This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
What Happened (McClellan book) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added this brief section because Rep. Wexler & Nadler have called upon McClellan to testify under oath in front of Congress about the allegations made in his book. I know that Wexler has said that his reason for doing so is to convince other members of congress to proceed with impeachment hearings and that McClellan has said that he would be "glad too," but I haven't the time to find or cite these sources right now so I did not include those facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.173.95 ( talk) 04:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so the book isn't even out yet and the story is all over the place. References & content welcome & encouraged. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make a book "best-selling" in the real world. Being on the New York Times Bestseller list does. That's how we define sales of a book (every sale of every book is how that list is tabulated.) Some books are #1 on that list for only a day or so or even less. Amazon.com is not a reliable source for this purpose. PokeHomsar ( talk) 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the book, but I have a hard time believing that the main aspect of the book was Scott McClellan's criticism. It, therefore, looks like there's some WP:UNDUE problems with this article. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Bush used 'spin' to push war, ex-spokesman says - The spokesman who defended President Bush's policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth.
Should the title of this page change from "What Happened" to "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception"? enderminh ( talk) 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thumb|80px|left thumb|80px|right Anyone know which cover is making it into print? I've also noticed that both covers show the title as What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong With Washington, however the amazon.com listing shows the title as What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. Anyone know the deal? / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we create a Response Section for the people who were mentioned in the book? Like Carl Rove's response on FoxNews, etc TheAsianGURU ( talk) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Should Bob Dole's response be represented? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:What_Happened&action=edit§ion=5
Proxy User ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the McClellan response is necessary. This isn't an article for covering the back and forth between McClellan and the White House. Anything he said in the response can be covered elsewhere. Giving him a 'response' section gives his accusations undue weight and credibility. Trilemma ( talk) 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, as it's clearly contained in one of the three most important policies on Wikipedia:
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.
— WP:NPOV
This also, of course, brings in to question how many of the responses currently present are "significant", though I haven't examined the issue enough to raise any concerns (yet). McClellan's responses are always going to be significant and germane, as the article's focus is McClellan's book; this isn't to say that every critical comment by any/everyone is also significant. More to follow, I'm sure. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Blaxthos, I'd encourage you develop the section on the content of the book. As it is, you can not blank a criticism section under the guise of undue weight, when it is merely a matter of an insufficient content section. You're welcomed to develop the reaction section, too, if there are pertinent and reported comments that you feel would add to the article. But this attempt at squelching the criticisms section is very inappropriate. Trilemma ( talk) 03:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This topic is a very obvious POV target, and over the past month several editors have noted that this article appears unbalanced. An editor has repeatedly inserted criticism from subjects quite disconnected from the topic of this article that serves only to disparage the book and it's author, text redacted. An editor above notes that the Dole quote "...is not, in fact, a comment on the book or on relevant facts, but is instead a condemnation of McClellan's having spoken out on the topic." Likewise, criticism from McAuliffe carries no weight here -- he's never worked for or with either the Administration or McClellan, and has no affiliation with the book. Other reactions may be more germane and should be included, but detailing it here must remain limited to direct relationships. Doing otherwise, giving more article space to criticism than to content clearly violates WP:UNDUE. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggest that you flesh out the content section. It is very difficult to actually tell what the book is about. Here is a link to passages from the book, though there may be better -
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2C2AD8E6-3048-5C12-00DD5B339097C9F9
Quotes and Notable Passages from the Book
• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes. • Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’” • “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.” • “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.” • McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.” • “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.20.211 ( talk) 08:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up - this popular webcomic has essentially outlined vandalism to this page, which at least one user has already inserted (see this diff). It's very possible that more vandalism of the same type will appear as well. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Fix email password — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.79.33 ( talk) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
What Happened (McClellan book) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I have added this brief section because Rep. Wexler & Nadler have called upon McClellan to testify under oath in front of Congress about the allegations made in his book. I know that Wexler has said that his reason for doing so is to convince other members of congress to proceed with impeachment hearings and that McClellan has said that he would be "glad too," but I haven't the time to find or cite these sources right now so I did not include those facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.173.95 ( talk) 04:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so the book isn't even out yet and the story is all over the place. References & content welcome & encouraged. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make a book "best-selling" in the real world. Being on the New York Times Bestseller list does. That's how we define sales of a book (every sale of every book is how that list is tabulated.) Some books are #1 on that list for only a day or so or even less. Amazon.com is not a reliable source for this purpose. PokeHomsar ( talk) 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read the book, but I have a hard time believing that the main aspect of the book was Scott McClellan's criticism. It, therefore, looks like there's some WP:UNDUE problems with this article. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Bush used 'spin' to push war, ex-spokesman says - The spokesman who defended President Bush's policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth.
Should the title of this page change from "What Happened" to "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception"? enderminh ( talk) 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thumb|80px|left thumb|80px|right Anyone know which cover is making it into print? I've also noticed that both covers show the title as What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong With Washington, however the amazon.com listing shows the title as What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. Anyone know the deal? / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we create a Response Section for the people who were mentioned in the book? Like Carl Rove's response on FoxNews, etc TheAsianGURU ( talk) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Should Bob Dole's response be represented? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:What_Happened&action=edit§ion=5
Proxy User ( talk) 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the McClellan response is necessary. This isn't an article for covering the back and forth between McClellan and the White House. Anything he said in the response can be covered elsewhere. Giving him a 'response' section gives his accusations undue weight and credibility. Trilemma ( talk) 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, as it's clearly contained in one of the three most important policies on Wikipedia:
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.
— WP:NPOV
This also, of course, brings in to question how many of the responses currently present are "significant", though I haven't examined the issue enough to raise any concerns (yet). McClellan's responses are always going to be significant and germane, as the article's focus is McClellan's book; this isn't to say that every critical comment by any/everyone is also significant. More to follow, I'm sure. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Blaxthos, I'd encourage you develop the section on the content of the book. As it is, you can not blank a criticism section under the guise of undue weight, when it is merely a matter of an insufficient content section. You're welcomed to develop the reaction section, too, if there are pertinent and reported comments that you feel would add to the article. But this attempt at squelching the criticisms section is very inappropriate. Trilemma ( talk) 03:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This topic is a very obvious POV target, and over the past month several editors have noted that this article appears unbalanced. An editor has repeatedly inserted criticism from subjects quite disconnected from the topic of this article that serves only to disparage the book and it's author, text redacted. An editor above notes that the Dole quote "...is not, in fact, a comment on the book or on relevant facts, but is instead a condemnation of McClellan's having spoken out on the topic." Likewise, criticism from McAuliffe carries no weight here -- he's never worked for or with either the Administration or McClellan, and has no affiliation with the book. Other reactions may be more germane and should be included, but detailing it here must remain limited to direct relationships. Doing otherwise, giving more article space to criticism than to content clearly violates WP:UNDUE. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggest that you flesh out the content section. It is very difficult to actually tell what the book is about. Here is a link to passages from the book, though there may be better -
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2C2AD8E6-3048-5C12-00DD5B339097C9F9
Quotes and Notable Passages from the Book
• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes. • Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’” • “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.” • “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.” • McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.” • “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.20.211 ( talk) 08:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up - this popular webcomic has essentially outlined vandalism to this page, which at least one user has already inserted (see this diff). It's very possible that more vandalism of the same type will appear as well. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Fix email password — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.79.33 ( talk) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)