Talk:Pierce Bush
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject University of Texas at Austin, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to The University of Texas at Austin, the people, history, and sports teams of the University, and promoting development of related articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  UT Portal |
The previous editor removed some comments of mine for being NPOV. While I have some issues with his/her editing (BESIDES the fact that he/she is not registered, and has never from the available IP address edited anything on Wikipedia previously -- he/she simply removed substantial and factual content) -- I DO understand the argument that my contribution could have been cleaner vis-a-vis NPOV.
Rather than just reverting, I substituted new wording, trying to clean up the issues he/she raised. I believe everything in the article/entry is now objectively factual.
I believe that EVERY statement (and edit) I made was factually accurate. I also believe that the tone and substance of the article, as a whole, IS accurate, fair, justified -- and ultimately meets the "NPOV" test.
A reputable encyclopedia might reasonably describe Abraham Lincoln as wise and a great leader, or Adolf Hitler as evil or paranoid - which descriptions would probably be accepted as NPOV.
(If there are counterexamples of Pierce Bush's intelligence, articulateness, loquacity, etc. -- they should ABSOLUTELY be submitted in an edit. In my experience looking at controversial pages/topics (e.g. Arab/Israeli conflict, Bill Clinton) it seems that the best end result happens when, rather than removing evidence of one "side's" position, another editor on the "other side" submits factual evidence that happens to be supportive of their viewpoint. (Perhaps better to give a fictitious example: "while President Foonagle was widely criticized by congressmen and senators from both parties for his handling of the Gribitz crisis (edit by an anti-Foonagle person, with a citation), he was also publicly praised by many in the media for his diplomatic resolution to the Telephone Sanitizer Strike of 2009, culminating with endorsements by a large majority of the top 100 newspapers in the 2012 campaign" (edit by a Foonagle fan; with a citation).
A Doon
- As I said in my edit comments, when a sentence includes the phrase "was apparently due to what was widely perceived" it doesn't belong. Additionally, I removed the Wonkette ranking because it seems irrelevant to this article. It's enough to quote what Wonkette said about Bush (which *is* relevant). Adding rankings as an appeal to importance tempts someone else to add a less flattering rankings, and then you've got a whole edit war that has nothing to do with this article. People can hit the Wonkette link to find out more about the context in which they should take the quote.
- You may want to review the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons page. Per the latest community-think, it seems like that the personal attacks stuff on Bush (the "to be explicitly honest" sentence) may be a no-no even for talk. Remember, this is a public encyclopedia and you're talking about a 20 year old college kid here.
- Also, just an FYI, you may find it more convenient to sign your talk posts with two dashes+three tildes (there's a toolbar shortcut for it)
- --67.101.67.215 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Several responses: (A) You make good points about my talk comments above, which I've cleaned up AND tried to present slightly better. (B) I put the Wonkette ranking in specifically to substantiate using the word "popular", which you've twice deleted. I won't re-revert that (or anything else) -- I just thought that readers (perhaps 20 years hence, even) may have NO clue what "Wonkette" is, and whether it's a blog read by hundreds of thousands and often quoted by, say, the Washington Post site (it is both) vs. some random obscure blog read only by the author's boyfriend and mom. So - my point was to BOTH provide a quote from a source AND to give the reader some context regarding that source - not to be NPOV about whether Wonkette is popular. (C) I get your point about personal attacks - again, I agree and edited my comments. (Yeah, I know, they're not actually gone, but I do what I can. ;-) As to the bit about him being a "20 year old college student" -- he's also a public figure (in the legal sense) and has invited public scrutiny and comment by and of his actions and intentional media appearance(s). Given the gleeful savagery with which the media go after entertainment celebs (of ANY age) AND political figures, no reasonable person in Mr. Bush's position could rationally expect his performance to go un-analyzed and un-critiqued. Now - I do NOT mean "criticized" - I mean critiqued - and this is not incompatible with NPOV.
Some entries that I think use similar language and/or style, which I think support my previous edit (or which you may want to go clean up! ;-)
- ) Farrah Fawcett: ...she received some negative "reviews" after giving a less-than-coherent interview on The Late Show with David Letterman. It was speculated that her rambling, incoherent manner was the result of drug abuse....she gained attention in the tabloid newspapers due to her haggard appearance, most likely due to excessive plastic surgery....She appeared frazzled at times....
- ) Bill Clinton: ...Clinton appointed the following justices to the Supreme Court, both now widely viewed as the most liberal members of the the court: (no citation)
And check out the entire article on Saturday Night Live (1990-1995).
My sins are minor. ;-)
Finally - you seem fairly experienced - why not either register (or, better yet, login).
A Doon 18:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, as you might guess, I'm going to respond that two wrongs don't make a right. As for the public figure question, I do think the standards are very much meant to apply in this case: that of what might be considered a "C list" public figure - occasionally showing up in the press, but not often (although occasionally) having sought it out. If he was NOT a public figure, then the question instead would be whether the article should be deleted outright.
- Re. the Wonkette thing, well, like I said, if they want to know more about Wonkette, the link's right there. There's no sense in trying to duplicate a popularity explanation here.--67.101.67.215 21:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
