to help make schools look better.
Well I'm sorry to hear about your school and your own personal loss, however Wikipedia has a strict policy that does not allow original research, meaning that all content in this encylcopedia needs to have come from third party, reliable sources. So if you can find a source for the funding issues, then some reference to it may deserve a mention. With that citation, you may also want to check out the No Child Left Behind Act article. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
-In the area where it says "... and has said that he has consistently noted that global warming is a serious problem..." consistently should be taken out, as his stance on it was never very consistent. In the citation, the president himself is the one who said he consistently said so, and that isn't a reliable source, considering politicians will say that kind of thing to save face.
Agreed, and I've changed the article to reflect such. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
-In the sentence "Despite emphasizing safeguards and remaining open to other plans, Democrats attacked the proposal to partially privatize the system." Attacked should be replaced with opposed. Attacked has a more negative nature, and therefore adds a more supportive feel to the the proposal. A more colorful vocabulary isn't as important as showing neutrality here.
Agreed, and I've changed the article to reflect such. Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
-In the sentence "Hurricane Katrina, which was one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history, struck early in Bush’s second term. the part saying "... which was one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history..." should be taken out, as it is not a fact, nor can it be proved.
Actually, it is a fact. See [3][4][5] Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
-The word alleged should be used with more care.
How so? Happyme22 (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I might be missing one thing or another, but my main point is that there are some things in the article that convey a sense of opinion instead of fact, and that some references should be checked. 66.41.202.126 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course neutrality is important. I am an administrator and principal author of the Ronald Reagan, Nancy Reagan and Pat Nixon articles (all featured) so I think I know a little something about NPOV. I do not think that the article is overtly biased in Bush's favor, however IP 66 raised some good points above and I thank him/her for doing so.
As for the Bush Doctrine in the lead: I have no problem inserting it into the lead, however the manner in which it was inserted, by User:DuBose, is unacceptable. Quote: "The Bush administration initiated the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war or "preventive" war in 2002 & 2003." First of all, the phrases Reagan Doctrine, Carter Doctrine or Nixon Doctrine are not encompassed by quotes, which implies a coined or unfamiliar term. Secondly, there is obvious anti-Bush POV, as the term preventive has quotes around it, but preemptive does not; that implies that preventive is a falsehood. Third, the war in Afghanistan began in 2001. Also, the word 'and' should be written out as 'and', not abbreviated as &. --Happyme22 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
If you don't like the grammar or punctuation, then fix it, but don't remove the information. The Bush Doctrine is a fact of history and is also documented in Wikipedia. I can not believe the bias that we are seeing here. Peace, DuBose (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it is is well documented in history, and you will see that the current page version reflects that. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely wrong; the sentence as it stands at this moment is a manipulation of the truth. In truth, preemptive war was the justification of the attack on Iraq, and was not due to 9/11. You are starting to do a swiftboating of this history. The preemptive war on Iraq was justified by false and misleading intelligence about WMDs in Iraq, which the UN weapons inspectors had repeatedly denied existed and begged the Bush-Cheney administration to tell them where these supposed WMDs were located. I reject your analysis as historically valid. DuBose (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've made no analysis as far as I know... the WMD controversy is discussed in the "Iraq" section. Happyme22 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a NASTY pro-Bush bias: there's a section titled "Civil liberties and terrorist detainees". That should, of course, be "Civil liberties and detention of alleged terrorists". One of the main issues is, in fact, the question of whether detainees are terrorists or not -- in many cases the only evidence that they are is allegations by the administration! It's quite true that "allegedly" is being used only for criticism of Bush in this article, and not when it is appropriate but would look bad for Bush. If you want to go further: "President Bush has consistently stated that the United States does not torture." Given the absolute proof that the United States has been torturing, cited in the Waterboarding article, that should be "has consistently claimed". 24.58.158.178 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is a statement by the president. Whether or not his statement is factually correct is up for debate. Think of it this way: the president gives statements to reporters, etc.; this was one of those statements. Happyme22 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The pro-Bush bias is clear and there is an attempt to manipulate the history here to exclude the Bush Doctrine, and the actual meaning of that doctrine. One time they remove something because it is not an exact quote, next they want to put in a milder statement that is also not a quote. They are starting to look like the swiftboaters... makes me wonder why they don't use their real names. DuBose (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's take a look at the article Bush Doctrine. In the introduction, it reads,
"The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, created in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq); a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism; and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way."
From this we gather that the doctrine was introduced after 9/11, not in 2003, to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, so that needs to be corrected. Furthermore, the article describing the Bush Doctrine uses the phrase 'preventive war' as opposed to 'preemptive war'. Since the article on Wikipedia that contains all details of the Bush Doctrine uses the word 'preventive' then that is the word that this article should use as well. Now I would like to remind everyone of WP:LEAD, which directs editors to make the lead a summary of the article and give each subject proper weight within it. Bogging down the lead about the Bush Doctrine and what it contains, why it was written, and what purpose it serves is not in our best interest, and especially not in the best interest of the article. It certainly deserves mention in the lead, however per WP:LEAD and WP:V, I propose something similar to this, which links to the article and gives readers something to click on to read more if they are interested, but saves the details for that article. It also keeps facts in check regarding the War on Terror and both invasions. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
While the article about "the Bush Doctrine uses the phrase 'preventive war' as opposed to 'preemptive war' (your words) may use the pharase "preventive war;" the fact remains that a Doctrine that advocates military action against other nations’ actions "before they are fully formed" requires a judgement call by the administration; and is a subtle difference of simatics in this context. Perhaps the descriptive term "premeditated" would be more appropiate.
The issue of documenting the cronology of the events is necessary in an encyclopediac history. The fact that the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, preemptive war, or premedited war was declaired or published on September 17, 2002, a year after 9/11, and six months before the invasion of Iraq is important to the history and how a reader may interprete what happened. To meld the relative time intervals tends to make the reader confuse or merge the premeditated invasion of Iraq with 9/11 and the military action against Osama Bin Laden in Afganistan... which is a manipulation of the history. Peace, DuBose (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)