Have a look. I know its not great, but its a start.
I think that either the title of your page needs to be changed, or you need to remove some of the entries.
I’m clearly on record here as loathing the Bush administration, but i don’t really think it’s fair to list the corporate malfeasance of Enron et al. as a “Bush Administration Scandal.” Similarly with Rush Limbaugh’s drug use, Bill O’Reilly’s sexual harassment case, and a few others.
Sure, the subtitle of your article says “This is a list of major scandals during the Bush Administration,” but the main title implies (to me, at least) that the administration is somehow responsible for those scandals, or that it played a significant role in them. And if you can’t connect the listed scandals to the Bush Administration, it seems rather pointless to have them listed there. Sometimes coincidences are exactly that.
For example, much of the malfeasance that brought down the Enron corporation was going on well before Bush was elected, under a regulatory system overseen by the Clinton administration. Would you categorize Enron as a “Clinton Administration Scandal” also, or does Bush get the honor just because the house of cards came tumbling down on his watch?
I prefer my own first page on Cyber City Oedo, amended heavily by other users but I made some recent changes to a character name.
I created the 3 itty bitty articles on tunnels in hawaii other then the one on the Wilson Tunnels. I eventually want to add pictures for the Tetsuo and Hospital Rock tunnels.
Actually the one of the Pali tunnels I just pulled out of a page on the Pali Highway.
I don’t think your page is going to last – not in a recognizable form, anyway. For many of the reasons mhendo said, as well as because it’s not exactly NPOV and because many of the issues directly related to the President are already covered in the Criticism of George W. Bush article.
I’m all for being bold and supporting Wikipedia and everything, and maybe with some extensive discussion and editing that page might turn into something useful, but maybe stick to less controversial stuff when starting out (the first article I started was for the restaurant Steak 'n Shake).
Ted Haggard doing drugs has to do with Bush how?
On the one hand, being all evil & stuff, I applaud efforts to spread misinformation, miscommunication, illogic, and ignorance. The less informed the populace is, the easier it will be for me to conquer this wretched orb and set myself up as God-King.
On the other hand, that particular wiki spreads ignorance in an unsubtle and laughably incompetent fashion. Of the 28 items you list, 11 are connected to the Bush adminstrations by links as tenuous as Britney Spears’ panty liners. These are so evidently NOT the fault of the Bush administration that they entirely undercut any point you might wish to make. No, that’s not true. The 11 don’t undercut your point because you make no more of a point than a concave lens. Here are some concepts you may wish to introduce yourself to in correcting that:
In short, while I applaud the spirit of your effort to make the world stupider, I can give you no better than a D- for the execution. You will have to improve if you wish a position in my regime after the conquest.
So the scandals are all accurate, they just aren’t under the proper heading. Easily fixed.
Well, it’s not quite that simple.
There is also the question of whether all those scandals can, or should, be linked by placing them under a single article. I guess you could call most of them “Conservative Scandals” or something like that, but even then it seems to me that your list is a rather pointless exercise.
I was sitting in bed thinking of how scandal plagued the conservatives have been the past few years. I was trying to think of all the scandals that have been in the news since Bush took office. I couldn’t find a comprehensive list online so I thought I’d start one on wikipedia and see if anyone would add to it.
So basically thats the idea.
Article visited. Punctuation fixed. Wikipedia supported.
Accurate in what sense? Accurate in the sense that they happened, yes.
What you’ve got here is a collection of scandals that you’ve arbitrarily linked together because you feel there’s some connection to the Bush Administration. There might be a scandal that I think fits better, or one that someone else doesn’t fit at all. Since there’s no objective measure of what a)constitutes a scandal or b)links it to the Bush Administration, it’s a free-for-all. Lists like Illinois Highways or List of radio stations in Illinois are objective and verifiable. Yours is neither.
If you want to read more about what Wikipedia expects lists to be like, here’s a page which attempts to explain it (links to a few others as well).
On preview: One of the things you’ll find in the above article is that lists shouldn’t be too broad. If you truly did a “scandals that have been in the news since Bush took office” list (that is, not limited it to American conservative scandals), I think it would be too broad. Better to have a “Scandals of 2007,” “Scandals of 2006” and so on. Of course your “Conservative scandals since Bush took office” is NOT too broad, but it has the other downside of being non-NPOV.
Didn’t take me long to find the first errors:
"January 2003 - Weapons of mass destruction not found in Iraq "
“January 2003 - Halliburton wins no bid contracts in Iraq”
Technically, I don’t think these could become scandals at least until the war started, which of course was in March 2003.
“January 2002 - Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Arthur Anderson, et al investigated for corporate malfeasance”
Those scandals aren’t “Bush Administration” scandals, and didn’t all begin in January 2002. WorldCom and Tyco are not connected to Enron/Anderson, which is the same scandal, and, as I said, aren’t part of the Bush administration.
“November 2004 - Bill O’Reilly settles sexual harassment case”
Nothing to do with the Bush administration.
I mean, this is a pretty bad Wikipedia article. It’s riddled with errors, mentions a dozen or more scandals that don’t fit the article title, includes things that are not scandals, has no footnotes and doesn’t appear to serve a point consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia.
I think they’re gonna delete it, which is a shame because I think its pretty good now.
Your page has been redirected to List of Neoconservative Controversies and as you say is likely to be deleted as duplicative of another article.
Happy birthday cainxinth, there’s no cake or ice cream either.