User talk:68.50.202.228

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article demonstrates a clear bias against George Bush in the selective reporting and editorial comments attatched to his biography. Criticism of his administration in this article is "harsh" and "stringent". Accusations that have no verifiable proof or have been adjudicated as without merit are given prominent coverage, despite the fact that most public figures get accused of all sorts of heinous things that are similarly baseless and do not received extensive coverage here. Although the 2000 election was conceded by Gore, the remark that "the election results are disputed by many" is a clearly editorial remark, particularly in that no link is provided to substantiate this claim.

The characterization of Saddam Hussein as a "tyrant" (in quotes) as if there is any doubt that this murderer and thug was in fact was a brutal tyrant is editorial in nature and entirely contrary to the evidence. "Repeated scandals" (without substantiation), "vastly increased spending on military weapons systems" (again without substantiation) [see note below] also speaks of bias and editorializing. The selective nature of the coverage (minor issues like U.N. Population Fund receive mention, as well as a single statement from the notorious Union of Concerned Scientests, but no mention of phasing out inheritance taxes, economic recovery following the dot-com bubble, etc.) similarly speaks to a biased viewpoint.

It is clear to me that those who manage content for this article are not interested in the neutral point of view that WikiPedia strives to provide, and are far more interested in their political bias being promoted in the guise of a neutral point of view.


  • NOTE* The reference to "vastly increased spending on military weapons systems" is the only edit I have made in the past three days that has survived. I initially attempted to provide balance and remove editorializing from this article, all edits which were removed within several hours at most. I later returned to the article and provided editorial content consistent with an anti-bush bias, and those edits have been retained. Attempts to improve the quality and accuracy of this article through removing editorial content and adding explanatory content have been eliminated, while unsubstantiated editorial comments have survived.

[edit] your tone

on my talk page is extremely rude. my edit summary was clear as to why i reverted that phrase. you will find that you get a lot farther around here without a hostile and judgemental attitude. do you really think that your comment has encouraged me to edit in a spirit of compromise and good faith? think again. your lack of social skills will serve you as poorly here as they must in real life. Wolfman 17:22, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)