Talk:President Bush faces some tough questioning
Keep- the article seems just fine to me. Paulrevere2005 01:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
writing notes and quotes from the speech 
Calling for bipartisanship on social security: “I think people appreciate when others are willing to take on tough questions”
On slumping polls over his SS & EP : “I have a job to point out to the American people that we have a problem.”
“If America has to govern by making decision based upon the polls, then it’s kind of like a dog chasing its tail around.”
“A free Iraq in the Middle East is an important part of spreading peace”.
He invited the leader of Iraq to come visit America.
“We will stay on the offensive.”
”I don’t think it is wise to set out a time table.”
”Keep stability, don’t politicize the military.”
Congress needs to pass the energy bill. “The best way to effect the price of gas is to encourage foreign nations to increase production.”
“The energy bill is no quick fix… We didn’t have an energy policy in this country.”
He is trying to introduce a comprehensive energy policy.
“If we had an energy strategy [10 years ago], we could diversify away from dependency on foreign sources.”
Is it still too messy? 
OK, so I lifted my fingers and tried to improve the article (although I find this type of story immensely boring).
Does anyone have any specific criticisms about this article that must be addressed to lift the "mess" tag?
Hopefully such critics can jump in and fix it themselves, but if not, please leave a comment on this user talk page so those of us who are able to do more than criticize can satisfy your concerns. — DV 03:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- It was about 1.30am when I put the tag on. It needed cleaning up but I needed sleep! Thanks for doing it, I've removed the tag. Dan100 (Talk) 12:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm appalled that Paulrevere2005 was banned from the site after he tried in his own way to improve the article and removed the tag. The tag had zero commentary here on the user talk page to justify its placement on the article.
- As a constructive suggestion for the future, please refrain from tagging an article with a single word comment. If you are too tired to justify your tag, please come back later when you are refreshed and can adequately participate. We are not mind readers, and it will become quite patronizing if you repeatedly "tag-n-dash" in this manner. It is obnoxious enough for anyone to tag an article without making the slightest attempt to improve the article, but it is beyond the pale to not even explain specifically what you want improved. In this case, your laziness led to Paulrevere2005 being left in the position of responding to a vague criticism.
- I also request some clarification of the apparent de facto policy that one cannot remove a tag from an article if one is not the person who applied the tag. The implication of such a policy is that zealous article taggers can effectively rule what gets published on this site using their own discretion, which is completely unacceptable. — DV 11:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Needs a better headline 
President Bush says; "That's a hypothetical." - what's hypothetical?! The headline needs to establish least some context. However I really have no idea what the article is about - I don't know anything about this 'reditioning' stuff. Can someone else come up with a better headline? Dan100 (Talk) 12:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Seeing as the story really seems to be about Bush doing a press conference on TV, I changed the headline accordingly. Dan100 (Talk) 12:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- I tried to zero in on the Guantanamo Bay business. That fits our history here on reporting on the subjuect. Unsure now if terrorist stuff ought to be in story. -Edbrown05 13:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Guantanamo isn't an example of renditioning (turning suspects over to foreign countries for interrogation) since it is a U.S. base. A better example would be Uzbekistan, who wasn't even a major U.S. ally before 9/11, but now several articles are being written about renditioning to Uzbekistan and how much we deal with them. In fact, I think it was even raised as a follow-up to the renditioning question in the press conference. DouglasGreen 17:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- I added a little stuff about Uzbekistan and renditioning to replace the Guantanamo stuff I removed (only fair). DouglasGreen 18:40, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Somebody questioned whether the original photo was public domain on Wikimedia Commons. It probably is, but I swapped it for new photos. Not only for that reason, but more importantly, the original photo was old and did not actually depict the news event written about in the article. While that is usually the case with the articles we write, it is better to have photos of the actual event if possible, which in this case were easily obtained by going to whitehouse.gov and skimming through their press materials. It is public domain. DouglasGreen 18:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- I posted the Voice of America(VoA) photo that DouglasGreen swapped for the more appropriate pictures. I am vaguely aware Wikicommons is having issues with VoA content being in the public domain. My one-time reading of the VoA copyright policy led me to believe all their written content was public domain, and photos not marked as, say AP or other source, were also public domain. I guess this remains to be seen. -Edbrown05 10:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
title change 
- Since this was a press conference and not an address to the nation(like "state of the union"), I changed the title. Also added a brief reference to one well reported "rendition" story. Paulrevere2005 12:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
When reading the source info of "CIA sending suspects overseas for "rendition"". Wikinews, March 7, 2005 , I only found one reference to 1 agent saying it began under Clinton. The rest talked about"The Bush administration's secret program to transfer suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogation" and "The unusually expansive authority for the CIA to operate independently was provided by the White House under a still-classified directive signed by President Bush within days of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon", the New York Times. Whichever, it does seem the CIA's rendition authority was expanded after 9/11 so that info seems more reliable. Paulrevere2005 11:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)