text:
Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 4

I think the links are somewhat POV. There are way more links that call Bush a Chimp, etc. than there are simple informational or Republican-biased links. I myself have a Republican/Moderate (See my User page) POV, but I certainly don't force them on everybody else by adding links to Bill Clinton's page. I think we should start a cleanup of this article (or at least the links section). Ilyanep 23:54, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * We aren't resonsible for external links and don't need to guarantee that they're NPOV. If they're oppositional, we can label them as such. Of course, we don't want too many links...--Jiang 04:16, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree with Jiang. This article has plenty of content; having a large number of links is OK.  If you want to add more pro-Bush links, feel free; taking some out would not be productive, in my opinion. Meelar 05:24, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 64.158.115.54 (Talk) (Removed "and the Skull and Bones Society" from the section "== Personal Live and Education ==" since that society is only a rumor and not commonly substantiated by evidence. Grammar changes too.) Not a rumor. Why is this connection suppressed? Something awkward? Wetman 01:42, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Skull and Bones Society is not a rumor. They own property, you can visit them if you want. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Removed  (not an unusual occurrance); if it's not unusual, that doesn't be reiterated. (If it is unusual, as I suspect, it's not factual.) - Hephæstos|§ 22:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bias in updates
If someone can substantiate an addition or change to an entry using a reference, then the addition should be kept as is. I've noticed that there are people determined to expunge all the positive items (with links to supporting articles) regarding President Bush. For instance, an item was posted stating that Bush worked at an inner-city poverty program once he returned to Texas from Alabama (after working on the campaign of Red Blount). A link to the supporting timeline posted by the Yahoo! News supported this bit of information. Also, that Bush applied for a program to go to Vietnam using F-120s as bombers was substantiated by a link to an interview with someone who actually flew with Lt. Bush in Texas. There is also a concerted effort, not substantiated by the facts, that Bush was a "deserter" who went "AWOL" in Alabama. He, in fact, did serve, got his required service points, and was honorably discharged. As to some people stating they can't remember seeing Bush in Alabama, all I can say is that I'm in my mid forties and can't remember every face of every person in high school and college. Can anyone honestly say they can? Perpetuating this myth in order to inflate (when there is really no reason to) the record of John Kerry is just plain stupid. If John Kerry wants to win the next election, then he should propose plans to "fix" all the problems he's complaining about. Then, this country can get to an honest debate

 * A couple points:

 * 1) I don't think an op-ed piece from the Washington Times is a credible source, any more than indynews. Surely there is information about Palace Alert elsewhere. At any rate the writeup by the Times does nothing but corroborate what "Bush claims," which was already mentioned in the article.
 * 2) Some recent additions are non-sequitur. Unless his service with an inner-city poverty program was under the auspices of the military, it doesn't belong in a description of his military service.  Likewise, the fact that the National Guard served during the wars in the gulf has no bearing on the time period of Bush's membership in it (although I do think some mention should be made of the fact that in more recent years the Guard has been much more frequently involved in foreign wars as opposed to, say, guarding the nation).
 * There's more, but that's enough for now. - Hephæstos|§ 21:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here are my addtions to the George W. Bush page:

1. Bush was twice promoted during his service in the Texas Air National Guard; First, to 2nd Leutenant and then to 1st Leutenant.

>>>> Irrefutable fact

2. A pilot program to consider using F-102 airplanes as bombers in Vietnam was underway. Bush inquired [1] about this program but was advised by a supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

>>>> As cited by a fellow pilot

3. President Johnson (and later President Nixon) decided not to call up the National Guard for service in Vietnam although this option was always available to the president (the National Guard did serve bravely in Iraq during both Gulf wars).

>>>> Fact: as a pilot, Lt. Bush could have been called to Vietnam at any time during his tenure.

4.These rumors were brought up during both the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Bush has released documents from the Alabama National Guard including, most recently, pay stubs and even a record of a dental examination.

>>>> Documents were released showing he did serve in the Alabama National Guard.

5. in early 1973, Bush worked in an inner-city poverty program.

>>>> Since Guard duty was NOT full-time duty, it is very relevant to report what Bush was doing with his time.

6. Bush, having achieved the required service points in the Air National Guard, was honorably discharged.

>>>> This is irrefutable.

All of these items are facts that are known or have been reported recently by major news organizations. Why is there a need to expunge this?

The only thing I added in that was biased was the line "perpetrated by the Democrats and the Liberal Media" which I added in frustration. I removed it in later submissions. -- Firstlensman 22:28, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * You've made a good start (here on the talk page) of putting your edits in the proper context of NPOV. For example, as you mention, the part about Bush inquiring is simply not an irrefutable fact. To state that it is established fact that he did so is not correct. It is giving Bush the benefit of the doubt that a supporter but not an opponent would give him.. It is (providing your information is correct) according to a fellow pilot. Those kinds of qualifications make an enormous difference, and things like actual names of the pilot, etc. What happened is that you put a lot of things together and kept insisting that they all be included. Qualifications do not necessarily mean all your contributions are worthy of being the article, but they certainly deem them to be much more acceptable to the NPOV style. Thank you for making the effort here. -- Decumanus 22:43, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * You should realize too that adding lines about the "Liberal Media" will basically get you instantly branded as a Troll and will bring out a host of editors that revert everything you write even the parts which may have factual merit. We simply don't have time to parse every nuanced contribution,and unfortunately that's what happens. We're the same people who revert "Bush is puppet of corporate America" Trolls too. -- Decumanus 22:55, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am citing "Letter from Bush's Squadmate Col. William Campenni (retired)", an article already included as a link on this page, for items 2 & 3 above. He lived and witnessed what happened to Lt. Bush. This is the reason the information should remain rather than being expunged by Wikipedia contributors who weren't there and are trying to skew the information to a negative POV. -- Firstlensman 22:57, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Meelar, but stating that you are editing this information to get an NPOV and then turn around and state rumor and innuendo fostered on the public by Moore and McAuliffe during a political campaign season is just plain wrong. I had left in that "some people feel that..." it was a way of avoiding Vietnam. Let's leave it at that. -- Firstlensman 02:14, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I guess you misinterpreted me; the reason that I attributed the "some people feel that..." quote was to make it more neutral. I think it's better for people to know the source of the allegations.  I wasn't trying to make them any more credible; see Avoid weasel words.  As for the other changes:
 * I didn't actually remove that much information; for instance, I left in "promoted twice", because it was useful, relevant info that I didn't know. The major changes I made were these.
 * Moving, not deleting, the section about Bush volunteering for the bomber program.
 * Adding a sentence saying that Guard service at that time was seen as a way to avoid combat duty. References for this can be found at the following sources:, See 4th and 5th paragraphs of this article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm See last sentence of second paragraph], and many others
 * Deleting a sentence about serving in an inner-city poverty program. It doesn't matter if he was helping kids or skiing a la Howard Dean; this section of the article is about his Guard service.
 * Removing the sentence about Johnson and Nixon having the ability to call up the Guard, which, while technically true, creates a misleading impression; see point 2.

 * Please point out which of these changes you feel is unjustified. Thank you, Meelar 04:38, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, the questions surrounding his National Guard service have a subtext insinuating "what was he doing when not serving his time in the National Guard". All relevant items affecting his timeline in the National Guard should definitely be included. As to the Johnson/Nixon line, it has been stated that Lt. Bush would have been the first to go if Johnson or Nixon called on the National Guard. Becoming a pilot in the National Guard actually increased his chances of going to Vietnam in relation to other National Guard service. I get the feeling that Junior bowed to his father's wishes to join the National Guard, then signed up for duty that gave him the best odds of getting to Vietnam. I moved the paragraph regarding the pilot program because this happened in Texas not Alabama. Do you think that the insinuations by McAuliffe and Moore should be placed in context of the current presidential campaign? -- Firstlensman 07:04, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm reverting your most recent change; a sentence that includes "Often misunderstood is that..." is a warning sign. I don't feel that sentence was POV, in the context. We're getting somewhere, though; most of the changes you've made were acceptable, at least when looked over by others. Remember--BOTH sides have to agree on a version. Anyway, a request: instead of making numerous small changes, could you please condense them before hitting save? Also, the "edit summary" is a valuable aid to other contributors. Thanks, Meelar 20:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to put this in context. So what if Bush missed a couple of months? He achieved the required service points and was honorably discharged. The Negative POV crowd has been portraying this as being "AWOL" and calling him a "deserter". They are either mistaking their understanding of Guard duty or they are deliberately misleading the American people. I'm erring on the side of caution by mentioning a misunderstanding -- I can really make a case for them being deliberately misleading. -- Firstlensman 21:09, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's a fairly narrow view of a controversial issue. You can't simply claim that "Either Bush's critics are wrong, or they're lying"; this is a controversial issue. As such, it's misleading to have Wikipedia simply claim that one side is correct, when it's still in the air. Keep trying, though. Thanks, Meelar 21:18, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The only reason it is a controversial issue is that Moore and McAuliffe are fostering this deserter/AWOL notion on the American public. The fact is that Lt. Bush earned the necessary service points to achieve an honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. He served 25 days, during the year in question, which got him to the minimum 50 points for a year. If Lt. Bush serves 4 days in November and then none in December it doesn't matter. The Guard allows service days to be worked around the men & women's lives and careers. This fact should definitely be recorded to put this "Controvery" in it's proper perspective. -- Firstlensman 21:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your point is...what? That Bush's political opponents are charging him with wrongdoing? It says that in the article. The only issue is whether the charges are true, which Wikipedia should not be ruling on, implicitly or explicitly. The issue is this: did Bush actually serve all the required time in the Alabama National Guard, or not? The definitive answer to this question, as stated in the article, is unclear. That's why I keep reverting your edits. Meelar 22:07, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

''Firstlensman is clearly an ideological troll. The issue of Bush's service has come up in each of his elections; it's currently a major national story, to the degree that he went on TV to deny the story and to promise to release all the relevant documentation (which he (a) has claimed in the past was already released and (b) still hasn't done). Not only is there the issue of Bush's service, but also reports of his records being destroyed, and the fact that he was given special treatment to get into the guard, with barely minimal qualifications when many others were in line ahead of him. This story was suppressed in Texas largely because Lloyd Bentson's son was given similar treatment. People are using the notion of "partisanship" to pervert the intellectual process. "NPOV" is being abused to suppress FACTS that would be apparent to any disinterested Martian who was simply interested in what is true. NPOV doesn't mean that everyone agrees, it means that all intellectually honest persons would agree -- otherwise, every ideologue gets a veto.''

Please don't remove information. The White House press corps HAS questioned whether Bush's father got him into the Guard. In fact, articles have been cited in this very debate claiming this. Sincerely, Meelar 22:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The White House Press Corp will fly into a feeding frenzy over any chum they feel will get them ratings and readership. Doesn't mean we have to mention them here. Hell, everyone including my dear mother has questioned whether his father used his influence to get W into the guard. I've admitted as much myself. -- Firstlensman 23:09, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As stated in my reference article, "It has been standard procedure for many years for National Guard units to excuse members from scheduled drills for employment reasons, with the stipulation that missed drill time be made up." This all but exonerates the gaps. If Lt. Bush achieves the necessary service points to by honorably discharged then it does NOT matter if there are any "gaps" in his service timeline. -- Firstlensman 23:20, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The changes you made look good, with the exception of the "White House press corps" thing--it's important to know that the charges spring from other sources besides overtly partisan ones. Aside from that, I hope to soon get this section into a form acceptable to all involved, so work can be done on cleaning the writing; as it stands, it bears the scar of edit-warring. Cheers! Meelar 23:40, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

I need to make one point about Bush's National Gaurd service (and I'm not going to incorporate this in the article--it's just FYI):

I was in the Army 1967-1969 and everyone felt that service in the Reserves (NG or AR) was generally considered a way to avoid Vietnam. This had been fostered all through the 1950's (I remember personally) when government-sponsored ads ran on television telling you that if you joined the Guard or Reserve you could avoid the draft. But during Vietnam, even the easiest reserve was more service than most young men served, by far.

I never dumped on Gore for his creampuff service (and it was--he served a short time in 'Nam and was understandably kept in a safe occupation and safe places) because HIS service was so much more than most other young men, and NOT just the sons of the rich and powerful.

Likewise, Bush's service, compared to other National Guard experience I am familiar with, is impressive within the context of NG experience. His being away (he was neither "AWOL" nor "Deserter" by any but rhetorical standards) is quite consistent with the nature of his TDY (temporary duty). The military showed great deference to people working in political campaigns (for any party) as they tried to keep on good terms with the political realm. Major point is that his service in general was so much more than many other Guardsman ever did--his extensive flying in Texas was, AFAIK, unbroken.

Another point, though, is this--I know the line is that this is wartime and 1992 wasn't (though I could make a decent argument that it was). I voted twice for Clinton, and, as a veteran of a war the main openly avoided, I didn't hold it against him, as I felt that GHW Bush was leading us to a possible Depression, and in 1996, I supported him vs. Dole.

But to have Clinton's man (McAuliffe) attacking Bush for more service than most, and especially in comparison to Clinton, is nothing short of shameful. It shows that the adage that "People Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones" is not only dead, it's shattered. Cecropia 01:52, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Argumentative POV marked as minor edit
User:Rei has been making multiple major edits criticizing Bush and marking them as minor edits.

 * The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a "minor edit". A major edit is basically something that makes the entry worth relooking at for somebody who wants to watch the article rather closely, so any "real" change, even if it is a single word, is a major edit. This feature is important, because users can choose to hide minor edits in their view of the Recent Changes page, to keep the volume of edits down to a manageable level.

[...]

 * Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior[...] minor edit

Among the "minor edits":

 * The purchase was surrounded in scandal. Bush payed for it using money from a controversial stock trade; he received twice as many shares in the venture as he put money in for; the venture used threat of forclosure by an organization that they formed (the Arlington Sports Facility Development Authority) to acquire property at 1/6th its appraised value for the building of a new stadium; the stadium was built largely at taxpayer expense (135 million dollars vs 65 million provided by the owners); and the team (with its new stadium) was sold to then sold to a family friend (Tom Hicks), who later went on to be a major Bush campaign contributor. The venture made a total of 170 million dollars in profit. [Revision as of 16:00, 3 Mar 2004]

 * Between 1972 and 1973, Bush dated Mavanee Bear, another member of Bount's campaign. Bear stated "I know he served" because he had to regularly reschedule meetings, but also stated "I didn't see him in uniform". When later back in Texas, she frequently saw him in uniform, stating "I think he was mostly just flying in circles over Houston." [15:50 3 Mar 2004]

 * Ben Barnes, the former speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, stated that he called the head of the Texas Air National Guard to recommend Bush for a pilot spot at the request of a Bush family friend . [15:44, 3 Mar 2004]

3 I know lots of people hate Bush, but lots of other presidents and politicians have detractors but I don't see the levels of detailed attacks and POV as rampant for any of the others. And, I passed looking at some of these because they were marked "minor" Cecropia 23:00, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, a number of the edits *were* minor - if a person adds only one fact, I'd call that a minor edit, and most of the edits were of that type as I ran into brief things that I thought should be mentioned when reading over the article. However, there were two that ended up being a lot bigger than I had planned for, but I never took the flag off; for that, I apologize.

 * However, I do have to strongly disagree about the change you made (although I'm not going to undo it) as being "POV and argumentative". The quote before the quote that I added showed Bush as being enthusiastic about wanting to go to Vietnam.  The quote that I referenced, from Bush himself, shows quite the opposite (unless you think about him talking about seing his other two options as being shooting his ear out with a shotgun and going to Canada indicates enthusiasm to end up in Vietnam).  That is known as a "contradiction", and thus it's not "POV" to point out that the previous statement was contradicted by another one.  I also would like you to explain what is POV about Barnes's statement.  Or what is POV about an interview with a former Bush girlfriend.  Etc.  Just because you don't like the facts doesn't change them from being facts.  It's not a "Point Of View" that Barnes stated that he helped get Bush into the guard - it's a fact that Barnes stated that.  It's not a "Point Of View" that Bush's former girlfriend gave an interview in which she gave both supporting and opposing evidence to Bush's Alabama guard service - she did give the interview, and I linked it right there.

 * I think I'll turn your argument around and state: "I know lots of people support Bush, but lots of other presidents and politicians have supporters but I don't see the levels of being easily offended about true, referenced statements for any of the others". I should also add that he's *currently* president, and thus gets tighter scrutiny.  Lastly, if you ever think that anything isn't documented well enough, don't complain about POV - ask for a reference, and I'll give you a dozen if you want, from respectable sources.  Thank you very much.  Your criticism about "minor edits" is well taken, but your criticism about POV is very far off the mark.  Rei

 * The major point, that you acknowledge, is that the edits are not "minor" )or anywhere near it) within the definitions of wikipedia. There is nothing in the quote about his possibly being interested in Vietnam service (and the quote is from a third party who stated his observation) that says he was "enthusiastic". Also consider that people's minds change--people who tried to avoid the service were often good soldiers; some who were anxious to serve soured quickly and tried to keep a low profile.

 * Two of them weren't minor; that was an accident, and I apologized for it, so I think that's the end of that story. However, quite to the contrary of what you write, there IS something about him being interested in Vietnam service - the line about him approaching Maj. Maurice Udell to try and join a program to fly the F-102 as a bomber in Vietnam.  If you don't like the word "enthusiastic", what word would you use to describe "wanting to do something"?  And, how would that *not* be a contradiction to his 1994 statements?  Lastly, about how people's minds change, the interview was from *1994*, and he certainly didn't feel like mentioning any such "change of heart".  What evidence do you have to support such a notion?  Rei

 * Noneof the three edits I cited were minor. What word instead of "enthusiastic"? Easy ... you used it just now: "interested." He was honest in the 1994 interview as to his original motives, he could have changed his mind once in service, and that's what his acquaintance reported on. You're trying to impeach Bush on someone else's statement. Cecropia 00:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You have no way of knowing that Bush was (or ever has been) honest.

 * Both the Bear and Barnes edits were minor; they were just one minor fact added in each.

 * Ok, "interested" - which is still contradictory with not wanting to serve in Vietnam, so you haven't helped your position one iota. You're basing your stance on "could have" when even Bush himself hasn't supported such a notion.  I don't know what *your* goals are here, but I'm not trying to "impeach" anyone.  Now, if you won't acknowledge that him being "interested" (or enthusiastic) is a contradiction, surely you'll admit that it is *seemingly contradictory*.  And gee, guess what I wrote?  Take a look: "seems to contradict".  You somehow felt that "seems to contradict" - which it does - is somehow "POV and argumentative".  I don't care that the original statement was from another pilot and not Bush - that doesn't change the reality that they are seemingly contradictory insights into Bush, and there is nothing out there but your idle unsupported speculation of some sort of change of heart to resolve them.  My stating that they are seemingly contradictory is *true*.   The it's the very reason for having the second quote there at all - it fills out the picture of Bush at this point in his life, and points out that there is a knowledge gap as to what exactly his viewpoints were.  If you were more interested in having as balanced of a picture as possible than of defending Bush at every turn, you'd realize that pointing out where information conflicts is a good thing.  Rei

 * Read the definition of minor edit.

This article has been so contentious that I think no edit should be marked minor, unless it's grammar or punctuation or the like. - Hephaestos|§ 00:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

''Well of course edits should be marked minor if and only if they are. As for contentiousness: suppose the article pointed out the fact that Bush is a very controversial figure, widely considered (by many democrats, libertarians, independents, non-Americans, "traditional" Republicans) to be corrupt, and provided one section in which those who thought so could document that claim, and another section in which those who thought otherwise could counter the claim. What would the latter section consist of, other than a bunch of irrelevant tu quoque sputtering about the evils of liberals and Clinton? *That* is why the article is contentious -- because there's no HONEST defense of Bush, but many ideological Republicans feel compelled to defend him. This is an objective fact, and such things are beyond partisanship.''

 * This sounds pretty partisan to me. -- VV 19:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

''Who are you, that anyone should care how things seem to you? I gave an argument; feel free to offer the same. Your concept of "partisan" is intellectually bankrupt; what matters is what is true -- as might be judged, say, by an uninvolved Martian who has no "partisan" feelings. I noted that people who think that Bush is corrupt have reasons (which they have given at length) to think so, and ask what counter can be given to their arguments. I suggested that the only "argument" that can be given is of a "tu quoque" nature, and sure enough you offer one up on cue.''

NPOV notice
Bush may believe in pre-emptive war, but I agree with those who don't believe in pre-emptive NPOV notices. For one, I don't think this article is going to be any more contentious than it already has been during Bush's presidency. It already has required constant vigilance. IMHO, the neutrality notice should only be up if there's a specific point of dispute, which we (as editors) can work to resolve as quickly as possible. -- VV 19:41, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * You only need to read the talk section and look at some of the nature of the edits to see that a catalogue of the POV on both sides in both articles would be a ongoing Labor of Sisyphus, and it will only get worse as the election season goes on.

 * It is no more than fair to realize that some people may actually think that an article not marked with an NPOV dispute in a putative encyclopedia is well balanced and neutral. You know, there are some people, especially K-12 students, and those in other countries, who are not attuned to the level of venom now in U.S. politics.

 * This is true for every article on Wikipedia. Indeed, there is so much non-encyclopedic material that I think the disclaimer should probably be more prominent.  But having these articles singled out seems wrong to me, in particular the constant neutrality dispute message.  The Labor of Sisyphus you allude to has been de rigueur on these articles for quite some time. -- VV 21:26, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The U.S. presidential election is a special case. See how much of the minutae in these articles will have any importance after November 2. To be honest, these articles would become NPOV if they were gutted. As Mr. Kerry would well understand, "name, rank, serial number." If you're right that serious non-NPOV is true of every article in Wikipedia, than it is fraudulent to call this an encyclopedia--rather it becomes a debating society, and should be labeled as such--or, as Hamlet says, "reform it all the way," and have Wikipedia for technical articles only and fire up "Wikiwhine" for edit wars. Cecropia 22:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with VV. The current note implies that neutrality is not achievable on this subject, and I see no reason why it is not... More difficult, sure... More time-consuming, yes... But not impossible.  If you don't think the article is neutral, explain why on the talk page and try to fix it.  I fail to see how the expanded NPOV-dispute tag solves any problems.  Even if the standard dispute tag was used and not removed for a long time, that would be better than the present tag. Tuf-Kat 00:38, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

My complete edits were reverted without any reason. If you do not like it, say why!

Ok, thanks, I will explain what I changed and why. It was written that "it became clear that Afghanistan's Taliban government was deeply connected to Bin Laden's terrorist organization." However, to my knowledge the Talibar, as ruthless as they are, are not a terrorist organization and only accepted Bin Laden because of his money and because they share fundamentalist beliefs. I know of no proof that they knew about 9/11 in advance, and had they I doubt that they would have been stupid enough not to foresee how they would be treated. As is already rightly reported at another page here, they first asked to see proof that bin Laden was behind the attacks the United States refused and instead threatened the Taliban with military action. Zhe Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan, where he could be tried under Islamic law. Furthermore, Afghanistan was not taken by the US army alone but mainly by Afghan warlords, in many cases supported by Ameri can air raides. Then I added that critics question that people like the former Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, who was crippled during the Soviet occupation, can be called "unlawful combatants" and claim that anyone accused for whatever crime has a right for a fair trial, I cannot see why anyone should have a problem with that. The paragraph about the Powell's appeal to the Security Council was clearly tendentious. First it was preceded by a statement putting Iraq's regime in a bad light, which in general of course is ok but at that particular point really fishy. Then the Security Council DID react AGAINST a military action when three veto powers claimed they would not support it and it was obvious Bush could not get the 9 vote majority. I cannot understand how that could have been left out. Ending the paragraph with Bush's "warning" "that the Council could be rendering itself obsolete." in my eyes is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Given the extend of protests the representation of them here was a clear twisting of reality. Furthermore, the EU does not yet have 25 members, that was simply wrong, and to mention that 13 countries sent troops (most of which did not participate in the invasion) is tendentious as well, taking into account that in fact only three countries participated in the invasion, only a single one of them from Europe. The Hitler/Bush comparison is explained in more detail now.

Last thing I added was the reason why Bush's and Blair's chances to win the Nobel Prize may be limited. I must confess I am not happy with how I put it, can anyone help?

It should not be disregarded that a former member of Bush's cabinet stated that already in the first days in office officials tried to find a strategy to fight against Iraq.

Permanent NPOV header?
I also disagree with having this permanent header. This is likely to be one of our most-read articles as the election goes on--putting a header like that is basically broadcasting that we're "not as good as a real encyclopedia". Yes, it will get more vandalism--but it also has more people watching it (I'm sure I'm not the only one who looks at any edit to this page with a high degree of suspicion). As it stands now, there appear to be a good number of people committed to making this page neutral, who will help keep it so. The permanent header just makes us look bad. Meelar 17:05, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * The header has been modified as information rather than a dispute. Whoever modified made it just fine, IMO. I don't think it makes us look bad; I think it makes us look honest—a lot better than having someone happen on the Bush and Kerry pages, see some obvious polemics amid the NPOV stuff, and think Wikipedia is a partisan playground Cecropia 17:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It looks like we have given up on NPOV. That's bad and sends the wrong message to both readers and editors. --mav 18:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd say that the NPOV header isn't needed, but I'd also add that it is unreasonable to expect an article about Bush that one can truly say doesn't express any points of view. Even if wording is moderated, the ratio of what facts about him are brought up will change the point of view.  Citing things about Bush that are seen as his strong points will be viewed as a pro-Bush point of view (for example, his recovery from alcoholism).  Citing things that are seen as his weak points will be viewed as an anti-Bush point of view (for example, his business history).  I think that the best we can hope for is to try to achieve balance.  Rei

 * I don't think at all that we are or should give up on trying to obtain NPOV. Absolutely we should strive for it in these articles, but I don't see it as happening. I think we're mistaking "balance" for "NPOV". An article with 100 obscure pro-Bush tidbits and 100 obscure anti-Bush tidbits may be "balanced", but it is not "NPOV". The only way we could reach NPOV before election day would be to hire a single trusted editor--but that isn't Wikipedia, is it? Cecropia 20:04, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * What? A single person is more apt to be neutral? What are you smoking? --mav

 * I should have been more specific. I'm in the publishing world (inter alia). You can hire (as in $$$) editors who are able and competent to edit to a NPOV, no matter what their personal sentiments. It used to be called journalism. ;-) But Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so... Cecropia 21:06, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * That may sound nice, but in reality it's not so simple. Ask a Palestinian, for example, what they think of how NPOV American media reports are on the Israel/Palestine conflict.  Then ask an American what they think of the Arab press's coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict.  The problem is that what you're exposed to, and what determines your worldview, frames your writing whether you mean for it to or not.  Rei

Having a disclaimer for extenuating circumstances is not "giving up on NPOV." I'm quite confident this article and/or the one on Kerry could achieve true NPOV, even within the election year. I'm also quite confident that it would last approximately two minutes and twelve seconds before someone came by and screwed it up again. I think a disclaimer of some sort is necessary, especially for people new to the site.

With regard to Meelar's concerns (and I think they're shared by others) I think it should be pointed out that in some ways, we're not as good as other encyclopedias. The situation here (and in Middle Eastern articles, etc.) happens to be one way in which we're not. It's worth it in the long run, because by suffering this detriment, we allow ourselves to be better than other encyclopedias in many other ways. We need to lose this "Wikipedia is far and away the best" attitude imo. - Hephaestos|§ 01:34, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Remember: this is an encyclopedia entry, keep it to the most important issues Imagine what someone in 2010 will think if she reads that we spent TWELVE paragrapahs about accusations that he was AWOL, days he was on or off service, people giving their opinion... Could that be moved to "pro-" and "anti-Bush campaigns 2004"? Furthermore, I apreciate that this encyclopedia tries to give both sides of controversial topics rather than just stick to facts. However, sometimes it gets kind of ridiculous, especially when a criticism "they think he was wrong in..." is countered by a statement "but others state he was right" (Obviously, if no one thought he was right he would not have acted as he did). Would it not be better just to state which two views exist? If someone is really interested in a particular issue he can still google into it...

Personality
I feel that any section we have on this is going to be even more POV, as
 * 1) None of us know him
 * 2) It's really hard to be objective, even if we did know him

It doesn't really add that much to the article either, being somewhat non sequitur (spelling?). I'm going to remove it. Meelar 19:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cocaine
Is it just me, or does anybody else think like 10 links for that cocaine issue is ridiculous?

It's not just you. RickK 06:28, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not just you and RickK. If this was even vaguely credible, the press would be chewing it over like a cow's cud. Cecropia 06:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Something about it needs to be there, but 10 links is a bit much. Meelar 17:37, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dealing with fat article and innuendo
It seems that get-back-world-respect has returned as an anonymous user to remove the same material that provides, documented with reputable sources, the background behind negative charges against Bush under the banner of brevity and appropriateness.

Some people complain that assertions pro- or giving background to charges against Bush are not documented. When you document them, then they are taking too much space, but somehow the negative charges remain. We can't have this both ways. So I've redited to remove such crap as an ex-felons one-book refuted charge that Bush was arrested for Cocaine and inane details like that Bush was "partying" with a tennis star before the DUI.

If you oppose me, maybe you can respect that I strive for accuracy and fairness even though I have a POV as the other editors have. I'm willing to have the quality of my edits on a contentious subject compared to anyones. I think you may note that even where I've expanded issues in the Kerry article that some might consider negative, I've also added material on the same subject that was positive. All in all, I prefer Bush in 2004, but I don't hate Kerry. Hatred is a bad and blinding motivation in a political campaign Cecropia 14:20, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems this definitely shouldn't be removed without adding back somewhere else. If the article is too big, split out parts of it and summarize.  But don't just delete. Anthony DiPierro 14:35, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If we're honest, I feel we're walking a line here. Some issues are substantive and some are not. A single claim in one book (even if the author weren't shown to be a virtual fraud) about a hot topic like an actual drug arrest, uncorroborated and not being made by the opposing campaign, really shouldn't be in an encylopedic entry at all. If someone wants to actually read the man's book and state the substance of its contents (with factual commentary) that it is fine--it should be posted under the name of the book as an article. As to the Iraq run-up, I think that deserves a space in a different article, if only because it shows how an a supposed "world body" reflects the partisan interests of its members on both sides. If no one else does it, I'll do it when I get a chance. (Is there life beyond Wikipedia).

 * And I should point out, for those who enthiastically stick in every "jot and tittle" on Bush, that Kerry wasn't born yesterday. I was at the VVAW march in 1971 and have watched his career. Some rather unflattering things have been been said about him that haven't surfaced in the mainstream press. I have not tried to shove these into his article because I think such details are the job of the "opposition research" of both parties (aka, "attack dogs"). Cecropia 16:09, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * If a viewpoint is only held by an extremely small minority (as in a single claim by an author in a book), it falls under no original research. I think there's a case to be made for removing it completely.  As for the rest, I agree that it might be overkill at this point, but I also suspect this is going to be resolved in less than a year, after the election is over.  In the mean time, claims certainly need to be documented.  This will give us the ability to separate the nonsense from the legitimate when things do calm down.  At the very least claims should be documented here, on this talk page.  Anthony DiPierro 16:43, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"the administration even disregarded "
Ms. Raddick was an underling at the Justice Department, she offered an opinion, which her superiors overruled. She was an "advisor", not the DOJ, not the president. Use of adjective "even" further implies that the President recklessly ignored advice he was bound to follow.

People do not appreciate how easily Lindh got off. For one thing he was allowed to keep his citizenship. Do you have a U.S. passport? Have you read it? "LOSS OF NATIONALITY: You may lose your U.S. nationality by [...] serving in an armed force or accepting employment under the government of a foreign state. "

Second, the crime of treason is very narrow in the U.S. Constitution, but he committed it: Article Three, Chapter Three: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. [...]" He escaped that because the government wanted to avoid a difficult and divisive trial, and probably also because it was so early in the process.

War is not a chess game. People die of it. Cecropia 17:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the "even disregarded" phrasing is biased, but I felt that the name of the 'government employee' and her position were important--my mailman might agree with her, but that doesn't mean I should listen to him. Her position presumably makes her opinion more relevant to the debate.  As such, I changed "One govt. employee feels that..." to "Janice whoever, a DOJ ethics adviser, feels that...".

 * Yours, Meelar 17:51, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with your compromise, Meelar. Cecropia 17:57, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Loss of U.S. Nationality by native-born citizen

 * What's written on the back of your passport doesn't override the Constitution. A person born on US soil cannot lose their citizenship without doing so voluntarily and with the intent to lose their citizenship. In any case, I agree with the sentence "Jesselyn Radack, a Department of Justice ethics adviser, supported the view that John Walker Lindh, who was never held at Guantanamo Bay, could not be questioned without his lawyer present. ([8])" though I do question its relevance. Anthony DiPierro 19:49, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * 8 USC 1481 (current as of 1/22/02) specifies:

 * Section 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

 * (a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of   relinquishing United States nationality -

 * [...]

 * (3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer; or

 * [...]

 * (7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States [...]

 * [...]

 * (b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.  Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.  (emphasis added)

 * Barring a specific case brought to the Supreme Court, and the court ruling against it, this is the law of the land. Cecropia 20:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Your quote does not address the fact that the act must be done "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality" - anthony

title: Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 4


text:
Dance-pop

Dance-pop is a subgenre of pop music that originated in the late 1970s to early 1980s. It is generally uptempo music intended for nightclubs with the intention of being danceable but also suitable for contemporary hit radio. Developing from a combination of dance and pop with influences of disco, post-disco and synth-pop, it is generally characterised by strong beats with easy, uncomplicated song structures which are generally more similar to pop music than the more free-form dance genre, with an emphasis on melody as well as catchy tunes. The genre, on the whole, tends to be producer-driven, despite some notable exceptions.

Dance-pop is highly eclectic, having borrowed influences from other genres, which varied by producers, artists and periods. Such include contemporary R&B, house, trance, techno, electropop, new jack swing, funk and pop rock.

Dance-pop is a popular mainstream style of music and there have been numerous artists and groups who perform in the genre. Notable artists include Cher, Madonna, Britney Spears, Rick Astley, Kylie Minogue, Christina Aguilera, Spice Girls, Paula Abdul, Backstreet Boys, Michael Jackson, NSYNC, Jennifer Lopez, Janet Jackson, Rihanna, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Dua Lipa, Years & Years, Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Carly Rae Jepsen, and Ava Max, among others.

1980s
As the term "disco" started to go out of fashion by the late 1970s to early 1980s, other terms were commonly used to describe disco-based music, such as "post-disco", "club", "dance" or "dance-pop" music. These genres were, in essence, a more modern variant of disco music known as post-disco, which tended to be more experimental, electronic and producer/DJ-driven, often using sequencers and synthesizers.

Dance-pop music emerged around the early 1980s as a combination of dance and pop, or post-disco, which was uptempo and simple, club-natured, producer-driven and catchy. Dance-pop was more uptempo and dancey than regular pop, yet more structured and less free-form than dance music, usually combining pop's easy structure and catchy tunes with dance's strong beat and uptempo nature. Dance-pop music was usually created, composed and produced by record producers who would then hire singers to perform the songs.

At the beginning of the 1980s, disco was an anathema to mainstream pop. According to prominent AllMusic critic Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Madonna had a huge role in popularizing dance music as mainstream music, utilizing her charisma, chutzpah and sex appeal. Erlewine claimed that Madonna "launched dance-pop" and set the standard for the genre for the next two decades. As the primary songwriter on her self-titled debut album and a co-producer by her third record, Madonna's insistence on being involved in all creative aspects of her work was highly unusual for a female dance-pop vocalist at the time. The staff of Vice magazine stated that her debut album "drew the blueprint for future dance-pop."

In the 1980s, dance-pop was closely aligned to other uptempo electronic genres, such as Hi-NRG. Prominent producers in the 1980s included Stock, Aitken and Waterman, who created Hi-NRG/dance-pop for artists such as Kylie Minogue, Dead or Alive and Bananarama. During the decade, dance-pop borrowed influences from funk (e.g. Michael Jackson and Whitney Houston), new jack swing (e.g. Janet Jackson and Paula Abdul), and contemporary R&B.

Other prominent dance-pop artists and groups of the 1980s included the Pet Shop Boys, Mel and Kim, Samantha Fox, Debbie Gibson, and Tiffany.

1990s
By the 1990s, dance-pop had become a major genre in popular music. Several dance-pop groups and artists emerged during the 1990s, such as the Spice Girls, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Jessica Simpson, Backstreet Boys, and 'NSYNC. During the early 1990s, dance-pop borrowed influences from house music (e.g. Right Said Fred's "I'm Too Sexy", Taylor Dayne's Soul Dancing, and Madonna's "Vogue", "Rescue Me" and "Deeper and Deeper"), as well as contemporary R&B and new jack swing (e.g. Shanice's "I Love Your Smile").

By the late 1990s, electronic influences became evident in dance-pop music; Madonna's critically acclaimed and commercially successful album Ray of Light (1998) incorporated techno, trance and other forms of electronic dance music, bringing electronica into mainstream dance-pop. Additionally, also in 1998, Cher released a dance-pop song called "Believe" which made usage of a technological innovation of the time, Auto-Tune. An audio processor and a form of pitch modification software, Auto-Tune is commonly used as a way to correct pitch and to create special effects. Since the late 1990s, the use of Auto-Tune processing has become a common feature of dance-pop music.

Celine Dion also released a midtempo dance-pop song, "That's the Way It Is" by the end of 1999. Also during this period, some British bands connected with Britpop and alternative pop experimented with dance-pop as a form – examples include Catatonia single "Karaoke Queen," Bis's top 40 hit "Eurodisco", Kenickie's final single "Stay in the Sun" and Romo band Orlando's major-label debut single "Just For A Second." Another Britpop band, Theaudience was fronted by Sophie Ellis Bextor who went on to a successful solo career primarily in artist-driven dance-pop.

2000s

At the beginning of the 2000s, dance-pop music was still prominent, and highly electronic in style, influenced by genres such as trance, house, techno and electro. Nonetheless, as R&B and hip hop became extremely popular from the early part of the decade onwards, dance-pop was often influenced by urban music. Dance-pop stars from the 1980s and 1990s such as Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Madonna, Janet Jackson and Kylie Minogue continued to achieve success at the beginning of the decade. Whilst much dance-pop at the time was R&B-influenced, many records started to return to their disco roots; Kylie Minogue's albums such as Light Years (2000) and Fever (2001) contained influences of disco music, or a new 21st-century version of the genre known as nu-disco; hit singles such as "Spinning Around" (2000) and "Can't Get You Out of My Head" (2001) also contained disco traces. In Madonna's case, her album Music (2000) contained elements of Euro disco, especially the successful eponymous lead single.

Nevertheless, it was not until the mid-to-latter part of the decade when dance-pop music returned greatly to its disco roots; this can be seen with Madonna's album Confessions on a Dance Floor (2005), which borrowed strong influences from the genre, especially from 1970s artists and bands such as ABBA, Giorgio Moroder, the Bee Gees and Donna Summer. Britney Spears' album Blackout (2007) contained influences of Euro disco. The mid-to-late 2000s saw the arrival of several new dance-pop artists, including Rihanna, Kesha, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. This period in time also saw dance-pop's return to its more electronic roots aside from its disco ones, with strong influences of synthpop and electropop. Lady Gaga is frequently considered one of the pioneers of this evolution, notably with her singles "Just Dance" and "Poker Face" which were heavily influenced by synthpop and electropop. Rihanna's singles in the dance-pop genre, including "Don't Stop the Music" and "Disturbia", contained electronic influences, the former of which has elements of house music, the latter electropop. Kesha's debut single, "Tik Tok", was also highly electronic in style and employed a video game beat. Katy Perry's "Hot N Cold" (2008), "California Gurls" (2010), and "Firework" (2010), which were major commercial hits, also showcased influences of electropop and house music.

2010s
The 2010s, similarly to the late 2000s, saw strong electronic influences present within dance-pop and also strong emphasis on bass-heavy drum beats. Artists such as Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Madonna, Kesha, Christina Aguilera, Usher and Rihanna remained very popular, while newer recording artists such as Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, Rita Ora, and Dua Lipa joined the dance-pop charts within the decade.

Some music journalists noted the popularity of dance tracks, particularly those with narratives about clubbing and feeling positive during hard times, in pop music in the early 2010s. This was considered a response to the 2007–2008 financial crisis or 2012 phenomenon, with the colloquial term "recession pop" used to define some of the popular songs of this decade.

American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift's albums Red (2012), 1989 (2014) and Reputation (2017) contain more of a pop-influenced sound, which features production by dance-pop record producers Max Martin and Shellback. Ariana Grande's single "Problem" featuring Iggy Azalea was a big hit in 2014 and reached combined sales and track-equivalent streams of 9 million units worldwide the following year.

2020s

The 2020s continued to see the evolution of dance-pop with an array of artists expanding the genre's boundaries while incorporating elements from diverse musical styles.

In 2020, Dua Lipa's album Future Nostalgia garnered significant acclaim for its fusion of disco, funk, and electro-pop. Hits like "Don't Start Now" and "Physical" channeled retro vibes while offering contemporary production, helping revive interest in the dance-pop genre. Lady Gaga also made a notable return to her dance-pop roots with the album Chromatica, which included collaborations with Ariana Grande ("Rain on Me") and BLACKPINK ("Sour Candy").

The influence of K-pop on dance-pop also grew in prominence. South Korean groups such as BTS and BLACKPINK achieved global success with songs that blended electronic dance beats with pop melodies. For instance, BTS's single "Dynamite" (2020) became a global hit, reaching number one on the Billboard Hot 100, showcasing how K-pop artists were successfully merging dance-pop elements into their music.

Doja Cat's Planet Her (2021) and The Weeknd's Dawn FM (2022) blended R&B with dance-pop and synth-pop elements, offering new interpretations of the genre.

Dua Lipa's follow-up album Radical Optimism (2024), featuring singles like "Training Season", "Houdini", and "Illusion", continued to push dance-pop boundaries by incorporating elements of house and disco while exploring themes of empowerment and growth. Similarly, Taylor Swift's albums Midnights (2022) and 1989 (Taylor's Version) (2024) showcased a continued embrace of synth-pop and dance-pop sensibilities.

In 2024, The Recording Academy introduced a new category, the Grammy Award for Best Pop Dance Recording, to honor the growing influence of dance-pop. The inaugural winner was Kylie Minogue for her single "Padam Padam", highlighting her continued influence in the genre.

The decade also saw a trend toward a more indie and alternative take on dance-pop, with artists like Rina Sawayama and Charli XCX blending hyperpop, electro-pop, and avant-pop elements into their music, as evident in albums like SAWAYAMA (2020) and CRASH (2022), respectively.

Dance-pop's mainstream appeal persisted as major festivals and live events returned post-COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the genre's enduring popularity and adaptability.

Characteristics
Dance-pop generally contains several notable characteristics:

 * Up-tempo and upbeat music that dance-oriented or dance-centered, characterized by a fast-paced and accelerated musical tempo with a nightclub-oriented appeal.
 * Catchy hooks accompanied with a readily comprehensible melody and memorable rhythm, while maintaining a fast-paced and energetic tempo and conforming to a commercially viable pop-oriented song structure catered and suitable for radio airplay and appeals to a mainstream audience.
 * A strong emphasis on beats, grooves and rhythms that are musically arranged within a rudimentary framework.
 * Prominent hooks.
 * Simple lyrics.
 * Polished productions.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Dance-pop


text:
Churchill Rocket Research Range

The Churchill Rocket Research Range is a Canadian former rocket launch site located 23 km outside Churchill, Manitoba. The facility was used by Canada and the United States beginning in 1954 for sub-orbital launches of sounding rockets to study the upper atmosphere. The site was scientifically beneficial due to lying in the center of a zone containing high aurora activity. Over 3,500 sub-orbital flights were launched from the site.

The site is sometimes referred to as Fort Churchill after the nearby former military base (now Churchill Airport) and is connected by an all-weather gravel road to the town of Churchill.

History

The complex was first built in 1954 by the Canadian Army's Defence Research Board to study the effects of auroras on long distance communications. The programme shut down in 1955, but the site was re-opened and greatly expanded in 1956 as part of Canada's participation in the International Geophysical Year. Launches for the IGY experiments started in 1957, and the site was closed again in December 1958 when the IGY, which was actually two years long, ended.

The site was reopened again in August 1959 by the US Army, in collaboration with the Canadian government, as part of its network of sounding rocket stations. In September 1959 it was used to test CARDE's new solid fuel propellant systems with PVT-1, the vehicle that would evolve into the Black Brant. However, in late 1960 a fire destroyed many of the facilities. It was announced that the Black Brant test series would be continued with an additional twelve launches at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility during 1961-62, while the facilities at Churchill were rebuilt.

The US Army ended its involvement at Churchill in June 1970, and the site was taken over by the Canadian National Research Council to support the Canadian Upper Atmosphere Research Program. The site was used sporadically during the 1970s and 1980s, and was largely deserted by 1985.

SpacePort Canada: 1994-1998
Akjuit Aerospace, a Canadian company founded in 1992, signed a 30-year lease with the Canadian government for the Churchill Rocket Research Range in 1994 with the goal of developing the world's first commercial spaceport. Akjuit assembled a "technical team" of 21 firms led by the American aerospace contractor Raytheon to plan the development of the site into SpacePort Canada, including polar orbital launch capability. Akjuit planned to launch commercial polar-orbiting payloads using Russian-made Start-1 rockets (so named as they were made of repurposed Soviet-era SS-25 ICBMs made redundant by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). Churchill's location in the western hemisphere combined with its range-safety for firing northwards made it an ideal location, with the exception of the extremely cold weather which would limit launch seasons.

Akjuit's first and only rocket launch took place at 7:10a.m. Central Time on April 28, 1998: a suborbital Black Brant IXB research rocket containing a physics payload for the Canadian Space Agency.

Akjuit Aerospace ceased operations in May 1998.

Current uses

The site is no longer used for rocket launches and is currently the location of the Churchill Northern Studies Centre, a non-profit and multi-disciplinary research facility that is also open for educational tourism.

title: Churchill Rocket Research Range


text:
Fu Mingxia

Fu Mingxia (born August 16, 1978, in Wuhan, Hubei) is a retired Chinese diver, multiple Olympic gold medalist and world champion. She won the platform-diving world championship in 1991 at the age of 12, making her the youngest diving champ of all time. She is also famous for being one of the youngest Olympic diving champions, having earned a gold at the 1992 Barcelona Games when she was just 13 years and 345 days old. Throughout the 1990s, Fu dominated the sport with her repertoire of extremely difficult dives. During the 2000 Sydney Olympics, Fu won her fourth gold medal, joining Americans Pat McCormick and Greg Louganis as the world's only quadruple Olympic-diving champions.

Early life and career
Fu Mingxia was born into a working-class family in the city of Wuhan, located along the Yangtze River in central China. Inspired by an older sister, Fu enrolled in gymnastics at a local sports school at the age of 5. Though she was just a child, Fu demonstrated remarkable poise and body control. The coaches, however, felt that she was not flexible enough to make it as a gymnast. Instead, they suggested she pursue diving, though Fu, only about seven years old at the time, could not swim.

Fu made the transition from gymnast to springboard diver and before long was noticed by diving coach Yu Fen, who took Fu to Beijing in 1989 to train at a state-sponsored boarding school as a member of the state diving team. Because of her remarkable talents, she became a part of China's disciplined and highly successful elite sporting programs.

Through a strenuous training program, Fu learned to set aside her fears and progressed quickly. Training sessions averaged four to five hours a day, seven days a week, with the occasional nine-hour day. At times, Fu practiced 100 dives a day. In time, she was gliding so close to the platform during her dives that her short hair often touched the end during her descent toward the water.

In 1990, Fu made her international diving debut, capturing a gold at the U.S. Open and also at the Goodwill Games, held that summer in Seattle. Her daring dives from the top of the 10-meter platform transformed the teeny 12-year-old into a national treasure. However, with pressure mounting, Fu placed third at the Asian Games held in Beijing in the fall of 1990. Following the loss, she changed her routine, adding moves that were technically more difficult, but which she felt more comfortable performing.

By 1991, Fu was talented enough to attend the diving world championships, held in Perth, Australia. The competition was intense, and Fu found herself in eighth place in the final round because she had failed a compulsory dive. Fu pulled herself together, however, and ended up with the title, beating out the Soviet Union's World Cup winner Yelena Miroshina by nearly 25 points. At just 12 years old, Fu became the youngest international champion ever. It is a title she will hold forever because after the competition, swimming's national governing body changed the rules, requiring all competitors of international competitions to be at least 14 years old.

While Fu initially made her mark on the 10-meter platform, she also began competing on the three-meter springboard. In April 1992, she won the gold on the springboard at the Chinese international diving tournament in Shanghai.

Fu made her Olympic debut at the 1992 Games, held in Barcelona, Spain. During the competition, the 154 cm (5'1/2"), 43 kg (94.8 lb) Fu used her youthful fearlessness to beat out older competitors. Fu captured a gold in the platform competition. At 13, she was the youngest medal winner at the Olympics that year-and the second-youngest in the history of the Games. She also qualified as the youngest Olympic diving champion, a title she still holds.

Fu's success in her first Olympics drove her toward her second. In preparing for the 1996 Olympics, held in Atlanta, Fu trained seven hours a day, six days a week. Her only other activities included listening to music, watching television and getting massages. Fu's coaches drilled her hard, but she said she found comfort and peace from the physically and mentally straining regimen through music. Fu was in top form at the 1996 Olympics and shone on both the platform and springboard, taking gold in both events. She was the first woman in 36 years to win both events in a single Olympics.

Awards and accomplishments

 * 1990 Goodwill Games – 10m platform 1st (11 years old)
 * 1991 Asian Games – 10m platform 3rd (12 years old)
 * 1991 World Swimming Championships – 10m platform 1st (12 years old)
 * 1992 Olympic Games – 10m platform 1st (13 years old)
 * 1993 FINA Diving World Cup – 3m springboard 3rd (15 years old)
 * 1994 World Swimming Championships – 10m platform 1st (16 years old)
 * 1994 Asian Games – 3m springboard 2nd (16 years old)
 * 1995 FINA Diving World Cup – 10m platform 2nd (17 years old)
 * 1995 FINA Diving World Cup – 3m springboard 1st (17 years old)
 * 1996 Olympic Games – 10m platform 1st (18 years old)
 * 1996 Olympic Games – 3m springboard 1st (18 years old)
 * 1999 University Games – 10m platform 1st (21 years old)
 * 1999 University Games – 3m springboard 1st (21 years old)
 * 2000 FINA Diving World Cup – 3m springboard 2nd (22 years old)
 * 2000 Olympic Games – 3m springboard synchronized (with Guo Jingjing) 2nd (22 years old)
 * 2000 Olympic Games – 3m springboard 1st (22 years old)

Retirement and comeback
Shortly after Atlanta, the triple-gold-medallist decided to retire and enrolled at Beijing's Tsinghua University to study management science. Fu also got involved in politics and in 1997 served as a delegate to the Communist Party's 15th Congress.

Fu spent about two years off the board. By 1998, however, Fu began diving with the university team, but on her own terms. On her own terms still meant a disciplined training schedule, but she reduced the number of hours per day down to five. Fu found that practicing just for the sake of practicing to be a pointless endeavor.

As a member of the university team, Fu competed in the 1999 Universiade in Palma, Spain, winning both the highboard and springboard titles. Less than a year back into it, she won silver at the Diving World Cup. Fu regained her spot on the national Olympic squad and also took up a new sport - three-meter synchronized diving - as she headed for the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, Australia. Fu and her partner, Guo Jingjing, practiced together for less than six months, yet earned a silver. The Russian pair that beat them had trained together for years. After the synchronized diving event, Fu went on to compete on the springboard. She won a gold, nailing her final dive, a reverse one-and-a-half somersault, two-and-a-half twist for nines when eights would have been enough to beat out Guo, her teammate. With her four gold medals and one silver, Fu became one of the most decorated Olympic divers of all time. She is one of only three divers to win an Olympic double-double in the individual events: Pat McCormick and Greg Louganis being the other two.

Marriage and motherhood
Fu married Antony Leung, former Financial Secretary of Hong Kong, on July 15, 2002, in Hawaii. Their marriage was not publicly revealed until July 30, 2002. They have a daughter (born February 26, 2003) and two sons (born December 12, 2004, and April 25, 2008).

Though Fu is no longer diving, she was a member of the Beijing Olympic bid committee for the 2008 Olympics. Beijing won the bid, and Fu went on to serve as an ambassador at the event.

title: Fu Mingxia


text:
Osteosclerosis

Osteosclerosis is a disorder characterized by abnormal hardening of bone and an elevation in bone density. It may predominantly affect the medullary portion and/or cortex of bone. Plain radiographs are a valuable tool for detecting and classifying osteosclerotic disorders. It can manifest in localized or generalized osteosclerosis. Localized osteosclerosis can be caused by Legg–Calvé–Perthes disease, sickle-cell disease and osteoarthritis among others. Osteosclerosis can be classified in accordance with the causative factor into acquired and hereditary.

Acquired osteosclerosis

 * Osteogenic bone metastasis caused by carcinoma of prostate and breast
 * Paget's disease of bone
 * Myelofibrosis (primary disorder or secondary to intoxication or malignancy)
 * Osteosclerosing types of chronic osteomyelitis
 * Hypervitaminosis D
 * Hyperparathyroidism
 * Schnitzler syndrome
 * Mastocytosis
 * Skeletal fluorosis
 * Monoclonal IgM Kappa cryoglobulinemia
 * Hepatitis C.

Hereditary osteosclerosis

 * Malignant infantile osteopetrosis
 * Neuropathic infantile osteopetrosis
 * Infantile osteopetrosis with renal tubular acidosis
 * Infantile osteopetrosis with immunodeficiency
 * IO with leukocyte adhesion deficiency syndrome (LAD-III)
 * Intermediate osteopetrosis
 * Autosomal dominant osteopetrosis (Albers-Schonberg)
 * Pyknodysostosis (osteopetrosis acro-osteolytica)
 * Osteopoikilosis (Buschke–Ollendorff syndrome)
 * Osteopathia striata with cranial sclerosis
 * Mixed sclerosing bone dysplasia
 * Progressive diaphyseal dysplasia (Camurati–Engelmann disease)
 * SOST-related sclerosing bone dysplasias

Diagnosis
Osteosclerosis can be detected with a simple radiography. There are white portions of the bone which appear due to the increased number of bone trabeculae.

Animals
In the animal kingdom, there also exists a non-pathological form of osteosclerosis, resulting in unusually solid bone structure with little to no marrow. It is often seen in aquatic vertebrates, especially those living in shallow waters, providing ballast as an adaptation for an aquatic lifestyle. It makes bones heavier, but also more fragile. In those animal groups, osteosclerosis often occurs together with bone thickening (pachyostosis). This joint occurrence is called pachyosteosclerosis.

title: Osteosclerosis


text:
Talk:Technocracy (disambiguation)

Untitled
"The word technocracy (or the adjective technocrat) has also been (mis)applied to refer to ideas revolving around technology and so may also refer to:"

I'd like to know why the "(mis)" was put in here, as I do not think that it applies to the Technocratic movement. While it may apply to the other reference there, I think that it is misleading to group them both under something where people could misconstrue the Technocratic Movement as being an improper use of the word. Is there a better way to change this?

--Kolzene 01:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. The changes seemed to be based on the opinion of the editor and gave preference to some articles as being "correct" or "incorrect". I have changed it back giving everything equal weight again. I did leave in the entymology though. - DNewhall 05:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
This disambiguation page was marked for cleanup per MoS:DAB. The following entries were (a) too detailed and (b) not related enough for a disambiguation page but I'm still copying them here in case someone can turn them into something suitable/useful for this dab page (see WP:DAB and MoS:DAB) or for technocrat or technocracy. – sgeureka t•c 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A political attitude common to Thorstein Veblen and H. G. Wells, who considered that the economy would be better off run by technical experts instead of private industry. This is somewhat similar to the ideas of the Technocratic movement, mentioned above. See also planned economy and anticipatory democracy.
 * A term adopted by Neil Postman to describe a society where tools play a central role in culture and everything must give way to the advancement of the tools, yet there are alternatives still present
 * In Francoist Spain, the tecnócratas were a group of politicians associated with the Opus Dei who took the running of the economy of Spain from the autarkic Falangists, incorporating Spain to Western capitalism and producing the Spanish Miracle.
 * A technocrat can be an individual who makes decisions based solely on technical information and not personal or public opinion. This definition is usually applied to political decision makers who use this method to guide their actions.

 * I must object to this, all those things do represent some meaning of the word in different contexts, it is not useful at all to delete many of them wholesale and cut the rest a single (something inaccurate) sentence. It's more complicated then that and needs to be explained. I agree that there is probably too much information here for a disambig page, but it needs to be whittled down more carefully. --Hibernian 01:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I reviewed the removed entries and can only say that I disagree. Disambiguation pages (which "Technocracy" has been for over a year) are for resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic (Disambiguation). None of the removed entries resolved such a conflict, and meanings of a word are better left for wiktionary. The removed entries also did not provide links to a section-in-article where the topic is explained in more detail. Therefore, I removed them per MoS:DAB. If you think they can be fleshed out into their own article, start an article and link to them from this disambiguation page. Have a look at other dab pages and you'll see that "Technocracy" was marked for cleanup for a reason. If you think my clean-up was inappropriate (per MoS:DAB) and you can do a better job, be my guest, as I don't claim to be a Technocracy expert (but I'd say I'm a bit of disambiguation expert by now). I'm going to revert your revert now. – sgeureka t•c 14:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Added a few links to other Technocracy related pages. skip sievert (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Technocrate please do not re add the Anticipatory democracy link here. It does not reflect ideas considered about Technocracy issues. Here is a video of Howard Scott explaining that Gibbs was the intellectual forefather of Technocracy and that it is not democratic http://www.technocracy.org/origins-1.htm The Origins of Technocracy Please watch it. skip sievert (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Again it is requested to the same person above to not add the mentioned link for the same reasons as stated above. skip sievert (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The idea of this page, Skip, if you haven't already figured it out (which you obviously haven't), is to link to the different meanings of the word "technocracy", it is not about the Technocracy movement, that's what that page is for. Get it? --Hibernian (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove links to other wiki articles that are related and expand this subject. skip sievert (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

 * We're not supposed to expand the page Skip, it's supposed to contain only one link to each idea. That's the Nature of a Disambiguation page, it's just a navigational aid. --Hibernian (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 * As a navigation aid it this page should have links to both Tech Inc and the technocracy movement as they are not the same thing (although Tech inc is the main part of the movement). Also the link the Anticipatory democracy page should also be here as they use the term technocracy as well and the point of this page is the different usages of the word, even if we don't agree with their usage. Isenhand (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no connection at all between Technocracy Technate and anticipatory democracy... a site that is probably slated for deletion. There is no Technocracy movement. The Technate design is something that was formatted and presented by Technocracy Incorporated in 1934. NET for which the Technocracy movement page was created is not in any way connected to the original ideas connected with the so called Technocracy movement.skip sievert (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

 * This page is not about if there is or is not a connection with a Technate, that’s why Anticipatory Democracy should be here. This page is about different meanings for the word technocracy. That’s the point of this page. The word has been used a number of ways. Technocracy is not just what you say it is. Isenhand (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A non political (democratic or other) system.

 * While this page may be about different meanings of the word... it is not about one editors different meaning of the word. Also it is noted that perhaps an account was just set up for the express purpose of reinforcing a biased view (in my opinion) of this article. This may be a sock puppet account solely used to revert. This is the account (CSUNhistorian (Talk |). skip sievert (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interesting series of videos originally put out by a member of Technocracy Incorporated that gives an explanation of some of the very basic ideas connected to the Technocracy Technate design for North American. You will notice that it explains that this system is not a democratic system or a political system. It is a science based social design. http://www.youtube.com/TBonePickensetc The first video in this series is suggested for those interested in a further knowledge of this subject. This is information originally distributed by Technocracy Incorporated. skip sievert (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page
The purpose of this page is to provide Links to different interpretations of the meaning of the article title

and since people do not appear to be able to come to a consensus as to what it should mean then links should be to the different possible meanings.

I would suggest that you stop editing, removing and especially reverting things until can come to a consensus as to what should be here.

and if you can do that get a third party to take a look at it

to that end i have added both movements under groups (movements are groups by definition) and tech inc under organisations as that is how they are described in their own articles if can get a proper consensus then this page may need marking for cleanup again, to get someone neutral who knows how to write a disambiguation to do it

(Firebladed (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

 * Technocracy Movement is not a group or an organization. It is a concept made up by a European group to try and give credence to some information they wished to promote. It is an ambiguous term at best. As said it is an artificial construct. *skip sievert (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 * that statement is at best a personal opinion and not a Neutral point of view, and defiantly not a point of consensus (Firebladed (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

As a registered member of a group that formerly created a team to edit and control articles related to Technocracy issues... and I can give the link for that if you wish... it is suggested that you are representing a special interest group here... net.. and that a consensus is not related to a cabal. Defiantly not a point of consensus ? Odd language.

Technocracy movement is really a good article to permanently delete.

You are in a conflict here. http:DISABLE//en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=107 Network of European Technocrats - fireblade skip sievert (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 * How is it odd language? other than the possibility of missing out the word "is"

 * if you want it deleting then follow proper policy and request it, and if you can get a consensus for it to be deleted they you would have a legitimate reason to remove it from this page.

 * also there doesn't appear to be a consensus between you and Hibernian (talk) or anyone else that i have seen edit the page recently

 * i'm ignoring your comments as conflicts of interest as they seem to have as little basis as saying that a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers is in a conflict of interest when editing articles on Electronics
 * (Firebladed (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

Technocracy Incorporated as a subgroup of Technocracy movement
I'm not going to object to

(though have made minor edit to remove extra links as per Manual of Style (disambiguation pages))

though i still think that Technocracy Incorporated should be under a separate section of Organizations but thats a minor issue

Technocracy movement a nonstarter.. there are hundreds of groups that use that word
And while there are.. they are not related to the information in any way as people have tried to link them. Again that amorphous term really means nothing much except a connection to an article that is mostly about TechInc. It can relate to any number of notable or non notable groups or sites.. forums or blogs or what ever. Technocracy movement is an article that could be put up as an article for possible deletion. It is mostly repetitive information from the TechInc article ... and was originally created to promote two blogging/forum sites which no longer exist.

Technocracy Incorporated as a subgroup of Technocracy movement? That goes against every conceivable way of looking at this. These others are spin offs of the original group. Despite what is conjectured in some fiction books. Here is a short history of the movement. It is suggested reading Fireblade. It is not based on fiction. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy. As far as consensus that is a tricky thing when dealing with a cabal of editors that are trying to conform articles to a book written by one of themselves. As a registered member of net there is a direct conflict of interest of trying to conform edits to a leaders instructions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia ... In essence fireblade you are trying to link your group to a movement. It is not connected though. You are a paying member of a commercial blogging site in Europe that was shown to exibit this quality previously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VSCA Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. skip sievert (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First starting with the definition of a Movement (a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal)

That would make Technocracy Incorporated as a organisation that is part of the Technocracy movement and originated the movement but the movement has since expanded to to include other subgroups and organisations, which group is a spin off from which other is not important, the point is that a movement is a group of individuals and organisations that share a general common goal, though may differ in approach and methods.

whether or not the technocracy movement article is good or not or should be deleted is an issue for that article and not a disambiguation page. As I have said before if you want the article deleted then follow wikipedia policy and put a request for deletion. (Firebladed (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

Again you are a special interest editor for a European movement that is unrelated to the subject here although you are making this point for that contention. A Technocracy movement is not a group where you have located it under the heading.. groups. It may be a part of culture.. but having 3 to 6 active bloggers on a commercial website about half of which is devoted to money making schemes does not make a movement. This POV-pushing nonsense should go. You insert all sorts of nonsense on the basis that any two people who agree with you is consensus and any number who disagree means nothing. They are monomaniacs, disruptive, the article is an embarrassment, and they have showed long-standing determination to make sure it remains that way. skip sievert (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Expanded article
Noticed that this basic article did not have much of any information on it so expanded it and added a bunch of ref. citation links to the material also. Then noticed that it is supposed to be a (Wikipedia:Disambiguation) article... so I removed the information. Whoops. skip sievert (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Technocracy (disambiguation)


text:
User:Zteitler

I'm a faculty member in the math department at Boise State University in Boise, ID. You may find my web page at https://zteitler.github.io/.

title: User:Zteitler


text:
RV Belgica

Belgica was and is the name of three Belgian research vessels, with a name derived ultimately from the Latin Gallia Belgica.

 * RV Belgica
 * RV Belgica

title: RV Belgica