Talk:George W. Bush pretzel incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George W. Bush pretzel incident article.
Article policies
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] Pretzel incident

Somebody has nominated to incorporate the text of George W. Bush's pretzel into George W. Bush, a move I feel would be unwise. While it is an interesting bit of historical trivia, much like Jimmy Carter's rabbit, it does not deserve mention (and certainly not detailed mention) in a serious encyclopaedia article dealing with the President of the United States - it is far better as it stands now, as a simple "See also" link. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 08:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo image

This image of Bush with the bruising would seem on its face to be a retouched or accentuated photo image. This image doesn't match the descriptions given in sources describing the extent of facial bruising, and doesn't match well other BBC images like this. [1] I think it has been doctored. Only other images I found besides this showed the kumquat sized bruise on the cheek and a dime sized spot of bruising on the nose, while this unattributed photo looks like Bush in pale sea green eye shadow with a black portrait backdrop seen in none of the other photos.Professor marginalia 09:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I removed a piece of very obvious vandalism, the statement "and that's how George W Bush got pwned by a pretzel" at the end of the pentultimate paragraph. Jekman 01:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes: thank you. Extremely sexy 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "See also" and category.

I have removed "See also: Jimmy Carter's rabbit" and Category:breads. This edit was subsequently reverted, so I will explain my reasoning here.

  • Jimmy Carter's rabbit adds nothing relevant to George Bush's pretzel. This is not a webring of funny things that happened to modern US presidents. It is an encyclopedia article. Before re-adding the text, please explain what the reader can learn from Jimmy Carter's rabbit that is relevant to his understanding of this page.
  • Listing this page in the Breads category must be some sort of joke. That category lists kinds of breads, not famous individual morsels. I see no entry in that category that is even slightly similar to George Bush's pretzel. Putting this article in that category seems to amount to advertising this article as a fun diversion. Maybe it is, but it's not particularly encyclopedic to advertise this way.

Phiwum 10:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Breads category I can kinda agree with, though Wiki is a "new" type of encyclopaedia of course...Britannica wouldn't even have an article on this, for example. However, I'm willing to compromise and be flexible on that issue - much moreso than the "See also" issue, which I feel is much more clearcut - they're two "everyday" occurences that happened to a President, and resulted in a media firestorm sensationalizing the entire affair - they are very much related. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I do not see any particular connection between the two incidents. If there was a category of somewhat embarrassing presidential happenings, then by all means include both of them. But I don't imagine that anyone looking up the pretzel incident will find the swamp rabbit incident illuminating.
"See also" is, I thought, for giving more information regarding a subject in context. Not a list of vaguely similar occurrences. Surely Mork & Mindy doesn't include Alf in its "See also" list?
Nonetheless, I'll leave the article as is and let others comment. (Does anyone else care?) Phiwum 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I read both, I think it's fine to link between the two, if you're interested in one, chances are you'll be interested in the other. There are similarities in the two incidents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.67.130 (talk • contribs).
What are the similarities? Two modern American presidents involved in two somewhat embarrassing situations? Not quite an encyclopedic notion of "similar". Phiwum 19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Living people cat

It's there so that the BLP Patrollers can monitor changes to this article. It is about a living person. Do not remove it. Crockspot 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the template at the top of this talk page and automatic sorting into Category:Biography_articles_of_living_people enough? An incident is not a living person. I fail to see how the article is suited to the Living people category. -- Longhair\talk 05:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
BLP patrol uses this tool to track recent changes to articles about living people. There are many fork articles that skirt around enforcement of BLP because they are not actively monitored, lacking the category. - Crockspot 06:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
We should not be miscategorising articles just to make the lives of editors easier if it leads to nonsense in the encyclopaedia itself. A pretzel incident cannot be a living person, and it is absurd to classify it as such. WP:BLP policy applies whether or not the category is directly linked. This may make the lives of some editors more difficult if they have to scan Category:George W. Bush as well as Category:Living people, and it may mean more violations of WP:BLP, but any other stance is ridiculous. None of the other articles in Category:Living people, to my knowledge, is of an event, and nor should they be. I'm afraid you'll have to find another solution to this problem, because the pretzel incident is never going to be a living person and we should not treat it as one. --Stemonitis 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit war with editors or admins who are obstructing work that is sanctioned by the Wikimedia board of directors. This article has now been listed at the BLP noticeboard. Crockspot 17:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not obstructing anything. The BLP policy applies, as it should, but that doesn't depend on a category. In fact, if you've listed it on the noticeboard, there'll be enough people watching it without the category. But then that isn't the point. I haven't seen any policy anywhere which requires all articles bound by WP:BLP to be listed in Category:Living people, especially where the subjects of the articles are not living people. The category itself states "This is a category for all articles on individuals currently known to be living persons". Quite obviously, the pretzel incident does not qualify. The nearest thing I could find in a quick perusal of the archives was an agreement that articles like this should be in a similar but different category, so that the WP:BLP scrutineers could limit themselves to two categories without having articles not about people in a biographical category. If I could see a clear indication that all articles with biographical information about living people should be classified in Category:Living people, then I'd accept your categorisation (although I think that decision should be made more prominent — I haven't come across it yet). In the absence of such a decree, common sense should prevail, which involves not categorising events as people. Finally, saying that something clearly well-meant "will be treated as vandalism"[2] is a poor attitude to take, quite against the spirit of WP:AGF. --Stemonitis 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The category was created for the purpose of assisting in monitoring and enforcing WP:BLP. This group is tasked with that job of monitoring and enforcement. The category allows us to monitor changes to articles that are categorized thusly. If this group feels that it is appropriate to tag a particular article with that category, then it is an appropriate category to be applied, period. We shouldn't have to list every freaking article we want to monitor on the noticeboard, because notices there are temporary. We don't have time to argue, edit war, and explain ourselves to every editor who disagrees with the difficult task we have to perform. There were multiple editors reverting me and Atheanara. The comments were not directed at you specifically. Sometimes we have to act a little hardnosed in order to get people's attention. If you were personally offended, I apologize, but I am personally offended when people obstruct me from doing a thankless job that I volunteer my time to do, and who waste that time over something as silly as two words showing up at the end of an article. - Crockspot 17:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Its a thankless job because you are using a tag developed for one purpose, and using it for new purpose, and that new purpose is harming the original purpose. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Living People per above

  • Lose the tag It is very confusing. To follow that rule, you will have to tag every non-biographical article that involves a living person, and all the articles on the Iraq war that involve Bush. You may also have to tag every article, just in case someone later adds a statement about a living person or about Bush. It makes no sense at all. If you want to watch it, its on the noticeboard. If three more people agree I will remove the tag. The living people tag was created long before BLP was in place. I also disagree with the "Biography articles of living people" tag here. I don't see it on any of the Iraq War articles that contain even more info on Bush and Cheney, and are even more prone to vandalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree and have removed the "living person" category. Thanks! --Tom 18:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There needs to be a second category for articles like this or Political positions of Barack Obama ... Category:Living people topics or Category:Issues with living people or something. That would answer the need to monitor the articles, but not require introducing false information into an encyclopedic category. Removing the category right now is a bad idea - it needs to stay for monitoring until a suitable system can be set up. --BigDT 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I see only two people above "agreeing", and one disagreeing, yet the tag was removed anyway. I am reverting it. PLEASE stop removing it. By the way, Political positions of Fred Thompson has had the tag for quite a while. Obama's article, and all such articles should have it too. When some of you are willing to put in the hours doing this work, then maybe you will be in a better position to be telling the BLP patrollers how to do their jobs "easier". Our job is already hard enough, this is just making it harder, as are some of the suggestions that have been made so far. And by the way, the category WAS created because of the BLP issues of late 2005. The BLP patrol was not formed until less than a year later, but that does not mean the category was not created for monitoring these issues. If I have to drag Jimbo personally into this, I will. - Crockspot 19:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC) correction - I see someone removed it from the Thompson article. GRRRRR! - Crockspot 19:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, I will bow out since you seem pretty involved/passionate about this. No biggie here. Cheers! --Tom 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you want to monitor the article, add it to your personal watchlist. Adding it into a living people biography category, and lumping it with over 20K other biographies isn't very useful. I am glad you put a lot of work into the concept, but that is why you should reach consensus at the portal level before starting a large project. Adding articles that contain information on living people, throws off the count for the biography count. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Reid line

I removed the following line from the article and moved it here for NPOV input:

"Convicted serial killer Paul Reid claimed in court that the incident was actually purposely achieved by the President, as a direct attempt to showcase his abilities to Reid.[3]"

The incident was "achieved"? And "showcase" what "abilities"? How would the item improve this encyclopedia article? — Athaenara ✉ 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It was the 'insane' claim of a serial killer, it is included in the article because it is noteworthy that a convict (obviously falsely) claimed that the choking was somehow related to his case. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 01:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If a member of Congress, per se, called for Bush's resignation based on the fact he choked on the pretzel, it would doubtless belong in this article - why is this any different, it's an affect this event had on a larger scale - even if it is the delusional ramblings of a psychotic serial killer. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does being a psychotic serial killer mean that his statements should be repeated in WP articles? Steve Dufour 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The same reason we mention Charles Whitman's motivations, or mention the fact the Zodiac Killer contacter lawyer Melvin Belli on Belli's article? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying that he shouldn't have an article on himself, if he is notable. But the fact of his being a psychotic serial killer does not seem to make his opinions notable on other subjects. I could be misunderstanding your reasoning however. Steve Dufour 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If it were just an opinion like "Paul Reid thought it was funny and cute", then I'd agree you're right - his opinion isn't worth anything. But since it seems to have formed part of his "insanity" that led to the crime, that he believed he was being personally stalked by the President, and that "trivial, odd happenings" were actually elaborate plots against him personally. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 16:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Then it should be mentioned in his article, but not in this one. His mental state has no effect on the incident itself, which is the subject of this article. Not that it's such a big issue anyway. Steve Dufour 17:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

There is disagreement whether the following paragraph (From the Tennessee courts) offers relevant information about the subject - some arguing that only things that affected the choking, not things the choking affected, should be included. Others arguing that any notable effect the choking had on history is well-placed.

On June 28, 2006, the legal counsel of death row convict Paul Reid argued against his pending execution citing his mental health issues with paranoid schizophrenia, citing the fact that he believed that "the scientific technology people" had deliberately made Bush choke on the pretzel, in an attempt to prove their overwhelming power to Reid.[4]"

So we are requesting neutral comment. For the interim, I am leaving the paragraph in the article since it is not a question of WP:BLP or anything similar, and it offers context to the RfCers and the dispute arose over whether or not to remove it. We freely welcome thoughtful criticism from all sides, but would discourage any attempts to vote-stack. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. Favour inclusion. An article about an event is not meant solely to describe what led up to the event, but what impact the event had on the larger world community. A convicted serial killer who has been ruled mentally incompetent (twice) claiming that a cabal of scientists purposely choked the President of the United States is a lot more informative and less trivial than the "This incident was referenced in a 1991 episode of The Simpsons" and such. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Oppose inclusion. Please, see the thread above. There was already consensus reached to not include it in the article, it is simply not relevant and is useless trivia. I have re-removed it from the article, it does not belong and we already had consensus to not include it. -Nard 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose inclusion. Appears to be original research. Only one primary source is cited. I'm sure all sorts of outlandish reasons for not being executed are claimed by death row inmates, that does not make them notable. If there is no secondary source cited reporting on this, like a newspaper article, it is OR. And even without the major sourcing flaw, how would this information add to our understanding of the pretzel incident? It just doesn't seem relevant. I agree with others above that the primary source may be usable in the defendant's article. - Crockspot 16:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'm unclear how the transcript from the TN courts constitutes OR? The pretzel incident was also raised in witness affadavits and his stay-of-execution appeals and his letter to the court. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't dispute the accuracy of the primary source. But it is a primary source. Without any secondary reporting on it, you cannot connect it to this incident. How was this source found? There must have been some reporting on it. If it came from a blog, did the blog refer to a news report of any kind? Wikipedia only publishes what other people have reported. Primary sources should only be used in articles that the source is about, or to bolster and further verify secondary sources. - Crockspot 17:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't want to get bogged down in an argument in the RfC, so I'll summarise, then drop this thread of conversation - I'm not aware of any policy that says Wikipedia only publishes what's been printed in the newspapers - we are not a news agency, we are an encyclopaedia. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly. Encyclopedias report what other reliable secondary sources have reported (not necessarily newspapers). They don't dig up obscure court cases, and assert their relevance to another issue, unless a reliable source has already done so. - Crockspot 02:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose inclusion. Absolutely no notability. THF 04:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. "A topic has notability if it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." Even if correctly cited, Reid's claims are of no particular importance or impact in understanding Mr. Bush's incident with the pretzel. Reid's claims were not caused by the pretzel incident but by Reid's mental issues, therefore they do not contribute to an understanding of the facts of the pretzel incident. VisitorTalk 22:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose inclusion. It belongs in his article, if he has one. If he claimed he was President Bush or was Napoleon it would be just trivia, and not worth entering either article. By contrast Charles Manson deserves to be in the Beatles article on Helter Skelter. I see no problem using primary documents to source facts, but facts aren't notable until media outlets write about it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    While I agree with your reasoning 99.9%, I think the crucial difference is that this isn't an article about George Bush, it's an article about Bush choking on a pretzel and how "people" (media and serial killers) reacted towards it. Wouldn't we include if "Charles Manson was so angry about Bush choking on the pretzel, he is said to have killed three fellow inmates by shoving pretzels down their throats in a copycat crime" ? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    You are so funny. Extremely sexy 21:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well, if Manson did do such a thing, the presence of either resurrection or zombie activity on Manson's part would be newsworthy in itself. In addition, the wording you used would be incorrect, because it wasn't a crime for Bush to choke on a pretzel, nor did he cause anyone else to be injured via pretzel assault. And if there was such a crime as you described, it still would not actually shed light on Bush's choking experience. However, Wikipedia doesn't need to be edited according to anyone's hypotheticals, but only according to what has actually been reported. VisitorTalk 07:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose inclusion. As per users "VisitorTalk" and "Richard Andre Norton (1958- )". Extremely sexy 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose inclusion. And I would like to disagree with the summary provided at the top of this RfC: "some arguing that only things that affected the choking, not things the choking affected, should be included. Others arguing that any notable effect the choking had on history is well-placed." It's effect on history should be noted, but the pretzel incident didn't do this, the death row inmate's paranoid mind did. If this was national legislation on the health code, I'd fight for inclusion, but this is really irrelevant. --YbborTalk 13:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose inclusion: I'm no Bush fan by any stretch of the imagination, but if we listed every paranoid delusion that's been had about him since he took office, Wikipedia would need new servers  ;) It's just not significant. -- Rei 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there enough consensus to override Sherurcij's argument for inclusion and to remove the RFC? VisitorTalk 00:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a stupid consensus, but it is consensus - seems alright to remove the RFC :P Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
You should consider refactoring that comment. It is a direct insult to a significant number of editors, myself included. - Crockspot 02:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable?

Can somebody explain how this event constitutes a notable encyclopedic article?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is notable largely because so few believe the story, yet there is no mention in the article about the skepticism with which this story was greeted at the time, i.e. causing more rumors about Bush being drunk again e.g. [5]. It is one more element of the deception involved in Bush's official biography e.g. his TANG service, his conversion, his alcoholism, his illiteracy etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.80 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satire in Games?

A year after the incident happened, a game by the name of Disgaea was localized for North America. Originally, the main character's father, the king of the underworld, died from choking on a bean bun. This was changed to a pretzel in the english localization. I didn't want to put it straight into the article because I have no proof that the writers were poking fun at Bush with this humorous rewrite. FlameAdder (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)