Talk:What Happened (McClellan book): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:22, 19 June 2008

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Congressional Response

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)[reply]

Rough start

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)[reply]

It essentially is out now. The publisher seems to have given up on the 6/2 release date due to all the media coverage.[1] I bought a copy at the local Borders this afternoon. --Benna (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it already "bestselling"? Xulong (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-orders at Amazon.com have made it the #1 bestseller. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

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)[reply]

The leading reliable sources, including the NYT and MSNBC, have lead with (and focused upon) the criticism by McClellan. Indeed, just from the excerpts I don't see how you can argue it is anything less than a bombshell (as noted by the numerous sources, cited or in progress). If you find other secondary sources covering other aspects, please feel free to add them as well. I told you it was a rough start... ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up - It's the lead story on CNN.com at this hour (06:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)), which reads:

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.

Headline at CNN = due weight. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the interest of WP:NPOV, I would agree that quotes about the book, from McClellan and others (Rove, etc.) are appropriate. There is more info developing in the full CNN story. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that's pretty much all the coverage that is has received as of now. However, whether we can or can't improve it, the article is still violative of WP:UNDUE. But I don't have a problem if you wish to remove the npov tag. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE says that weight given to viewpoints in the article should be equal to the coverage and significance in the real world (paraphrased, of course). Being that I've yet to see any coverage that focuses on any other aspect of the book other than the "bombshell" angle, in my opinion, invalidates the claim that it's given undue weight. My opinion, of course, but I think the logic is grounded in policy. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, also, ultimately the end of the subtitle ends "and what's wrong with washington" and considering his experience in washington and the excerpts thus far, I think we can safely assume focusing on his criticism of Bush won't be too far out of line with what the book ends up focusing on 15.243.169.73 (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is heavily biased against the book in favor of the Bush administration. Christopher Hitchen's speculation about McClellan's motives and Dole's insulting remarks could be balanced by any number or political figures in support of McClellan. Someone should balance the article in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.173.95 (talk) 05:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long Title

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)[reply]

A redirect is in place; I don't think there would be any benefit in swapping them. WP:MOS guidelines advocate short (fewer than ten words) titles generally. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The long offical name is not the title that the "greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" as required by Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book title

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)[reply]

I went ahead and put the second image in. It is a bit higher quality as it is a jpg, and is the lead image on Amazon. --Tom (talk - email) 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book, and the title is What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. The cover looks like the one being used now, but with that title. --Benna (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Section?

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)[reply]

That would certainly be acceptable, I would think. I'm sure it would fall under "Criticism". --Tom (talk - email) 21:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a great idea as well. I would also like to consider a book review section. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a "response section", I believe that a brief coverage of the the major players' responses is appropriate. Regarding a "book review" section, I believe book reviews fall under what we are not. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nough. Although, if that is the case, I have seen a whole lot of this particular form of what we are not in wikipedia. Perhaps we should start cleaning that up? --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; WP:NOT is a policy. However, I don't think that discussion of cleaning up Wikipedia writ large, or other articles particularly, is germane to this talk page. ;-) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from people mentioned in the book is fine, but balance needs to be maintained by mentioning those people supporting McClellan's allegations and the Congressional Response. McClellan is being called by Rep. Wexler and Nadler. Wexler has stated his reason for doing to is to convince his fellow congressmen to push for impeachment of Bush. --70.226.173.95 (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dole

Should Bob Dole's response be represented? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_Happened&action=edit&section=5

Proxy User (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have a selection of it put in. Trilemma (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about Christopher Hitchens? Who cares what his thoughts are on this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.173.95 (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dole, the article currently reads: "Several political figures made high profile comments on McClellan's book. Former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, in an email that was later made public, accused McClellan of being a "miserable creature" who "[doesn't] have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues", and Dole mockingly suggested donating the proceeds from the book to "a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.'"" This 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.

McClellan's response

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)[reply]

If each person mentioned in the book gets a place for response, then the claims made against them by McClellan need to be presented as well. --70.226.173.95 (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The response is to allegations of the book, and commentary by other significant figures on the book overall. Anything McClellan said in the response section can be added elsewhere. Trilemma (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV mandates that we include both critics, and the author's response. Excluding either is not in the interest of a neutral point of view. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind quoting exactly what you're referring to? Trilemma (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm well familiar with that policy and that paragraph, Blaxthos, but I'm not interpreting it as you are. What you are suggesting could lead to an infinite number of responses and responses to responses, as each one could be interpreted as containing some new point. The three things that McClellan argued could be contained elsewhere. The way it is structured contains some level of NPOV because it is, in effect, appearing to give McClellan, the accuser, the final word. "x says this" "y responds" "but x counters". The significant points were the claims McClellan makes in the book, and the significant rebuttals and reactions followed.Trilemma (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is flawed. This article isn't about accusations, it's about the book. If there is criticism from a significant source about the book (of course, there is), then it should be included. However, WP:NPOV guarantees that we will present both the criticism of the subject (the book), and the author's response. Having the response to the criticism before the criticism is stated defies sense (IMHO). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in that the article is about the book. So, being that NPOV governs the dialectic and the book is the dialectic, McClellan's claims are the thesis and the responses from a variety of sources the antithesis. By introducing McClellan's subsequent statements in the manner that you are, you're creating a new, secondary thesis, and having it go unanswered, thus swaying the POV toward McClellan. Trilemma (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. The sequence is:

McClellan writes a book.
Critics issue criticisms of the book.
McClellan responds to that criticism.

It's doubtful that there will be subsequent criticism of his response, and certainly if there is it is too many steps removed for inclusion here. To disallow McClellan's response, or to bury it by detailing it before the criticism, is both academically dishonest and a violation of WP:NPOV. Again, this is an article about the book, not a presentation of thesis or a preponderance of his points. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're contradicting yourself. On one hand, you argue that the NPOV selection you're quoting entails all relevant views, comments, etc. on this type of topic, but now you come back and say that based on an artificial framework that you're unilaterally imposing, any further rebuttals would be too many steps. The whole argument you're making depends on a disregard of steps, but rather an ongoing, open ended series. So why would that stop at 3? If all significant views that have been published by reliable sources encompass the ongoing back and forth in regards to specific claims and allegations, then any rebuttals to McClellan's counterarguments also warrant mentioning. Trilemma (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm stating is that the inclusion must be linear. I detailed what I believe the delineation is, and what criterion must be met for inclusion, backed by relevant policies. At this point, a third opinion might be useful (if not a full request for comment). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 ::What about Christopher Hitchens?  Who cares what his thoughts are on this subject?  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.226.173.95|70.226.173.95]] ([[User talk:70.226.173.95|talk]]) 09:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+:: Regarding Dole, the article currently reads: ''"Several political figures made high profile comments on McClellan's book. Former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, in an email that was later made public, accused McClellan of being a "miserable creature" who "[doesn't] have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues", and Dole mockingly suggested donating the proceeds from the book to "a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.'""''  This 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.
 == McClellan's response==