Talk:Bush League
The history of this article actually part of a case study, so this commentary doesn't belong just in talk but in Bush League (Wikipedia) where it is now. I leave it in place here though for those of you who want to continue the debate itself:
This article was censored from Wikipedia, similarly to Bush Knew, at about the same time, by the same zealous defenders of neutral point of view. Exact quotes from the "Talk file" discussion, where a single issue of a disputed fact (who the Taliban met) becomes an excuse for a broader challenge beginning with an appeal to the NPOV:
- Don't attribute bias to those of us who want to keep Wikipedia NPOV. -- Zoe
- You don't know what NPOV is, and you certainly can't apply it to controversial material. The correct test is "is this article useful to either side of the debate?" - and in its original form, the article as written isn't.
- I am simply asking you to provide substantial documentation and references for the very contentious claims you have made. I have already pointed out several errors of fact in your article, for example: that Bush had anything to do with the Taleban coming to Texas in '97. In fact, the Taleban met with Bridas and Unocal representatives, NOT the Bush family or companies.
- This is the ONLY correction you have made, and it's accepted. That should say 'reputed' as well. But the common investment interests with the bin Laden family, and strong Osama-Taliban links, makes this another strong circumstantial link.
- I suggest that you go read Taliban by Ahmed Rashid. Your statement that evidence of conspiracy is easy to find unfortunately doesn't qualify as evidence itself. Only irrefutable proof counts.
- If I wished to provide 'irrefutable proof' on matters of history, I'd be wasting my time talking to AxelBoldt, who also applies such irrational and censorious standards.
- Put up or shut up. Let's see links to magazine articles from respectable publications which document substantial connections of Bush to the events you brought up. Chadloder 03:40 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
- Easily found with any web search. I'm out of time here. Goodbye.
Remember many Wiki sites use CIA factbooks (though if these 'facts' are in any way indicating the level of CIA 'knowledge' God help America! I've spent ages correcting basic 'facts' that are garbage!). Does the fact that Wiki uses CIA stuff (and I for one wished it didn't. Can we ban it?) does that make Wiki by extension linked to the nazis? I have no time for Bush or baby Bush now in the White House, but linking him to nazis is going too far. It is paranoia gone mad! Even if grandad Bush had such links, that is no evidence to be levelled against later Bushs.
- That is not the logic about family values that applies in most of the world.
Whatever value there was in the original article is completely lost by over the top claims, dodgy links and a blatent agenda. NPOV offers facts, not agenda-led propaganda, which invariably backfires, as this article clearly does. JTD 03:42 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
- Backfires against what? The article is not useful to Bush proponents nor opponents in its original form, which is the closest to NPOV one can hope for. It had exactly one flaw, that being the accusation of a proven lnk between Bush and the Taliban. However, it didn't bother to make the point that the G. W. Bush administration was sending money to the Taliban 'to eradicate poppies'.
A True NPOV article is one that is useful to neither side of the given debate.
Remove all the facts that make the story hang together, and the list shortly looks like an accusation, rather than an observation, of the associations of the persons involved. Which were BTW voluntary - no one has to deal with such people - and yes *some* of the individuals involved clearly have violent natures, e.g. Saddam Hussein
Note calls for "irrefutable proof" - clearly raising standard of evidence. Also note odd calls to make the article "useful" to one side or the other - of course if it did either side would call it "not neutral" - crazy-making.
I deleted most of the content of this page -- some of which was wild allegations & the remainder a list of people tangentially (at best) 'linked' to Bush. pared list down to direct family. Removed dead link from ext links. -- bob
