Talk:President Bush and Saudi Arabia's Prince Abdullah meet in Crawford ranch

This Bush character is a roar... ! HiFlyer always draws that out, but leads to POV? -Edbrown05 16:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

oops, I see now this was PaulRevere2005. I liked it! But think the pic is done wrong. The photo is striking where they clasp hands. The oil chart belongs in the oil interest section. -Edbrown05 18:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

is 1990 really 'just before' George W.'s election....? --Morbid-o 20:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, not in the slightest. It was, in fact, during his father's presidency. - Amgine/^talk 20:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is a definate inaccuracy, and needs to be corrected. Lyellin 21:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pic?

What's with the tangent graph? Is one or are both holding it up in that pic, or what? Thanx 68.39.174.150 20:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The picture was created by a user who has a well-expressed bias against the US President. That is his personal graph of oil prices with unknown methodology or purpose. - Amgine/^talk 20:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Extremely presumptuos to attempt to describe someone's biases to a 3rd. party. especially when its not even true.I have a bias against wars and war profiteering and fascist cults.I actually think Bush Jr. is one of the better cult members and I'm not even sure he's in the inner loop. His dad and Kerry are the ones(in the US) to worry about.Paulrevere2005 11:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of the meeting was largely to discuss the price of oil. showing the price of oil chart is simply background for the story.Why not ask the purpose if you couldn't figure it out??? Paulrevere2005 22:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the picture - especially since it has been up on the main page a bit - this is too biased to be used. Lyellin 21:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

how biased? or is bias just a term to throw around falsely. Paulrevere2005 22:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The addition of the charts, which do not actually belong with the picture, imply some connection between bush/Saudis and rising oil costs. A plain picture of that handshake scene, without the charts, would be fine. Lyellin 22:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ok, I do agree that there is the connection you deducted from the photo; but that doesn't mean the photo is biased..just that it contains information which caused you to think about the coincidence/possibility (2 leaders who are oilmen might have done things which led to higher oilprices which is good for oilmen).

You could have just as easily deducted the oil chart was there because that's the #1 issue on the table before these 2 leaders; and the hand holding has already become a story in itself in the US and a similar photo(of the pals holding hands) was on the front page of yesterday's NY Post..so that's not biased either.

The photo isn't biased. The meeting was described by the white house as a meeting primarily about the price of oil...the photo is perfect. You could have just as easily deducted the oil chart was there because that's the #1 issue on the table before these 2 leaders. I'd like to put the photo back as is. any objections or support? Paulrevere2005 11:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The photo is biased. No matter what connection it is forcing me to draw, it is A- a constructed photo, and not one of the actual event. B - using a chart that I can't confirm the data for. C- giving an opinon regarding the matter (oil prices are rising because of a connection between Bush/Saudis). Even though I hate bush with a passion, this is not a neutral photo. Lyellin 17:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Formating

This article is not adaquately formated - the sources are not correctly orgainised. I am moving it back to in development to protect our somewhat professional looking image. → CGorman (Talk) 21:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is it nor adequately formated? or is this just another arbitrary move. Paulrevere2005 22:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't use the 'source' template - an un-formatted list of URLs at the end just doesn't look good. But I have to be honest here - I don't think that's a good enough reason to de-list an article from Latest news. Dan100 (Talk) 23:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thank goodness(sincerely). Paulrevere2005 12:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bush Sr. & Jr. oil interests

The section on the Bush family oil interests is very educational, however I wouldn't be surprised if UncleG or some other contributor waltzes in and removes it again, claiming that historical information belongs in a Wikipedia article instead of in a Wikinews story.

It's like the old Wendy's line, "Where's the beef?" although in this case the question will be "Where's the news?"

Kudos to Dan100 for trying to keep this interesting tidbit in the story. — DV 08:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why so many people want to remove it. I view it as useful, true (unless someone corrects me on that) background information that sets the context for the rest of the article. There are no 'npov' issues - I can't see what the 'opposite' 'point of view' to the Bushes being involved in the oil industry - but even if there were, the proper course of action is add the opposite point of view, rather than just delete the bit you don't like. Dan100 (Talk) 23:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)