Talk:Neil Bush

Is "Ignite" a drug, or what?

I found this passage confusing:

In 2002, Bush received a mixed response when he spoke of education while at Whitney High School (a school for gifted students in Cerritos, California). Among the points of his speech, he opined: "We create these prisonlike environments, then we take our hunter-warrior types and label them attention-deficit disordered and put them on drugs." (Bush has often advocated for less use of ritalin and other mind-altering drugs on children) He added that: "Ignite! is designed to make learning fun for "hunter-warrior" kids who don't like reading."

It sounds like Neil Bush is contradicting himself, if you just read this paragraph. Can someone reword it, so it's clear whether he favors or opposes drugging school kids? I would appreciate that. Moon Man 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed fraudster category

Removed criminal fraudster category. Not convicted of fraud.--FloNight 03:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No connection with Scientology

What's with the "Scientology" stuff? Just because he testified at a hearing where Scientologists also testified does not mean he is a Scientology advocate. I'm sure democrats also testified at the same hearing. Does that make Bush a democrat? No.

It happened, and the media commented on it, as sourced by the link. Why are you making such a big deal of it? Anti-Ritalin activism is a major Scientology issue, not a major democrat issue, hence your comparison is meaningless. wikipediatrix 21:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"The media commented on it?" One UPI quote that really says more about Scientology is not credible. Please find other *unique* sources for this connection and post them. Scientology activism isn't what this article is about.

This has nothing to do with Scientology activism, and how is the UPI story not credible?! Not sure I should even bother discussing it with an anonymous IP who doesn't even sign his discussion page posts. wikipediatrix 21:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well how about me, a different anonymous who does know how to sign posts? First off, I personally can live with the reduced "controversally", etc. statement, as it fits the larger pattern of Neil Bush managing to get latched on to by various dubious groups (e.g., Arab tyrants, Chinese plutocrats, etc) a la Billy Carter. But, Wikipediatrix, I have to say that you open yourself to criticism because your record on this page started out with borderline tin-foil hat statements that fall well within offtopic Scientology soapboxing. While I would normally salute you for your work to unmask Scientology's nature, I think you have lost perspective a little when it comes to some of the things you tried to insinuate on this page. I would also encourage you not to bite the newcomers ("Not sure I should even bother discussing it with an anonymous IP who doesn't even sign his discussion page posts"). I offer these comments as constructive criticism, and I hope you will take them as such.--67.101.68.65 22:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the contributors edit history. They are going to every bio with any connection to Scientology, and trying to put anti-Scientology material. Also, please note the different between a news report, and a commentary in a news publication. The two are different. --Rob 18:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Muckrakers aren't credible?

I'd like to have bit more discussion about the removal (twice, by two different IP addresses) of the TPM link. The link supports a two-sentence paragraph. The editors have left the sentences in the article, so apparently that having unsourced information is better than citing a source they don't believe in. Unfortunately, others often don't agree. What concerns me is that:

• Six months or a year or whatever from now, someone slaps a "citation needed" tag on the paragraph.

• No one remembers the source, so the paragraph gets removed.

John Broughton 04:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that the citations on the tpmmuckraker.com page are flimsy, but like you say probably better than nothing. You'd think they (tpmmuckraker.com) could at least be bothered to indicate a date for each citation. I would have a bigger problem with the link if it weren't for the fact that I independently know most items on the list to be true. So I can see why other editors have removed the link, even though it's fine with me. --67.101.69.186 14:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

First -- The paragraph is fluff. Parents investing is not noteworthy. International investment is to be expected, especially with this family. Who cares? Second -- If there are "various" sources, why can't they be cited? Third -- What SEC document? Why is it even interesting? Fourth -- Muckraker is an activist site. Not NPOV. The name alone implies bias. Fifth -- Muckraker citations are worthless. No dates. No articles. Just publication name dropping for all we know. Sixth -- I see no reason for such a link for such a lame, obvious statement...except maybe for trying to stir up mud and feed a conspiracy theory. Parting Shot -- Fluff as it is, I think the paragraph can stay, but any citations should be verifiable and neutral. I expect they would be uninteresting, though. 70.249.75.57 19:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the investment by Barbara and George Bush is relevant is that she made an donation to a hurricane relief fund that included the requirement that the fund buy software from Neil's firm. Which, as an investor in the firm, she benefits from. Otherwise, I agree that parents investing in a kid's business isn't particularly newsworthy.

You might want to look at the muckraker article in wikipedia, before you continue to attack "muckrakers" as being unworthy of being quoted. Among other things, historically, muckrackers have accomplished a lot of good by publicizing problems that powerful interests (politicans, businesses) don't want publicly discussed. A lot of people have gone (rightly) to jail because of muckrackers. John Broughton 19:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-applied labels are often not accurate. Just as a person that describes himself as "cool" is usually a nerd, a site that describes itself as "muckraker" probably is something else. Ergo, no cred. Just as I'm really hip, yo. Word! 205.157.244.33 22:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the Barbara Bush issue. The fund was started by her family. It's her money. Earmarking donation funds isn't unusual. Perhaps she benefits in some way, but people also take tax deductions for charitable donations. What's the diff? Is there a scandal here? Coverup? True conflict of interest? He (or she) who pays the fiddler picks the tune. 207.207.15.18 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientology

User: 67.101.66.5, who seems to think he WP:OWNs this article and is the self-appointed guardian of it, has AGAIN removed all mention of Scientology from the "anti-ritalin campaign" section" even though the information is fully sourced. There are even MORE sources I could load the section up with here if that's what he really wants. 67.101.66.5 keeps using the "tinfoil" insult regarding my edit, which shows his POV push. What is "tinfoil" about sourced facts as written in legitimate sources such as the UPI news bit, and in Ellen Kingsley's article "Neil Bush's Strange Bedfellows"? I can see no reason why 67.101.66.5 (and his previous incarnations such as 67.101.69.186) can deny that this issue exists. It's not even like I'm suggesting that Bush IS a Scientologist, nor am I suggesting there's even anything WRONG with hanging out with Scientologists. Let the damn sources speak for themselves. wikipediatrix 20:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page. In my previous and current (see article) attempts to reach some kind of consensus wording, I have used wording that includes information about Scientogists' involvement with anti-Ritalin campaigning. I have simply done it in what I argue is an in-perspective, NPOV manner (sans soapbox speeches re. not helping the millions of ill, etc. - that you are quoting a "source" doesn't change that it is a soapbox speech rather than a historical record). I did a more basic revert on your last edit because (as I stated then), a) there was zero edit summary or other justification, b) the consensus-faulting wording was the exact same that led OTHER non 67.101/100 editors (look at history or talk above) wiped out completely.

I have never denied that this issue exists. I am trying to show you that you have lost perspective. It belongs in context alongside Bush's dalliances with Chinese plutocrats, Arab dictators, Thai hookers, Moonies, etc, which partially his own doing and partially due to his fate under his family pedigree (I expect his Mexican connections to gain prominence soon as well given the current state of the "immigration debate"). I use "tinfoil" because your first few edits on this article strongly implied via weasel words that Bush was a Scientologist himself (which he is most definitely not). Now hat you're provinding edit summaries and joining us on talk, I'll cease to use "tinfoil" in the future. But I do continue insist that you have wandered into soapbox-speech territory in your edits.

Please continue to bring desired changes that you know from previous editing history will be controversial to the talk page first. I suspect some of the other editors will be less charitable when they get back to this article. You will have a better chance of persuading them if you show you are assuming good faith and working towards consensus.--67.101.66.5 22:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Spare me the condescension. Any persons would go to such lengths to continually remove any mention of Scientology clearly have the POV-driven agenda and the axe to grind, not me. Like I said before, if you want to reword it so it sounds less "weaselly" to you, fine, but don't remove valid sources and citations with no better explanation for it than your "tinfoil from a soapbox" line. Your current edit, however, does reinstate mention of Scientology, so I'm content with that for now. And since you brought the subject up yourself, the Sun Myung Moon incident drew considerable controversy and media attention also and should be so noted in the article, rather than glossed over in passing with a single sentence. wikipediatrix 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think my comments are condescension. They are meant to be civil constructive criticism, and I would encourage you to try to take them as such. You continue to mischaracterize my position as one where I seek "to continually remove any mention of Scientology." Yet I have repeatedly tried to simply accord the facts the appropriate tone and context, and I certainly have not continually tried to remove any mention of Scientology. IMHO, that you are so certain that I am undertaking some sort of Scientology-POV agenda, when I definitely am not, is an indicator that you are letting your anti-Scientology POV push you into paranoia. This is what I am trying to show you. As I said a while ago, "While I would normally salute you for your work to unmask Scientology's nature, I think you have lost perspective." I can understand the impuse - my POV outside Wikipedia is that Scientology is a vicious cult. That doesn't excuse actions that violate Wikipedia standards or insinuate things that aren't true.

As for the Moonie stuff, I don't understand your statement that it "should be so noted in the article, rather than glossed over in passing with a single sentence." As you mention yourself, it *is* noted in the article. And if Bush had some more significant connection to the Moonies, that'd be noted, too. But he doesn't; he spoke with Sun Myung Moon, yes, as did many other non-Moonie "peace activists." And it's noted. I don't see how you'd consider that being "glossed over" unless you think there is something more significant/sinister to gloss over.--67.101.66.5 15:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you are misrepresenting my motives when you say I'm trying to "unmask Scientology's nature". I'm only interested in facts, not POV-pushing, even if it's a POV I happen to support. If I was pushing an anti-Scientology agenda, I wouldn't be spending as much time undoing "L. Ron Hubbard is gay" and "Scientology is a scam" vandalism from Scientology articles as I do. I have no feelings about Neil Bush one way or the other, but I do know that the Bush-Scientology incident, as well as the Bush-Moonies incident, generated considerable hubbub at the time, and should be so noted. It's the controversy that I'm saying should be so noted, not just the incident itself. I'm not saying it's important enough in the big picture that it needs an entire section devoted to it, but I do think it deserves more than a sentence. Or maybe that's just my "paranoia" talking. wikipediatrix 18:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking for myself, I have no objection to the creation of a section that discusses the whole enchalada of Neil Bush constantly creating a stir by showing up alongside this or that controversial group. What I don't think works is quotes of complaints from third parties for every single one of these various groups. This is because in my mind it's the pattern that is notable. Too much detail on each incident (which, again, all seem similar to me) threatens to overload the article and overshadow the complete picture. Once you quote one third party's personal opinion criticizing one controversy, you're sort of obliged to allow it for all controversies, plus counter-opinions. The article becomes a log of the political debate rather than a history of the person. To provide a similar case, I would cite Sheila Jackson Lee, which seems to oscillate between a long dirty laundry list and a more reality-based picture of the person.--67.101.67.61 23:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Scientology reference clearly misleads the reader as to Neil's beliefs. Neil did NOT testify against "children being medicated for mental disorders". He is against the over-prescription of drugs for learning disabilities. That is a very different thing from what Scientology stands for. Also, I have reason to doubt that Neil and the Scientologists actually testified together. Neil was reportedly scheduled to testify that day, but may have had to reschedule. I can't find any quotes or transcripts from this hearing. Since the article doesn't even mention a specific day or specific quotes, I think it may be just a lie repeated. If someone has true sources, please post them.--66.136.219.177 01:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

Trivia sections on Wikipedia are considered very bad form. All imformation within this section should be dispersed to apropriate places within the article. --The_stuart 18:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Neil Bush was scheduled to have dinner with Scott Hinckley on March 30th, 1981 - the day that then President Reagan was shot by Scott's younger brother John Hinckley, Jr. (the Hinckley Family and the Bush family were in the energy industry). Additionally, the Bush family and Hinckley family are related, both having descended from Thomas Hinckley (born 19 Mar 1619, Hawkhurst, Kent, England; died 25 Apr 1706, Barnstable, MA) who was Governor of Plymouth Colony from 1658-1681.

"Whitney reviews [of Ignite!] were less laudatory. "The kids felt pretty strongly that what this was about was lowering the bar...[Bush] was very surprised," [School of Dreams author Edward] Humes recalls. "You had to see the look on his face when one young woman got up and said she liked calculus. He said it was useless. This is the branch of mathematics that makes space travel possible, and he said it was useless." LOL(?)[1]

COW and OCW

Is COW (curriculum on wheels) the Bush clan's dislexic response to OCW (open courseware)? Why is it that emphesis in this country is almost always put on for profit curriculum development for those who can afford it when state produced curriculum could be offered free to everyone? Hire someone from Harvard or Tulane to produce an algebra video on demand lecture series and put it on the internet. Make sure that it has the highest production and content value. Then, maybe, we won't leave any children behind. Please add information in this article to alternatives to private for-profit curriculum development. Also, are any agencies studying possible inappropriate lobbying tactics to keep states' department of education from developing their own curriculum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.125.213 (talk • contribs)

With all due respect, a discussion of alternatives to for-profit curriculum most definitely does NOT belong in this article. (It's not at all clear it should be anywhere else, for that matter - it would be difficult to write a NPOV article that said anything interesting.)

Please note that wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is inappropriate to ask questions ("Why is it ....?" "are any agencies studying ... ") that are not directly intended to improve the article, particularly questions that seem intended for a discussion about how to make the world a better place. John Broughton 01:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate content ---

With all due respect, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, but perhaps the article discussion section is. I don't believe that I am too far off in asking for suggestions on where to to include my ideas, which might be appropriate in some article or another. It seems that you don't think my suggestions for links to alternative choices for education are appropriate here, I disagree obviously, and if one is serious, one has to start somewhere. That is why I requested direction from the community rather than editing the article. In any case thank you for your comments.

Additionally, I would still like to know if any organizations, news media, etc. are trying to provide an alternative to Neil Bush's vision of education in America. Certainly alternatives to ideologies are often cited in the wikipedia articles. For example in a Wikipedia article on Robert Kane I found the following:

"In defending libertarian freedom Kane opposes many modern philosophers, most notably Daniel Dennett."

I take this as a precedent within Wikipedia for an alternate vision section of an article. Completeness is, in my opinion, very important. Completeness alows individuals to see as many sides of an issue or facits of a person as possible. Therefore that individual reader is more able to approach critically the subject in question. In my oppinion better informed citizens do make the country better and stronger, and I do not see any problem with Wikipedia articles improving the country or the world. In fact, I thought that was the general idea:-)

Thank you. 24.206.125.213

Certainly there is plenty of room - in some article or other - for discussions of curriculum development. If you're asking for suggestions for existing articles, or ideas for new articles, that could discussion the things you're interested in, that's appropriate. And it would certainly be appropriate to link the Neil Bush article to those articles discussing cirriculum options (at least via a "See Also" section link). Perhaps a good rule of thumb is: where would a reader EXPECT to find a discussion of curriculm development, alternative approaches to education, etc. I'm simply saying that the place for such a discussion is NOT in the Neil Bush article; at best, and that this talk/discussion page should be used (at MOST) to get you to some OTHER article(s) where the ideas you're interested in are covered. John Broughton 13:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and large issues

Please make this article NPOV

Please remove the following text fron the Ignite Learning section:

"Ignite! Learning's non-traditional approach has garnered praise by many of the users to which it is targeted."

This is not a neutral point of view. It reads like Madison Avenue hype. And after all, do we really want curriculum choices made by seven year olds?

I'm not clear on what isn't right about that sentence. The approach is non-traditional. It has been praised by many -not all- of the users. The paragraph goes on to provide a specific case of praise. Also, I'll point out since you mention it that the company's users seem primarily to be middle school students and teachers, not seven year olds. It's not this article's place to judge or discuss whether we want US Eduction "curriculum choices" made by the users of Ignite's products or not. Remember, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.--67.101.67.61 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to leave this kind of thing in, you must put in other, balancing points of views,

Additionally, I think at least, some mention should be included of the possible negative nature of a man whose family is involved in setting policy at the highest levels producing curricula that compete with state produced curricula.

I made a slight change to the article last night which has been removed already. What's going on here?

Are some articles open to edit and some aren't. I just don't think that the current article addresses this man's actions in founding Ignite Learning. It should not be taken, without further inspection, as an act of benificence without consequences to the people of this country. What is wrong in stating that "Some people feel that there is a possible ethical problem of conflict of interest in producing for-profit curricula that compete with state funded, taxpayer produced, curricula." As a statement, it is a fact also.

Re. your question "what is wrong in stating...": The problem is that the sentence assumes/implies a situation that just isn't correct. As I said when I removed this sentence: "Texas is an adoption state, Ignite is not an adoption product. Also, TX pays for-profit companies for textbooks, they don't print their own as implied." Namely:

A) Ignite does not "complete with state funded, taxpayer produced curricula". Texas is a textbook adoption state. For-profit (large) commerical publishers (Pearson, Houghton Mifflin, etc) compete to get as many copies of as many of their basal/core education products "adopted" (approved and bought) by the state. Ignite products don't go through the adoption process. They are bought locally by schools/districts that decide to spend bucks from other pools of money.

B) As the previous point probably made clear, the other publications that either do or don't directly compete with those of Ignite are not "taxpayer produced"

C) I doubt that just about anyone finds an "ethical problem of conflict of interest" in education publishers selling their products to schools. And if there were, it would be an indictment of the entire US Education system. That doesn't belong in the Ignite article, let alone the Neil Bush article.--67.101.67.61 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If the people of this country are possibly being victimized ny the privatization of licences by this man, isn't that worthy of addition to this article? If Mr. Bush has it within his power, via his very closest family, to influence national and state educationl policy, possibly to the detriment of the nation, and yet chooses to be in this business, shouldn't that be pointed out? Others after all, might recuse themselves seeing that it creates a conflict of interest problem for family members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.125.213 (talk • contribs)

I took out the "many praise" sentence - that's clearly NPOV (even if a dozen testimonials are posted on the company's website - I haven't bothered to look - the sentence is clearly misleading - the issue is what PERCENTAGE of the time the program succeeds, and the improvement versus the extra cost).

If there were verifiable information that the people of this country are ... being victimized by the privatization of licences by this man, sure, that would be worth adding. But when you put "possibly" into that sentence, what you're saying is that wikipedia articles should SPECULATE about what possibly might be happening. So the answer to the first question is "No". The answer to the second question is similar - if there are reputable publications or experts that discuss Mr. Bush's "power to influence national and state educational policy", then sure, they should be quoted in the article, with links so the reader can get more information. Feel free to find these and add these yourself. And if these don't exist, then NO, wikipedia isn't the place to speculate about the power of one person and his company. (If you want my personal opinion, Ignite! is a small company where Neil gets to think he's doing something useful, while his family is able to keep him out of trouble. I also think the company has had, and will have, virtually ZERO impact on the educational system in the U.S., which is highly fragmented - 50 states, many of which delegate authority fully to local jurisdictions; unless Neil is doing things at the federal level [I've seen nothing on that], he isn't a player. I think your time is better spent elsewhere, rather than worrying about this guy.) John Broughton 13:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Texas is an adoption state ---

It's interesting that you mention Texas. I do live in Texas, but I don't believe I mentioned Texas in the discussion. Of course you could find that out via an nslookup. It's still a little creepy that you would. When I say that a company's curricula competes with state produced curricula, I mean all the states. Who ends up owning the licenses for the produced work? Does the state, or is it that the states' tax-payers' dollars are paying to create material that ends up being owned by a private company? I know you think that I am on my soapbox here, and I don't mean to be. I just feel strongly that there is something wrong (ethically) going on here, and I believe that any article that attempts to be complete needs to address this aspect. I know you think I am "wrong-headed", an unnecessary insult in the version section, by the way. Nevertheless, I do not believe my comments in this discussion are out of place. In any case, thank you for allowing me to make the small edit adding "for-profit" - certainly this is not a non-profit or charitable enterprise, and thank you for removing the unnecessary (IMHO) applause section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.125.213 (talk • contribs)

I mentioned Texas specifically because the paragraph in question referred to Mendez, which is in Texas (Austin, specifically). I believe most of Ignite's current business (you mentioned the "COW") is in Texas.

States do not produce their own basal curricula. Publishers do. They own the copyrights. States buy copies of the books. Adoption states (like Texas), choose book quantities at the state level. Districts can then get these books from the state. Even when a publisher produces a state-specific version of a textbook, the choice to do so, and the copyright, rests solely with the state. For instance, a California edition biology book might explicitly mention evolution, while a Texas one may have weasel wording. Non-adoption states let the funding for book choices occur entirely at the lower (district or school) levels.

I'm sorry you interpreted my comment (presumably the "wrong/weird" one) as saying you are (your words) "wrong-headed." I was stating that the addition you made was wrong, as I have discussed in more detail in comments earlier.

As others have also stated, just because you believe something unethical is going on with Neil Bush re. education does not mean it belongs in the article. That's original research. It has to be verifiable reputable public research.--67.101.68.227 03:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put an emphasis on *REPUTABLE*. I've seen too much political commentary here by nobody pundit bloggers.

Much of it is just speculation and innuendo by people with an ax to grind, political motivations, conspiracy nuts, or the fringe Reptoid crowd. Keep to the facts, please. In context. Verifiable. Without spin.

On other matters, I can't believe the time spent on the Scientology non-issue. If people would do a little digging, they'd find much more interesting things to write about. How about Neil's connection to the Pope, for instance? I don't think there is anything sensational there, but it would be an interesting addition to the article.207.207.15.18 00:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you make these kinds of statements. Get off your soapbox! You come accross here as some kind of elitist with no tolerance for anyone who has a different perspective. This is precisely the kind of attitude that makes an open project like this difficult. The Wikipedia Organization should turn off your ability to work here if you can't show tollerance and control your name-calling.

By the way, I notice that the small for-profit edit I made has once again been removed. If you are working for a PR firm, or have a similar ax to grind, it doesn't belong here. And for your information, the discussion forum is a good place to figure out whether or not some piece of text should be added or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.125.213 (talk • contribs)

I can't agree at all with 24.206.125.213. The "for profit" doesn't make any sense, and it reads poorly. Non-profit organizations (hardly every called companies) go out of their way to emphasize their "non-profit" status, because they are an exeception. Companies are expected to be doing business to make money.

The rest of the rant is just uncalled for.

70.249.75.57 18:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of for-profit npov guidelines state the following:

"...An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it..."

Please put for-profit back into the article.

24.206.125.213 09:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

---

In this case I have to disagree. What you say about businesses normally being for profit is true; however, this company was funded by an ex-president of the United States. Moreover its president and CEO is the brother of the current President. Since these men were or are public servants leading public policy for education, it is therefore important to point out that this is a for-profit business and not a public service. So it is for the sake of clarity that for-profit should be put back in. Moreover it is a indisputably a fact that this company is for-profit.

24.206.125.213 01:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

FYI, Neil Bush is neither president nor CEO of Ignite Learning. Maybe you should focus on the Ignite article for these things you think are "important to point out?"--72.255.3.240 11:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what Neil Bush's position is at Ignite Learning/ It is not mentioned in the Ignite Learning section. Also, If you don'e mind, please sign your comments. Four tildes and your wikepedia account name will sign your comment. Thank you.

Also do you want to address my question? I think that when the Bush family decides to go into the education business, it should be mentioned somehow in the Ignite Learning section that, in some way, this puts the President of the United States in a conflict of interest position. After all, the Department of Education is a cabinet level position.

I know that the states decide what curriculum is used in the schools, but if the federal government published curricula on the internet, that would give children more access to good materials. The states could also choose some or all of that curicula should they find it appropriate. This would free up funds from the states for things like special education, music programs, arts programs, etc. Of course if the government started publishing these kinds of materials, and made these materials available for free, it would probably put Ignite Learning out of business.

Other governments do this. Look at Irelands skoool.ie of Britains asguru.

24.206.125.213 05:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)bmikesci

Neil Bush is (or was) paid $180,000 per year to (a) have his name associated with the business; some people think that this encourages people and organizations to invest and/or buy products because somehow this gives them an "in" with the President and/or the federal government, and (b) to act as a sort of high-level salesperson for the business. One point of the Washington Post article was that if his name was (say) "Frank Smith", he wouldn't be having nearly as happy a life. That's just the way it is; a wikipedia article isn't the place to complain about the possible unfairness of this.

As for a conflict of interest, the federal government is involved in just about EVERYTHING - there is a hardly a business that isn't affected in some ways by what a federal cabinet-level agency does. So what you're saying is that when someone is elected President, all his/her relatives should cease to hold important positions in businesses, universities, or other governments (e.g., Jeb Bush), since there is an inherent conflict of interest?

And yes, the federal government COULD create cirriculum for free. But there is no evidence that such was the intent of the Clinton administration, so exactly what is the point - that a Republican administration has failed to do something that the previous Democratic administration did not, and that runs counter to the (profesesed) federalist philosophy of the GOP?

Finally, I'm changing the description of the company in a way that I hope satisifies everyone, even if not perfect, so we can all move on to something more constructive, like improving wikipedia articles that are stubs. John Broughton 14:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Outsourcing

Regarding outsourcing jobs to Mexico, please remove the text:

""That's turned out to be great," said Ignite! President Ken Leonard."

It is POV. The laid-off workers certainly don't think it turned out great.

24.206.125.213 02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)bmikesci

You may want to review WP:NPOV. Quoting the President of a company without judgement regarding a company action is not POV. In fact, the quotation is taken directly from a Washington Post article.--72.255.3.240 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's quoted, but the source article is rather slanted. What Leonard thinks "turned out great" is the partnership with Grupo Carso, not the fact that people were laid off. The original article was crafted in a way to make Leonard (and by association, Bush) look heartless. It's too bad this wikipedia article is relying so heavily on "The Relatively Charmed Life..." for source material. 66.136.219.177 01:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That slanted source is the Washington Post. Here's the exact words, which have been edited to make them (I believe) slightly less negative for Bush: Last year, Ignite! also entered into a partnership with a Mexican company, Grupo Carso Telecom. The partnership enabled Ignite! to lay off half of its 70 employees and outsource their jobs to Mexico. "That's turned out to be great," says Ignite! President Ken Leonard.

If you can find a quote by Leonard or Bush or anyone else saying that they're really sorry about the layoffs and they understand the impact on workers and their families, then please add that information to the article. John Broughton 16:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To be more precise, the *STYLE* section of the Washington Post. Not exactly a source of great business or political journalism. It's slanted. An article starting out with "Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush." should set off bias alarms.

Here is a more even-handed report of what actually happened: http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2002/10/28/story3.html

Note that the numbers don't line up between the WP and ABJ. I think the Austin Business Journal is probably more accurate.

66.136.219.177 22:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources and Political Commentary

The use of political opinion articles for source material is getting old. The quality of this article would rise dramatically if the sources didn't have something to spin.70.113.208.174 03:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Attacking information in an article because it comes from a less-than-totally neutral source is getting old. Wikipedia policy allows information from Salon, Slate, the National Review, the Heritage Foundation, AEI, the Nation, American Prospect, etc., etc. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources

When I have some more time, I'm going to remove "Salon magazine says" because (a) "Salon" didn't say, a writer said, (b) and because the wikipedia norm is NOT to mention what magazine or newspaper published information in the text of the article. John Broughton 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and quibble about minor wording. Put the writer's name in their if you want, I don't care. It makes the citation more accurate.

Again, you don't seem to get the difference between "reliable sources" and "opionion and commentary". Someone else has addressed these issues with you, so I'm not going to plow over old ground.

I'm sorry that you don't feel it is the "wikpedia norm" not to mention the magazine or newspaper, but in this particular article it is necessary. Those articles are full of innuendo, opinions, and other low blows. There ARE some major sources that give the facts without the negative spin and commentary...why don't you cite those? Possibly because they don't fit your POV? Having an even-handed article trumps attempts to conform to a "wikipedia norm".

I do object to your attempts to separate the so-called "facts" and the sources they come from. By using the references as you recently have, it obfuscates that they are opinions and commentary.70.113.208.174 20:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush-Berezovsky Ties

John Broughton, in your own words you said, "... Feel free to add back when you provide a source for the info ...". Despite the fact that you were wrong in the first place due to the fact that the source was there all along (Boris Berezovsky), I explained that to you AND reaffirmed it by listing the wikipedia article as the source to hopefully end your confusion.

Despite meeting your request, you now blatantly go against your word (and the spirit of wiki collaboration) and completely remove the section entirely. Not to mention, you never made any attempt to discuss the section on the Talk page earlier before you deleted a huge section of it because you made the erroneous assumption that there were no sources while all you had to do (ironically enough) was read the Boris Berezovsky wikipedia source article that was embedded into the section from the get go.

Your statements via history:

11:08, 14 October 2006 John Broughton (Talk | contribs) (rv per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material. Feel free to add back when you provide a source for the info.)

John, I'm going to follow Wikipedia policy and try to iron this out with you on the Talk page despite your hostile and possibly biased actions. Please sufficiently explain on this Talk page why you said one thing and did another. It smells of bias and agenda, John... not policy.

And... if not... then why did you so blatantly go back on your word? I met your demands and then some. When I did that, you acted vindictively by deleting the entire section and now making up new demands as if your previous words meant absolutely nothing. You said point blank for me to "feel free" to add back the info once I "provided a source for the info". Not only was the source ALREADY there, I went ahead and made it more clear by naming the Boris Berezovsky page as the source directly. I met your demands.

And now... (after going against your word already, etc.) you say that the section made no effort to mention the libel suit? That's a blatant mistruth. Did you not read this? or did you miss it like you missed the source earlier? You know, the part that said, "... Boris sued Forbes magazine for making a similar claim against him and forced a retraction. ..."?

Well, in yet another attempt to appease you I've made it hopefully more clear for you, it now says, "... Boris sued Forbes magazine for making a similar claim against him and forced a retraction after winning his libel suit against them. ...". I've also edited out the listing of all the specific crimes Boris stands accused of so hopefully it makes him look like more of a prince for you.

I held up my end, John. Why don't you show better character, hold up your end and honor your very own words? If you are trying to make the article better then EDIT things to improve them... a hatchet job without a discussion isn't the way to go. Please stop editing in a warlike matter and discuss this with me here on the Talk page like you are supposed to do.

Oh, and I DO hope that you going against your word after enticing me to re-add the info isn't some kind of trick to get me to appear that I started an edit war. I didn't. I took you on your word, met your demands and then added the info again and made the source clearer to you. I did this in good faith.

I'm sorry if I seem more than a little annoyed, but then again, what do you expect after going against your word and on top of that hatcheting the entire section. Most people would find that behavior reprehensible and vindictive. I hope you check yourself and think before you act. Why not EDIT next time? If you think it wil benefit the article to mention that the British are harboring Boris, then by all means, ADD/EDIT that info into the section. Deleting it entirely is just plain hostile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.61.6 (talk • contribs)

I already placed an unsigned tag on your previous post here, and you removed it. [2] Please sign your posts here with four tildes. In the time you spent ranting against another editor (although I understand your frustration), I went to Google and got some proper sources and non-POV info for the section, and have added them to the article :) wikipediatrix 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the tag was placed there automatically. I didn't know you added it. Also, thank you for fixing my mistakes. 67.190.61.6 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

John Broughton is right on. I'll add that this is an article on Neil Bush, not an article on Berezovsky. I have removed portions of the section that are simply quotations of soapbox speeches re. Berezovsky. They are, of course A) off topic B) soapbox speeches. That a soapbox speech is quoted via a "proper source" does not change the inappropriateness of the quotation. That goes for off-topic editorializing on Berezovsky, just as it did for off-topic editorializing on Scientology. If readers would like to read all the details on why it's notable that Berezovsky was seen with Bush, or why Berezovsky is a billionaire yet an exile, they are welcome to click to that article, as this is the WWW.--64.148.31.150 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The info on Berezovsky, which is far from excessive, is necessary to justify the existence of the subsection in the first place, and to explain why anyone should care if he and Bush are business associates. They are not off topic and they are not "soapbox speeches". They are relevant bits of info taken from valid news sources. wikipediatrix 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and I know you know better than this as you have been through this before on this very article. This is not the place for editorials on Berezovsky. It's the wrong article and is not NPOV to boot.--64.148.31.150 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The information is relevant to Bush - the two quotes are specifically about Bush. The middle part goes on a bit long about Berezovsky, but not more a couple sentences, and it's important to establish who he is, at least briefly. The fact that you're removing the entire thing indicates to me that you simply want to whitewash the article. The information is relevant to Bush and it is sourced. If you persist in removing sourced information, we can take this to mediation or arbitration. wikipediatrix 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A) Please assume good faith. B) I certainly do believe that you *think* these are somehow relevant. However, I would assert that perhaps you have lost perspective. Most of these quotes are most definitely not about Bush, but are, as you even indicate an attempt to "characterize" Berezovsky. You should leave that to the Berezovsky article, where a reader can get a full picture, rather that attempt to duplicate it here. As we can see from your edit, it only leads to quoting a few people's personal thoughts. They may be right, they may have an axe to grind, it's irrelevant. It doesn't belong here. Nothing's being whitewashed - we are indicating that there is a relationship, and that Berezovsky is a controversial figure. Now the reader can go to the detailed article to find out why this guy is controversial. Trying to duplicate that here with some quotes from soapbox speeches is clumsy, suboptimal & duplicative.--69.183.175.55 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So, she's lost perspective? Is that what YOU assume in good faith? Well, I'm not thrilled about the struggle to just keep Berezovsky in this article in the first place, but at least it is noted that he's a, uh... "controversial" figure. Then again, Michael Jackson is "controversial" but he's never been accused of multiple murders and defrauding absolutely enormous amounts of money. C'mon.. if Bush was pals with O.J. Simpson you know it wouldn't say "controversial" O.J. Simpson.. it would say accused murderer O.J. Simpson. Sorry, this does appear to be a whitewash even when you assume good faith first. It's a BIG DEAL when the President's' brother hangs out with an accused murderer and fraudster (who has NOT been vindicated, BTW). To leave that out entirely, is indeed, a whitewash. Pee Wee Herman is controversial, OK? Last I heard, he wasn't accused of killing anyone and being involved with the Russian Mob and leaving a bunch of dead bodies behind him. Be bold, let's tell the truth here. 67.190.61.6 23:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What you term "telling the truth" is what I call a soapbox speech - passing judgements and attempting to persuade by including a selective and loaded characterization. You and I may think it's a "BIG DEAL" that Bush has dealings with this guy, but wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a soapbox. The reader is smart enough to go to the article on Berezovsky to find out more. This should be left to that main article on him. Attempting to reargue the whole thing here is redundant and invites a snowballing quantity of content that has nothing to do with this article. The part that is relevant to this article is the pattern that Neil Bush has of taking money from all sorts of controversial/unsavory characters. That pattern is definitely represented here.--64.148.31.100 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was O.J. Simpson, it would say accused murderer O.J. Simpson. Paris Hilton & Pee Wee Herman are "controversial". Someone accused of murder, massive fraud, etc. is, well... notorious, not just "controversial". How about we settle/compromise with "notorious"? It's quite the understatement otherwise. 67.190.61.6 05:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have another person who thinks no one should know certain facts in an Encyclopedia. After completely removing all traces of Berezovsky our newspeak editor says:

02:28, 20 October 2006 BlazinBuggles (Talk | contribs) (→Bush-Berezovsky Connection - Wikipedia isn't a breathless tabloid)

BlazingBuggles, there was absolutely nothing sensationalized about that section on Berezovsky. Should we also prune Bill Clinton's scandal on his page? ....You know, because it might put Clinton in a questionable light for some people? That's OK, right? Huh, Blaze? But mentioning the FACT that Neil Bush has significant ties with a man accused of murder and large scale fraud suddenly makes the page a "breathless tabloid"? BlazingBuggles, quit trying to edit out historical facts, OK? If you are going to remove his factual ties to Berezovsky then you might as well go ahead and keep removing about 80% of the rest of the page. If you slash and burn this page again without discussion, I'm going to recommend that your IP address gets banned from editing here as I'm sure others here will as well. 67.190.61.6 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about Neil, not Boris. Like someone said earlier, the reader can go follow a link on Boris if they desire. BlazinBuggles 00:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool it with the threats, 67.190.61.6. Why are you bringing Clinton into your "argument"? I concur, this article shouldn't be a tabloid. I went and read the Boris page. Funny there is nothing about Neil there. If this information is soooooo important, why isn't there something there. Probably because it isn't as noteworthy as you seem to think it is?70.113.208.174 22:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a wealth of information about the Bush-Berezovsky connection online: Jump in anywhere here. And pointing out shortcomings of another article has no bearing on this one. wikipediatrix 23:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix: You're soapboxing yet again. You're calling the kettle black again. Unless Neil has done something really of note with Boris (other than having a typical business relationship). You may not like Boris. You may not like Neil. Who cares if you don't like that they may do business together. Get your NPOV together. 70.113.208.174 22:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the soapbox? I couldn't possibly care less about either Bush or Berezovsky. Someone else put the info there in the first place, someone else deleted it, I'm restoring it because I think anyone impartial who looks it over can see that it's important. If you disagree, feel free to take it to mediation or arbitration and let other impartial editors have their say. wikipediatrix 01:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's another vote to say it doesn't belong. You say you don't care. I don't think any of it is relevant, and several others seem to agree. At most, Boris can be mentioned as an investor. I think even that's a stretch, and certainly doesn't deserve its own section. Boris goes on the Boris page, Neil goes on the Neil page. There's no need for arbitration. You take it there if you feel so strongly. Those who think excessive Boris information doesn't belong here are perfectly free to take it out.70.249.75.57 17:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You said, "... Those who think excessive Boris information doesn't belong here are perfectly free to take it out ..." 70.249.75.57, trying to spark an edit war IS a bad move that may lead to getting YOUR IP addresses banned from Wikipedia as well as others here who participate. The problem is, there is also a group here that obviously thinks that the info should remain, so by your "rationale" should they also be "perfectly free" to put the info back in again once it's ripped out? Look, here's the way it is SUPPOSED to work, everyone EDITS it and reworks it for accuracy. That way we can come to a comprimise and the article doesn't suffer from a mindless edit war. Quit trying to provoke edit wars on Wikipedia. 67.190.61.6 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The info is already there. A compromise solution has been flown. The hot issue is if Boris deserves his own sub-section in this article. I say there isn't enough to warrant one. BlazinBuggles 15:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter "what you say", there is consensus to keep the section and on top of that, the section is well within Wikipedia policy.... and on top of that, an admin amongst others continues to revert your vandalism of this article. If your idea of a compromise is to continously remove most of or all of the section then you are sadly mistaken. This section has been proven to be notable, relevant, well-documented and properly sourced. According to Wikipedia guidelines, this section SHOULD be in this article. Now... sigh... ONCE AGAIN... if you find problems with the accuracy, knock yourself out and edit it accordingly and please provide sources either within the article (if appropriate) or within this Talk page so you don't degrade the article with more of your quaint self-sourcery. 67.190.61.6 15:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring a Berezovsky section

I have restored Berezovsky as his own section. This is for several reasons:

• Their relationship, whatever it is (I went for the fairly vague but not inaccurate if not precise "acquaintance"), appears to transcend business investment, given the soccer game. Although I suppose that could just be sealing the deal.
• The investment activity, in the context of this article, is being listed as yet another example of Neil Bush seeking or allowing congress with various controversial characters. Listing it in the Ignite section seems to imply that Berezovsky is somehow more notable an investor that the other various controversial investors. I don't think he really is, so this would invite listing *all* controversial investors here. But that listing belongs in the Ignite article.

Therefore, I think Berezovsky should get his own section as part of the larger pattern in the article of Bush's cavorting with various people perceived as controversial for one reason or another.--67.101.67.35 23:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Berezovsky section is pointless. First, attending sporting events together is an extremely common way of doing business. That's not notable at all. Business is commonly conducted while attending soccer, football, baseball, basketball, golf, etc, etc.

As for being a "controversial" investor, that's not notable either. It seems like some people here think that any investor other than Joe Sixpack from the USA is controversial. The only really good reason to note a "contraversial" investor is if they have an active or otherwise dominating role in the business. Is Boris driving the business? If so, how? That would be notable. Is Boris laudering money? If you had proof of that, it would be notable.

Anybody from such a prominant family is going to associate with all sorts of notable people...so many that it really isn't notable at all. So I challenge you to tell me why Boris is so important....why should he deserve his own section?

As you state, putting him as an investor opens up a door to listing all investors. I agree that it is not particularly a good thing. But other than investing money, what's the beef? Frankly, I don't see why the list of investors is important, either.

BlazinBuggles 01:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A billionaire Russian expatriate under indictment (fairly or unfairly doesn't matter for notability) in his home country, meeting/working/socializing with someone who was once banned from banking activity and is a member of a prominent American political family. That is definitely notable. It's not an encyclopedia's place to pass judgement on whether this is the political apocalypse or just two occaisonally disgraced businessmen trying to do something worthwhile. But it certainly should note it and report the facts (a different thing from reporting speechification on those facts by non-actors on the world stage).--67.101.67.35 02:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's all about Boris, not Neil, which is why it doesn't belong here. Neil isn't, and never was, banned from banking activity. (How does banking fit into this argument, anyway?) There's nothing here worthwhile, except for those who want to start a fire afraid that Neil might someday run for public office (something that he says he never intends to do). 70.249.75.57 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is dumb. First scientology, now an obscure russian. Must be an election coming up.70.113.208.193 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is dumb. First they erase it, now censorship. Must be an election coming up. Cowicide 02:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix: You are warned. 70.112.26.25 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

70.112.26.25, your deletion of sources is considered vandalism. You have been warned. 67.190.61.6 04:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is this "Boris" stuff coming from? He's an investor. List his as such. Case closed. 70.253.66.75 23:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

70.253.66.75, Hate to break it to you, but you are not the "ruling judge" here. Your inane "case closed" comment means... nothing. 67.190.61.6 04:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dump this russian stuff. It's gotta have more to it for a special section. A sporting event and investing don't justify section. I'd go with the guy as an investor, but the sporting event stuff is just nuts. Neil isn't even in politics. He's not a player in US/Russian relations. If the russian is such a "Bad Boy" in politics, put it in its own article. 207.207.15.18 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Neil isn't even involved with politics? Wow, that's strange considering the Education Act directly benefited his business. What a coincidence for a person so far-removed from politics, huh? Oh yeah... and unfortunately he IS considered a player in US/Russian relations, but you guys decided to censor that source Wikipediatrix had up there. Your revisionism is harmful to this project. You are making a farce out of Wikipedia with your political censorship and revisionism of the facts. 67.190.61.6 04:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that poster here have no real knowledge of Russian issues and of what importance. The complex issue involved belong not on this page. Neil Bush is not "player" as mentioned above. Schlotzsman 14:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Schlotzsky, there you go again... making claims without any sources (at all) for backup. Wikipediatrix actually posted sources that showed Neil is, indeed, considered a "player" to some extent in US/Russian relations. Meanwhile, all you make is breathless claims. Are you your own source? How quaint. 67.190.61.6 16:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignite & No Child Left Behind driving profits

To leave out the FACT that Neil's company, Ignite!, is receiving major profits via president Bush's No Child Left Behind Act's school funding is a downright despicable act of revisionism. If you can find some sources that dispute these facts, then by all means present them here and lets remove it entirely or edit it appropriately. Otherwise, quit letting your politics get in the way of NPOV. Ignite is a MAJOR factor in Neil Bush's life and the No Child Left Behind Act is a MAJOR factor for both Bush and Ignite. To leave that out of the article is a whitewash. 67.190.61.6 15:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You aren't getting it, 67.190.61.6. The issue is one of duplication, not anyone hiding facts. The Ignite article was broken out long ago. It's a bit silly to duplicate the same information in both places. The link is there for those to follow. Do you, for some reason, feel the articles should be merged? If so, why? It seems like a step back to me.

As for making "major profits", please back up your claim. Given that Ignite pre-dates NCLB and only anticipates 5 Million in revenue (not profit) for 2006, claims of a "major profit" angle quite questionable. I'd wager Ignite! has yet to post a profit. Neil isn't making much personal money on the quoted salary, either.

Also, I think you need to go read about NCLB. George Bush signed it (as he was president), but the creation of the act was a bi-partisan effort. Ted Kennedy, a major Democrat, played a substancial role.

BlazinBuggles 16:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

BlazinBuggles is absolutely right. There are no "MAJOR profits." It is not a "FACT." NCLB is not a "MAJOR" factor for Ignite. Ignite's courseware isn't even an assessment product at all. I'll also add that I think Ignite is not a "MAJOR factor" in Neil Bush's life. Bush is more of an occaisonal cheerleader/fundraiser. He's not the part of the executive team. I'll also gently remind 67.190 to please assume good faith. There is nothing "downright despicable" about trying to treat this article or the Ignite article like part of an encyclopedia rather than a soapbox.--67.101.68.216 17:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then, have at it. Edit the section to show more facts. Show how much profit it is and let anyone who reads it decide. I never put anything in the article that says "major profits", I just noted it here in the talk page because some of us consider millions of dollars in revenue a lot of money for startups. Once again, have at it. Edit it for accuracy. Thanks. 67.190.61.6 01:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Before one can edit for accuracy, they need to understand what they are editing. First you need to understand the difference between revenue and profits. Then you need to understand what a "startup" is. Here's a hint, a company found in 1999 probably doesn't qualify as a "startup" by normal definitions. I get the feeling you really don't understand what you're talking about. Did you completely miss the '90s where startups were quickly burning through millions with ZERO revenue? BlazinBuggles 15:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and BlazinBuggles? I saw your note in the History where you said (in regards to Ignite), "...If you're going to duplicate info, at least duplicate accurate info)...". Blaze, who do you think you are fooling? YOU changed the Ignite info AFTER I had already put that info on Neil Bush's page. All anyone has to do is look at the history. You changed the ignite article here at 13:52 - 25,Oct 2006 (1:52 PM). I made my edit to the Neil Bush page much EARLIER here at 04:55 - 25 Oct 2006 (4:55 AM). Please stop trying to mislead others here that I'm purposfullly leaving out accurate info when it's absolutely not true and, in this case, a lame attempt at a setup. 67.190.61.6 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to "set you up"? For what possible reason? You're incredible. Literally. If I remember the history correctly, someone pointed out that info was duplicated on both pages and removed the duplication. You restored some duplicates for whatever reason you had. I accepted the duplicates with some added info in both articles. No one is out to "set you up".BlazinBuggles 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Blaze... you don't have to remember the History correctly, it's right there... recorded. I already showed above where YOU changed the Ignite article... YES YOU.... AFTER I added the info that's "duplicated" from the Ignite article to the Bush article HERE. How could I have left out "duplicate" info that YOU added after the fact? Sorry, but the History doesn't lie. You do. Maybe one day you'll join a reality-based organization, until then... quit wasting everyone's time with false accusations that can be simply destroyed by taking a look in the History. 67.190.61.6 11:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

this isn't a political debate.

Everyone here (mostly the influx of brand-new accounts and IP addresses that have suddenly shown up) is arguing about the issues as if this is a political debate. It's not. Wikipedia's motto is "Verifiability, not truth". Wikipedia is merely supposed to obtain information from reliable sources as per WP:RS and WP:V, and then relay that information. The Bush-Berezovsky section might have been spin if it was unsourced, or came from only one source. But that's not the case here. There are multiple valid media sources discussing Bush's relationship with Berezovsky, therefore it is a real and established phenomena and belongs in the article. If anyone has a valid media source that contradicts the existing sources, feel free to include it and cite it. wikipediatrix 15:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What relationship is that, Wikipediatrix? That they attended a sporting event together? That Boris invested in Neil's company? Someone may have written it down, but that doesn't make it important or noteworthy. What you've been posting is primarily information about Boris, which several people have suggested be taken to the Boris-related page. Boris has been noted as an investor, and that's acceptable, but unless you have some real "meat" concerning Neil and Boris that warrants and independant section, forget it.

This is not a political debate. It is an editorial debate. You keep insisting on putting irrelevant information in the article that several editors do not agree belongs. Now you seem to be claiming other anonymous IP posters are not acting in good faith. Here's the big problem, Wikipediatrix. You aren't assuming good faith. It seems you want it your way and no other...so much that you'll lower yourself to questioning the intentions of other editors in a vain attempt to bolster your awkward position. You do not own this page, Wikipediatrix.

You said this Boris/Neil connection wasn't important to you earlier on, yet I have to wonder why you keep fighting for it.

I say a compromise has already been reached by listing Boris as an investor. Apparently you can't come to terms with that. I think you're going to have to. Please cooperate in good faith.

BlazinBuggles 17:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you say it's "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. Why are there so many citations from reliable mainstream media sources if it's "irrelevant"? Tell it to the Los Angeles Times, not me. There's nothing "awkward" about my position and it isn't even "my" position - as I've said before, I couldn't care less about Neil Bush or Berezovsky. All I know is that properly sourced information is being removed without valid reasons by an increasingly rude and vocal group of anonymous IPs and brand-new accounts. It's neither good faith or bad faith to state this, it's simply the way it is. Take it to a higher power if you feel I am in error. wikipediatrix 18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My reading of the Los Angeles Times simply reinforces that Boris is an investor. That's already been noted in the article. What is it in the story everyone except you seems to be missing, Wikipediatrix? I believe you have an error of attitude, and I don't think anyone needs a higher power to see that...except perhaps you. Sorry if you think that's rude...I'm just simply telling it the way I see it.

It also shouldn't come as any shock that there are "new" accounts interested in this article given the recent LA Times story that was spread nationwide as well as upcoming elections. Methinks you feel your "ownership" of this page is threatened. Shortcut.road 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've said all I have to say. Feel free to report me to a higher power if you feel my edit is improper. wikipediatrix 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Exuse me, Miz Wikipediatrix. I take issue with your notation that implies I accused you of vandalism.

BlazinBuggles 19:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary wasn't directed specifically at you. Obviously (or so I thought), I was responding to this: [3] wikipediatrix 19:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix is correct. While I may not disagree with her about exactly how much detail ought to be spent on the relationship between Bush and Berezovsky, there is clearly a relationship there. Business only, personal, whatever. It must be documented in some form as these are both people in the public eye. It's not enough for an editor to say "Bush in the Bush article" and "Berezovsky in the Berezovsky article" when that editor also removes the part that IS about the relationship between the two. Shortcut.road & BlazinBuggles, if you disagree with Wikipediatrix's edits, focus on *altering* them rather than blind reversion. Edit warring gets this article nowhere.--67.101.68.216 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bah. Somehow I lost what I was typing. To make a long story short, add me to the list of people who oppose what Wikipediatrix's all-or-nothing attitude. A compromise has already been offered. Shortcut.road and BlazinBuggles seem to accept it. I grudingly accept it. Going back through this list, others seem to, too. Wikipediatrix seems the only one dead-set in making blind edits without compromise.70.113.208.174 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipediatrix. If you have data that refutes topics and info, then by all means edit it for better accuracy and submit your sources. But barging in and completely removing parts because you "feel" it isn't important is only harming this project and will make your motives seem at the very least, suspicious. Please collaborate and don't butcher this article because something that can be percieved as negative is within the article. If we were to follow your lead everywhere, we'd have to delete 90% of Stalin and O.J. Simpson because some people might find the info on them "possibly disparaging" as apposed to just being accurate. So instead of running around and trying to remove info on Neil Bush that you "feel" bad about, why don't you put that same effort into finding MORE info on Neil Bush and checking the current info for accuracy and edit accordingly? That would make this article more comprehensive and complete without turning it into some kind of pro-Bush public relations piece or a anti-Bush political hitjob. Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. 67.190.61.6 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to who is talking to whom. As I see it, the crux of the issue is if a dedicated "Boris" section is even warranted. There's really nothing to refute. The Russians have been added as investors...and that's about all there is to say. A sighting of two business people sitting next to each other is not unusual, and isn't enough to warrant a dedicated section in this article.

67.190.61.6 has just triggered Godwin's law, so I consider rational discussion of this particular issue over.Shortcut.road 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut, that's a lame attack on me. I was NOT comparing Neil Bush to Hitler (obviously). You need to check out Godwin's law and understand what it truly means. My obvious POINT is that you should not delete accurate information that relates to someone just because you "feel" it doesn't put them in a good light in your opinion. It was just an example of how there's no getting around the fact that an encyclopedia just might have accurate info that some may not like, but it should be there nonetheless. Ok, I changed above to Stalin and O.J. Simpson... Is that better? NOW do you see the point or are you going to continue to act irrationally? 67.190.61.6 01:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's incredibly uncool. You've just gone back and changed the discussion history. Like I said, Gowin's law has been triggered. Editing your past comments doesn't change that. In my eyes, you've lost what slim bit of credibility remained for your IP. Shortcut.road 13:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut, quit acting like Hitler (a.k.a. super incredibly uncool) and quit focusing on this and dare to finally see... the POINT in the first place. Otherwise... you are useless. 67.190.61.6 13:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Does not matter how "accurate" the material is if it placed in the wrong context. Boris' behavior is a personal thing. Bush did nothing wrong by going to a soccer game with himm. The problem of the Boris section become obsessive is that it is speaks too much of Boris and not Neil. Neil's article is not the place to tell of Boris's past. Maybe if Bush and Boris were canoodling in the back of a lorry, then you might have the sensationalist story you're looking for. But facts only show one thing...that Boris invested money with Ignite. That's already in the article.Schlotzsman 01:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Schlotzsky, we're not looking for any hot "canoodle" action. I don't know when's the last time you got canoodled, but I've had too much canoodle in my lifetime to waste time voyeuristically promoting false flag canoodle on some square. Dude, I don't know how you canoodle, but when I canoodle... no lorry is fricken' safe. If that weak ass lorry doesn't break in half from severe canoodling, my partner and I would at least fall off the side since since no self-respecting lorry has luxury side panels strong enough to contain such a canoodlethon. My God, let's get realistic... can any self-respecting canoodler canoodle in the back of a mere lorry? Not if they are sensational. I rest my canoodle. Cowicide 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Schlotzsman, you are vandalizing this article.

Schlotzsman, you just went in and butchered this article and left absolute nonsense in your wake.

"... Bush's relationship with Boris Berezovsky, has been noted by some. ..." ???????

Nice usage of Weasel words there in order to degrade the section entirely. What's the point of that edit except to obfuscate and damage that section of the article? It looks like you're trying to damage the section in order to warrant someone else coming in and removing it entirely instead of doing it yourself (perhaps because you already know there is too much consensus against removing it).

It's very telling that you chose to delete sources instead of finding other sources to refute that info and edit accordingly. No one cares if you "don't like" this information being included in this article. You need to refute it with alternative sources or move on.. I have no idea what your motives are, nor do I care... but it's got to STOP. If you feel the balance of this article is too slanted against Bush, then by all means find some MORE info and sources that you feel will add to the article's ACCURACY and content.

I'm not going to waste my time repairing the damage you just did to this article, instead, I suggest YOU fix it back yourself ASAP or you're only going to spread more ill will with others here and endanger your account with Wikipedia. 67.190.61.6 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably because you cannot.Schlotzsman 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Great comeback, Schlitz. Now if you would just put that same literary effort into this article you might now come up with sentences better than your weasel worded: "... Bush's relationship with Boris Berezovsky, has been noted by some. ..." thing. 67.190.61.6 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

67.190.61.6, I ask you to add some useful info, and not try to drag a third party into Neil's article. I'd like you try to see if you can post your Boris tirade on the Boris page. Go for it. Be bold and spread your gospel.Shortcut.road 14:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, let's see.... should I be afraid to put info on Boris' page? Is that what you are saying? Well, too bad for Boris... if he has me killed, there'll just be more to come and replace me like that guy who wrote the book about him. Damn, pesky truth just worms its way, huh??? 67.190.61.6 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Shortcut, you aren't making any sense. Gospel (spoken with sarcasm) is someone's interpretation of events. All we are trying to do is maintain the FACTS, yes... VALID FACTS within this article that you voraciously attempt to censor for what can only be explained at this point is your desire to push your political beliefs and/or agenda through Wikipedia.

Your gospel is biased censorship of this article. If you were truly not a POV pusher, you would finally CONTRIBUTE to this article instead of constantly editing out entire sections you "feel" does harm to Neil Bush's image. This isn't a newspaper article, it's a comprehensive encyclopedia... get with the program.

Once AGAIN, if you can find some factual inaccuracies... show your sources and edit this article in a constructive manner. Stop the vandalism or you may very well get banned from Wikipedia along with the rest of the vandals. 67.190.61.6 15:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-Bush Information Not Appropriate

It is not vandalism. It is slander and libelous. The only facts of matter have been mentioned repeatedly, but you are too blind to your bias. Neil Bush has done nothing wrong that would justify they type of language that can only possibly be attributed to Boris. It intentionally misleads the readers as to Bushs' carachter. I call COWICIDE, 67.19.61.6, and Wikiepediatris real vandals and act in bad faith. You will not compromise on language to person that does not apply to this article. Only facts are Boris is investor, Neil and Boris saw ball game.Schlotzsman 18:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You've been told already: if you really think it is vandalism to restore your blanket removal of properly sourced text, go file a complaint with the vandalism board. And by the way, a number of other editors (including an admin) have restored the section, not just the three you named. wikipediatrix 19:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading Assignments

Dear fellow contributors: I humbly suggest everyone (re-)read Wikipedia:AGF and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Have a happy halloween.--67.101.67.197 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Since everything is properly sourced (several times over!), WP:BLP has no bearing on the current situation. wikipediatrix 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but it does (IMHO). Here's the paragraph which, I would argue, is relevant (with bolding by me of arguably relevant sentence):

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

That is why, when I last had an opportunity to restore a Berezovsky section, I trimmed like so: [4].

That said, I think the current (as of this writing) section that includes some blockquotes is adequate and not disproportionate. It would seem that, at a minimum, User:Schlotzsman and User:Shortcut.road do not agree. Perhaps a compromise can be reached without everyone accusing everyone else of vandalism, which I don't believe anyone is doing under the traditional definition of that term.--67.101.67.197 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I should add that actually there is one part right now that I do think crosses the line: the Wonkette quote. The characterization of Berezovsky as a "gangster" and the Bush-Berezovsky relationship as "palling around" is stated in such a way as to present itself as something solidly determined rather than speculation. Also, I'm not sure I'd consider Wonkette as a acceptable source in general. I'd consider it to fall under the blog category rather than a primary/secondary news source. I don't think they fact check anything anymore (assuming in the Ana Marie Cox days that they were a little more stringent)--67.101.67.197 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As of now, the Boris section is the "largest" section of the whole article. It is entirely disproprtionate, and devoid of "real" content. Once you take out all the whitespace and the stuff that is really only applicable to Boris, you have very little left.

The sentence structure leaves a lot to be desired. What's the BS about "...so-and-so invested in Ignite, BUT is wanted for arrest..." Why the "BUT"? It doesn't belong. Unless, of course you want a particular POV to shine through this non-story. BlazinBuggles 23:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got a good point. Those two statements don't belong in the same compound sentence, definitely not conjoined with "but." It implies some sort of judgement as to the two halves of the sentence being an unexpected pairing, which I don't think is neccessarily the case. For example -if I might opine for a moment- if the USA developed a political climate akin to Putin-era Russia you might see a similar arrest warrant here for George Soros. In such a case it wouldn't be a "but" situation that Soros was both an investor in foreign education programs and a fugitive.--67.101.67.197 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a newspaper article, it's a comprehensive encyclopedia... get with the program. Once AGAIN, if you can find some factual inaccuracies... show your sources and edit this article in a constructive manner. Stop the outright vandalism. 67.190.61.6 01:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I am trying to redirect the discussion towards make this article encyclopedic. Re. inaccuracies: for one, we have a quotation from a blog that characterizes a living person (and not even the subject of this article) as a "crime lord." That characterization is apparently rather disputed. I would argue it's inclusion is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of standards for NPOV and living persons biographies. I would encourage you to assume good faith and try to avoid characterizing other several editors' edits, which are clearly intended, in their minds, to improve the article (whether you agree with the content or not). You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Vandalism. Note for instance: "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia."--67.101.67.197 03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

67.101.67.197, repeatedly deleting entire sections that have consensus to be here IS vandalism. Despite our pleas to just edit it for accuracy and/or expand upon it. It's being outright deleted entirely with spiteful notes attached in the History. The fact that this admin (who is highly regarded for her anti-vandalism efforts on her userpage) is reverting the vandalism here should tell you something.

Also, should we just take "your word on it" that the characterization is "rather" disputed? Are you your own source? How quaint. Look, if you don't feel it's up to par, then EDIT it for accuracy and show your sources. But, deleting entire sections out of spite is, indeed, vandalism. 67.190.61.6 06:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is certainly not uncommon on Wikipedia for people who are also admins to engage in wheel warring, alas. Perhaps it would be more productive if CharlotteWebb would consider joining the talk page discussion instead of furthering a revert war. I see one of the alternative-viewpoint editors has already attempted to contact that user via its talk page. Alternatively, if a user wanted to involve himself at only the admin level on an article, an admin level action would be to totally block the page and put it in the queue for mediation. I would suggest people start discussing proposed changes here on the talk page. Characterizing apparently good faith edits as vandalism isn't going to help achieve that goal. Please assume good faith.--67.101.67.197 13:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many admins are elected as admins because they are considered to have a good grasp of wikipedia guidelines and policy. Disparaging wikipedia admins in general doesn't help your case, BTW. Also, apparent good faith edits are not so apparent when the entire section gets repeatedly blanked or edited to the point it becomes nonsensical especially after it has been shown directly within the wikipeida guidelines that they section SHOULD be within the article. 67.190.61.6 17:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New Relevant Reading Assignment - Public Figures

Please read this.

" ... If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. ... "

The Bush and Berezovsky section is notable (it's made international news from many multiple sources). It's relevant (Boris funds Neil Bush's company and it's also well-documented that they travel, attend events and more together) and it well-documented and well-sourced. (Once again, it's made international news from many multiple sources).

Once again, please follow Wikipedia policy and quit vandalizing and/or POV pushing by removing massive parts of this section or removing it entirely based on... NO sources to back you up whatsoever. Do the project a huge favor and try to dig up sources that minimize and/or refute the information and let's go from there. We will welcome constructive efforts on your part to make this a better article, but the POV pushing needs to stop. 67.190.61.6 06:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The "crime lord" and similar quotes are not notable (from a gossip blog), that level of accusation is not relevant (it cannot possibly be given correct (rather than undue) weight unless the entire Berezovsky saga is rehashed, and that would be a topic for the Berezovsky article, not this one). Certainly I or anyone could dig up plenty of sources that "minimize or refute" the accusation, but again that would belong in the Berezovsky article. Indeed, you will note that these things all *are* in that article. You will also note that article is much more even handed than this section currently is. I think that is a clue that this section is not up to Wikipedia standards. Anyway, I invite the warring editors to further argue this point for parts of that section here on this page.--67.101.67.197 13:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you're comparing just one section of this Bush article to the entire Boris article. That makes no sense. By that kind of "logic", we could just as well compare only the 1st section of this Bush article to the entire Boris article and now claim that the Bush article isn't critical enough compared to the the Boris article.

Also what you seem to be forgetting is that a massive compromise has already been reached... the fact that there is no mention that Boris is a notorious accused murderer is beyond ludicrous, but that was a ridiculous concession that was made in order to appease. We met you well beyond halfway and the thanks we get is the repeated attempts to remove the section completely or edit it so severely it becomes a whitewash and/or nonsensical gibberish. As already proven in the first paragraph of this Talk page section, the Wikipedia guidelines easily show that this Boris section belongs in the Bush article. If you'd like to improve the section with well-sourced edits, then by all means, have at it. But, the section blanking and rampant deletions aren't going to get this article anywhere, ever. If you are concerned with what you consider a "gossip" blog being used as a source, then work on that part, but, like I said, using vandalism on the entire section won't get you anywhere but in trouble. 67.190.61.6 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tone down your rhetoric, 67.190.61.6. Several of us are trying (or have tried) to come to some consensus wording. Constantly accusing people of vandalism is just making it worse. I haven't seen "your side" make any genuine effort of good faith editing, except by reverting to an overly-long and dominating piece the article.BlazinBuggles 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my rhetoric, it's wikipedia guidelines and policy I'm following. Speaking of rhetoric, your usage of the term "consensus wording", what is that? Doublespeak for blanking sections you don't like? It's obvious you aren't reading and/or bothering to comprehend my points above and trying to edit in good faith. It's like talking to a brick wall. You probably haven't noticed that I usually try to answer opposing edits above point by point and try to find a compromise. I at least acknowledge what you are saying. Meanwhile, I have noticed you blindly ignore almost all the points I make which I consider a troll move. If you want compromise, you're simply going to have to read, acknowledge and think about what we are saying. It appears you ignore what we say almost entirely... that's no basis for compromise and I'm tired of repeating myself. Trying to reason with you here, but the only thanks I get is repeated vandalism... YES, vandalism (see above in many places why it's vandalism if you still don't get it... like I said, I'm tired of repeating myself to someone who refuses to read my points) I'm at my wits end with you and will stop wasting my time with you shortly if you don't FINALLY follow wikipedia guidelines and policy and edit the parts for accuracy, etc. instead of committing section blanking and hatchet jobs. Oh well, you probably didn't read anything but small parts of what I just wrote anyway... what's the use at this point? I'm going to start ignoring you until you stop acting like a troll and REALLY try to compromise. Ok, now go on and on about good faith and how no one should call vandalism vandalism and troll-like behavior... troll-like behavior.. and whatever other "talking points" you want to push along with your non-sourced and/or self-sourced POV. 67.190.61.6 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

61.6, your speaking is not constructive to anyone. "Doublespeak" "whitewash" "troll" "vandal" and similar bad things. That and similar is all that is heard from you. It is not surprise that people ignore you. Schlotzsman 16:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Schlitz, do you do any other tricks on command? Haha... Sit! Lay down! Beg!.... or "... go on and on about good faith and how no one should call vandalism vandalism and troll-like behavior... troll-like behavior.. and whatever other "talking points" you want to push along with your non-sourced and/or self-sourced POV. ... ". Yes, do ANYTHING but try to reach a compromise and benefit wikipedia. C'mon, boy, you can do it. Ignore points! Sit! Spin! 67.190.61.6 17:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Schlotzsman, please read this and acknowlege

" ... If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. ... " - That's not me, buddy. That's striaght from wikipedia guidelines HERE.

The Bush and Berezovsky section is notable (it's made international news from many multiple sources). It's relevant (Boris funds Neil Bush's company and it's also well-documented that they travel, attend events and more together) and it's well-documented and well-sourced. (Once again, it's made international news from many multiple sources).

Once again, please follow Wikipedia policy and quit vandalizing and/or POV pushing by removing massive parts of this section or removing it entirely based on... NO sources to back you up whatsoever. Do the project a huge favor and try to dig up sources that minimize and/or refute the information and let's go from there. We will welcome constructive efforts on your part to make this a better article, but the POV pushing needs to stop. To ignore this compliance of policy and delete the section is at best troll-like and at worst, vandalism. Please STOP IT. 67.190.61.6 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No Consensus

Might we all agree at least on this: there is currently no consensus on the proper length and content of exposition on the Bush-Berezovsky connection.

At a minimum we appear to have, users Schlotzman, BlazinBuggles, and Shortcut.Road advocating one set of wording, more or less. We have Wikipediatrix, Cowicide, and CharoletteWeb adovcating another set or wording, more or less (although I am not totally clear on CharoletteWeb's perferred wording based on that user's edit summaries - I would invite CharoletteWeb to clarify here). I would like to think my own peferred wording falls mainly at the level of what Wikipediatrix & co. have offered, rather than Schlotzman & co., only I would very much argue to remove the Wonkette quotation. Also, if I may attempt to summarize it, I would hazard to say that user 67.190.61.6 would prefer wording even further expanded than the position of Wikipediatrix & co.

Perhaps the best path forward is for us to all work on the talk page to two or three possible versions, and then see if we can compromise in between. The three might be:

• No Berezovsky section, references within Bush-and-Ignite section
• Separate Berezovsky section, version #1
• Separate Berezovsky section, version #2.

Might we all be able to agree that this is how the general opinions seem to break down? If we can agree on that, then we could take a next step of moving forward on those each of those positions here on talk, then keep our fingers crossed that a consensus/compromise can be found between them afterwards.--67.101.67.197 19:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You said, "... I would very much argue to remove the Wonkette quotation. Also, if I may attempt to summarize it, I would hazard to say that user 67.190.61.6 would prefer wording even further expanded than the position of Wikipediatrix & co. ... "

No, actaully I'm more towards what you are suggesting to edit out or shorten the Wonkette part and/or find a better source that's not from a left-leaning blog. My beef is only the "blanking" that's been going on here and removal of sources, not with reasonably discussed edits. 67.190.61.6 19:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, the Berezovsky section has also been restored by User:Betacommand (an admin) and a couple of IP editors. Interestingly, the original editors who began removing the information were 70.113.208.174 and User:John Broughton, who seems to have disappeared shortly after the new crop of brand-new single-purpose accounts arrived to continue the removal. The original version of the info is here (scroll down to "Ties with Boris Berezovsky"), which was reverted by John Broughton with the edit summary "Feel free to add back when you provide a source for the info." [5] This is when I came in, did a simple Google search, found tons of sources, and added them to the article. Suddenly Broughton and co.'s offer to "feel free" to restore the info vanished, heh. wikipediatrix 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Based off past personal observations, I feel comfortable saying that John Broughton is a big follower of step two of Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes: Disengage For A While. Namely, when an article gets heated, he just moves to other articles/interests and stops dealing with it. I'd wager that this is why you haven't seen anything else from him.--67.101.67.197 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never gone away...just been passively watching the fireworks here recently. Chalk me up to the position that "Less is More". The only thing I see as reasonable is the statement that Boris is an investor. The cavorting-type-pal connection language is really a stretch. After all, Boris's ability to travel seems very limited and that doesn't match Neil's international travel style, so I doubt they see each other that much...kind of hard to call them beer buddies. Boris does have his issues, but it doesn't make sense to air them on Neil's article.70.113.208.174 03:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, CharottesWeb, admin or no, isn't participating in any concensus discussion. Is she just a bot, or is just ignoring what's discussed here? I don't put a lot of faith in admins like that, unless she's running a bot. If so I could cut her some slack. BlazinBuggles 12:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, BlazinBuggles, that's a bit hypocritical. I don't see you participating in the discussion here in this section either. If you would have read above, you would've seen that we're still looking to edit the Boris section in parts after reaching a healthy consensus... NOT blanking the majority of it without discussion as you just did, sigh... AGAIN. We're trying to work this out, but you are sidetracking us and wasting our time with your distracting and unproductive blanking. Please chill out and help us come to a compromise within this Talk page before we dive in and edit out or change parts of this section. After all the manic reverts, aren't you getting tired of this yet? There's too much consensus to keep the section at this point to even discuss deleting most of it like you keep doing. Let's find some half-way points here and get this over with. Everyone, including you, needs to make some concessions at this point. The more you blank the majority of the section, the more you are likely to lose out on input and the higher risk you take of getting reprimanded by an admin. Just chill out and work with us here. 67.190.61.6 12:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There you go again...trying to alter history. Is it that hard go back and see what I've been discussing? I'll stand exactly on what I've written. There is no consensus yet, as per another editor, Mr. 6. Looks like the call for consensus discussion yesterday isn't going to make it very far.BlazinBuggles 13:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There. Just a few edits for you to chew on. I expect more will be coming, if not from me, others who think the section is too overly long. BlazinBuggles 13:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that your edits to the article are made in good faith as something for others to "chew on." However, I really think at this point it would be more productive to have everyone hash it out here, on one or more versions, before editing the main article again. To continue to hash it out there may continue the revert war. If you are not comfortable with whatever the current state of the Berezovsky section is when discussion moves to here, you are well within your rights to put an NPOV tag on the section in the main article. That will clue in any readers out there that the section of the article is under negotiation without consensus being reached. You will (or should) not have to worry about a revert war over the NPOV tag in the interim, as removing another user's insertion of a NPOV tag prematurely is considered bad form. Check out Template:NPOV-section on how to add the tag.--67.101.67.197 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added NPOV Tag. I suggest interested people read the Boris as an example of neutral article.Schlotzsman 23:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bush and Berezovsky Edit section

Here's where the disputed section is at this point, I suggest we all start editing it from here in this Talk page to reach a compromise consensus then paste the final result up there once everyone is begrudgingly comfortable with their compromises.. Hopefully, this will stop making the article a playground for reverts, blanking and other games that's frustrating and distracting everyone from the real task at hand.

---

Original:

Bush's relationship with Boris Berezovsky, termed a "Russian fugitive business tycoon" by the Los Angeles Times, [6] [7] has been noted in the media. Berezovsky is an investor in Bush's Ignite! program since at least 2003. [8] According to journalist Jerome Corsi:

"Reports also document Neil Bush traveling around the ex-Soviet Union to raise money for Ignite! with the notorious Boris Berezovsky, a Russian wheeler-dealer who has sought asylum in London to avoid Russian authorities who want to prosecute him for fraud." [9]

Bush has been seen in Berezovsky's box at a British soccer stadium for a game, [10]. [11]

Catherine Belton, writing for the Moscow Times in October 2005, notes:

"The Kremlin is bound to be smarting at the Bush-Berezovsky partnership, especially since Putin has taken pains to build a personal relationship with the U.S. president."

"For Putin, it must be a very sore point that the brother of his friend has some kind of business with Berezovsky," said Vladimir Pribylovsky, the head of the Panorama think tank..... Berezovsky's investment in Ignite! appears to put him at a nexus of influence peddlers and financiers, as well as at the center of yet more controversy. [12]

Berezovsky's business partner Badri Patarkatsishvili is also part of Bush's "Ignite!" program. [13]

---

Cowicide 08:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC) edit below: I've removed the wonkette link entirely b/c it's an article with an obvious hatred of Bush, not NPOV. The rest I've left because they all mention directly Bush's relationship with Boris and why it's a notable relationship. This isn't a waiter Bush ordered pork chops from one day. And this isn't an investor without controversy. There's even a BBC series called the Russian Godfathers that heavily features Berezovsky... not to mention the book that accused him of gangland murder (and the author was wacked shortly afterwards)... not to mention many other unmentionables that, by far, make this guy NOT just another random investor guy of little note. Let's face it, while I'm no fan of Putin whatsoever, it IS quite notable (to say the least) when a relationship like this manages to piss off a world leader and make international news. When Blaze says in the article History that nobody thinks the relationship is controversial except the editors here... all Blaze has to do is look at the included sources to see that's not accurate, at all.

Given that this "visit" and relationship happened quite a while ago (I think over a year) before it is even made the LA Times article should tell you something. During the visit, minor wonks bemoaned that this "big story" was being ignored. There's a reason for that. It's not important. There was no controversy except those who wished for their to be one.

Berezovsky is already mentioned as an investor. A special section expounding on what a "bad guy" Boris is doesn't belong here. Other than a soccer game (where, apparently, several other major businessmen were in attendance), is a note of debatable merit. There isn't much to go on. It looks like it was from a sports magazine. I just saw Neil's dad at a football game on TV...is that going to be notable, too?

The second guy isn't part of Ignite. That's just plain wrong. Perhaps he is just an investor, as also noted earlier in the article. Why bring him up again? He isn't an employee or driver of Ignite, yet he is taking up one line of text and two lines of white space. It isn't (pardon the pun) justified.

If Boris and his partner are somehow driving Ignite! then that would be notable, but there is no evidence for that.

While were on the subject of investors, why not talk extensively about Moon? Or what about Neil's relationship with the Pope? Moon is certainly more of a notable figure world-wide than Berezovsky, but his part in Neil's world is that he went on his "Peace Tour". And just who is this "Pope" guy Neil has associated with?

I guess what I'm really coming down to is that there really isn't any interaction between Neil/Boris other than an investment and a game. So why is this taking so much space in the article? Why do we need quotes about the "impacts" between George W. Bush, Putin, etc? It's third/fourth party interactions and opinon that just seems to be there to try to "fluff" this section.

Going back through the discussion, it seems some are really pushing for this to be its own section...enough that they have to add lengthy quotes that really don't have anything to do with Neil directly. Why? To make matters worse, these people say they don't even care about it.

This just isn't/wasn't a big story on the world page, and doesn't justify the extensive elaboration.

Taking Shlotzman's advice, I read the Boris article. It's interesting how that seems to be more even-handed and they aren't smearing him as some evil individual. Certainly, there are notations as to his tarnished reputation, but they seem reasonable tempered.

BlazinBuggles 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that this "visit" and relationship happened quite a while ago (I think over a year) before it is even made the LA Times article should tell you something. During the visit, minor wonks bemoaned that this "big story" was being ignored. There's a reason for that. It's not important. There was no controversy except those who wished for their to be one.

Not a controversy? There's the international news, there's the book, the major magazine article that Boris went after for libel and a BBC series, He's surrounded by accusations of ties to the Russian mob, contract murders, massive fraud... he's wanted by the Russian authorities and NOW... here we have the brother of the President of the United States hanging out with him and getting MONEY from this guy? Let's use some common sense here and at least admit one thing... it's controversial. Don't insult our intelligence.

The controversy is around Boris, not Neil. "Hanging Out" consists of beeing seen at a football game. The Neil/Boris connection is *NOT* controversial. Please quit trying to trying to inflate something insignificant. Schlotzsman 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your highly selective reading or comprehension doesn't change the fact that the controversy is around Neil and Boris' relationship. The sources are there to back it up. If you have sources contrary to that, then let's have them. The ball is in your court. Also, they do far more than "hang out"... if you haven't noticed, Boris invested in Neil's company, etc. Sorry, but reality is reality and no amount of distortion and/or deletions of facts in Wikipedia is going to change the reality that we have sources to defend our position and you do not. Cowicide 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And as far as when the LA Times picked up the story, I don't see how that's relevant. Is the LA Times now the barometer of what's notable or not? Nevermind all the international press, books, other magazines, etc., etc.? I guess we should go through all the other Wikipedia articles and prune out anything that hasn't been picked up yet by the LA Times because it's not notable? I propose, instead, we get real here and admit... this info is controversial and notable. Common sense and the international media exposure dictates that clearly enough.

I have to ask what Neil did is notable? Remember this is article about Neil, not Boris. Neil went to footballl game. Neil took investment. Neil did not order pork chops. That is all you have.Schlotzsman 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Neil went to football game... Neil took investment.... via a man wanted for large scale fraud and happens to be surrounded by a cloud of suspicion for his alleged involvment in organized crime, murder, etc. That easily meets the Wikipedia guidelines for Public Figures. It's notable (international media coverage), relevant (it caused some controversy for Neil) and well-documented (once again, international media coverage with sources to boot). Once again, we have sources that show this is notable. If this is not notable, would you please note what the threshold is? Does Boris need to kill someone on live TV before it's a notable and controversial relationship? Please... tell us all where the line is for future reference. Cowicide 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Berezovsky is already mentioned as an investor. A special section expounding on what a "bad guy" Boris is doesn't belong here. Other than a soccer game (where, apparently, several other major businessmen were in attendance), is a note of debatable merit. There isn't much to go on. It looks like it was from a sports magazine.

It wasn't from a sports magazine. It was mentioned by the Guardian because it was... notable, considering who Boris is.

It was noted in the Guardian RUMOR MILL about sports. The gist of the aricle is about Boris and dealings with others about football teams. Notable by a sports rumor mill. Not great source. Schlotzsman 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That seemed like a good point, so I went back and read the article. It's actually called NEWS, observe the big red square graphic that says "News" directly to the left of the article title. Also, in the URL itself it says news, observe: http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1864950,00.html. And here's the nail in the coffin, here's another article that is actually within the rumour mill section here; there you will observe the red square graphic changes from "News" to "The Rumour Mill". Also, within the Boris/Bush article it says point blank, "... Berezovsky was at the Emirates Stadium on Sunday in the company of Neil Bush the brother of the US president, George Bush. ...". It's stated as fact. It doesn't say it was "rumored" or overheard hearsay, etc. This was labeled as "News" and "News_Story"... NOT Rumor. It's a fine source. Cowicide 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In my browers, it's under the subheading "Rumor Mill", so I concur that this is a questional source. Shortcut.road 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I just saw Neil's dad at a football game on TV...is that going to be notable, too?

Once again, you insult our intelligence. There's nothing notable about a family hanging out together unless they've been estranged from each other due to some kind of controversy or what have you

Neil wasn't at that football game that I know of. I don't know who former president was hanging out with. I'm sure it was someone. Anyway, you miss point. Seeing people together at sporting events, even business people, don't mean much.Schlotzsman 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironically and embarrassingly... it's you that missed the point. He was just making an example, the point he was making was that no one cares if Neil or his father was at a football game (with his dad or not, whatever). I was confirming (whether the event really happened or not is beside the point) that such a situation is not notable but... read on... Cowicide 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

COWICIDE, please stop the personal attacks. Shortcut.road 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But, there is, indeed, something highly notable about the brother of the President of the United States of America hanging out with a wanted fugitive accused of large scale fraud and surrounded by accusations of ties to the Russian mob, murder, etc.

WHAT IS IT? You say "something highly notable". What? Is Boris corrupting Neil? If so, how? Boris does business and does what businessmen do. If he is such a bad guy, why aren't other countries taking him into custody? Could it be there are more sides to the story of Boris? Schlotzsman

The brother of the President of the United States of America hanging out with and getting investment money via a wanted fugitive accused of large scale fraud and surrounded by accusations of ties to the Russian mob, murder, etc. is notable. THAT IS IT... that's notable. The fact that another country is harboring him only makes it even more notable. No where does it say he is GUILTY of anything. It only states the facts of his situation. Sorry, you don't have a reality distortion field powerful enough to change that fact. You are really starting to embarrass yourself at this point. Cowicide 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The second guy isn't part of Ignite. That's just plain wrong. Perhaps he is just an investor, as also noted earlier in the article. Why bring him up again? He isn't an employee or driver of Ignite, yet he is taking up one line of text and two lines of white space. It isn't (pardon the pun) justified.

Do you have any sources that cite that Badri is only a silent investor and doesn't have any say in the company, BTW? Nonetheless, I agree, that it's redundant to mention him twice in the article and he should be removed from the Boris section.

There isn't even strong evidence that Badri is an investor. Just a passing note that he was "signed up", which could mean lot of things. Too much is being read into words, and without further evidence, should be removed. Maybe even from investor section.

I think it would be very tough to verify Badri being an investor, even if he is. Schlotzsman 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Badri is mentioned as an investor in several places.... it wasn't tough to find. The only question left is whether he's a silent investor or not, but I'm not sure how relevant that would be until it's investigated further. One thing is for sure, he should not be removed from the investor section because he's, at the least, an investor. Cowicide 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

While were on the subject of investors, why not talk extensively about Moon? Or what about Neil's relationship with the Pope? Moon is certainly more of a notable figure world-wide than Berezovsky, but his part in Neil's world is that he went on his "Peace Tour". And just who is this "Pope" guy Neil has associated with?

There's a vote for bringing in more info on Moon and Neil's relationship with the "Pope" guy. We can bring that info in later as time allows.

Why do we need quotes about the "impacts" between George W. Bush, Putin, etc? It's third/fourth party interactions and opinon that just seems to be there to try to "fluff" this section.

Because that makes the relationship even more notable. For example, if Moon starts pissing off one of the biggest leaders in the World because he hangs out and invests with Neil, that would certainly make the relationship notable as well.

Going back through the discussion, it seems some are really pushing for this to be its own section...enough that they have to add lengthy quotes that really don't have anything to do with Neil directly. Why? To make matters worse, these people say they don't even care about it.

Sounds like a nice distraction from the task at hand... which is to deal with the presented facts and edit it for a compromise. As far as editing things out that don't deal with Neil "directly"... you act as if the section is more about Boris than anything else when it just briefly notes why Boris is notable and why the relationship is notable and controversial. There's nothing wrong with that, it merely make the article more comprehensive and understandable.

No. It does not make the article comperhensive and understandable. Links are to be used to guide reader to more information, so that should easily cover comprehensive. As to understandable, several lines are devoted to relationship between Putin and US President, written by someone speculating as to what it MIGHT have done to their relationship, with no solid facts. Unless Neil/Boris did do something to international relationships, like torpedo a treaty or something, it doesn't mean anything. I agree with term "fluff".Schlotzsman 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What the Putin article confirms is that the relationship is, indeed, considered controversial. Therefore, it's notable. If it was'nt controversial or significant in some other way then this section wouldn't warrant itself. But the reality is that the relationship is controversial... whether your opinion of that article style is wonderful or not is beside the point, it's still controversial. There are plenty of other articles that mention the relationship in a controversial light, would you like us to source them all in the section to make it hit home or is that one article enough? For me, the one article is enough... but I'll be happy to add all the other sources of controversy if you really think that particular piece is too... "fluffy". Cowicide 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Taking Shlotzman's advice, I read the Boris article. It's interesting how that seems to be more even-handed and they aren't smearing him as some evil individual. Certainly, there are notations as to his tarnished reputation, but they seem reasonable tempered.

Uh, this is straight from the Boris article... ".... Berezovsky's image among Russians is generally poor; many consider him the most unlawful and unethical of the oligarchs and blame him especially for the country's economic collapse. ...". Yeah, he sounds great... an entire country hates his ass. Once again, let's get real... if this was some kind of "hit job" (no pun intended) on Boris via the Neil Bush page then we could go into far more detail than there is now. From the get-go the Boris article talks of his alleged mafia connections and being a fugitive. Once again, he is controversial to say the least. He's a fugitive and alleged mobster accused of large scale fraud, murder, etc. who is not only being seen with Neil but also giving Neil potential blood money. Gee, that's kinda notable and controversial, no?

You miss point again. Points are made without inflammatory language. You fan flames saying Neil has "potential blood money". Controversial, maybe, if you could back it up. But you can't without wild speculation, that doesn't belong here. I strongly question your ability to come at this topic with open mind and neutrality. Schlotzsman 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You embarrass yourself again. "Potential blood money" is backed up by the fact he is surrounded by a cloud of suspicion for being "potentially" involved in the Russian mafia, murder, large scale fraud, etc., etc. from many sources. It almost sounds as if you two guys WANT more sources about Boris included in the Bush article... sheesh... Besides, that's not in the article, I only said it here in the Talk page to make a point... that you may have missed.

Cowicide, using words (whether here or in the article) like "potential blood money" and trying to convice us how nasty Boris is shows you have a lot of bias. The goal of this article is to be about Neil, not Boris. Please stop harping on Boris and let the link to his already peer-reviewed article explain to the reader. Shortcut.road 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I also certainly question your ability to handle this topic with a NPOV, but I think you missed the point of this Talk page section.... we've already established what we think of each other; now we are just trying to reach a compromise, quit bickering, reverting, etc. and get this article improved. Also, a third party can come in and observe our counterpoints and decide what to do. I doubt that third party will care much at all that you think I'm unfit to edit here because I disagree with you. They are going to hopefully look at the substance of our arguments and make a decision from there. Cowicide 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

All that said, I do see your point in mentioning Badri twice as redundant. I think removing Badri's second mention in the article is very reasonable. I also assume you are happy with removing the Wonkette? Cowicide 12:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No question abou Wonkette. That is obviosly clearly not NPOV source. Schlotzsman 13:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Schlotzsman, there buddy? I was being facetious with that "question". Well, anyway, let it now be known, you obviously, clearly think Wonkette is NPOV and as I already agreed earlier... I, uh, agree. Cowicide 20:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I have a shocker for you. I tend to wonder if Boris is innocent of some of the murders he's suspected of since it's perfectly feasible someone from Putin's crime, er... political regime killed some of the people and tried to frame it on him. I've read some interviews of Boris and he seems sincere and makes some seemingly valid points against the corrupt power struggles that, do indeed surround him. But, that's just my opinion and I'm not going to let my suspicions and general dislike of Putin get in the way of my NPOV and I'm just going to tell it how it is despite some of my doubts about some of the accusations against Boris. Hopefully, you will also show the Wikipeida spirit and overcome your bias and POV and let the facts be told here and let the readers decide. Sincerely, Cowicide 20:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the guilt or innocense of Boris have to do with Neil? I don't see any "wikipedia spirit" until we get on-topic and talk about Neil.Shortcut.road 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Cowicide's edit (updated Cowicide 12:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC) :

Bush's relationship with Boris Berezovsky, termed a "Russian fugitive business tycoon" by the Los Angeles Times, [14] [15] has been noted in the media. Berezovsky is an investor in Bush's Ignite! program since at least 2003. [16] According to journalist Jerome Corsi:

"Reports also document Neil Bush traveling around the ex-Soviet Union to raise money for Ignite! with the notorious Boris Berezovsky, a Russian wheeler-dealer who has sought asylum in London to avoid Russian authorities who want to prosecute him for fraud." [17]

Bush has been seen in Berezovsky's box at a British soccer stadium for a game. [18].

Catherine Belton, writing for the Moscow Times in October 2005, notes:

"The Kremlin is bound to be smarting at the Bush-Berezovsky partnership, especially since Putin has taken pains to build a personal relationship with the U.S. president."

"For Putin, it must be a very sore point that the brother of his friend has some kind of business with Berezovsky," said Vladimir Pribylovsky, the head of the Panorama think tank..... Berezovsky's investment in Ignite! appears to put him at a nexus of influence peddlers and financiers, as well as at the center of yet more controversy. [19]

---

Question: What has Neil done with Boris of import?

This article and discussion keeps getting sidetracked by trying to make Boris and Neil sound like cohorts. I would like to know what DIRECT impacts have come from their knowing each other.

I'm not talking about Putin or George W. Bush. The quote in the article is just someone opinion (e.g "Kremlin must be smarting"...."it must be a sore point". These aren't facts, just someone's opinion. Are there any directly related source from the Bush and Putin administrations that say Neil/Boris have caused a political problems?

What I want to know is the real impacts of this relationship....what have they been? Constantly saying..."but he's the president's brother, and Boris is a bad guy" aren't convincing to me. Shortcut.road 15:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of asking us why their relationship is notable, one might ask all these media sources why they found it notable enough to mention. wikipediatrix 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they were fishing for a story? Media shotgunning for a scandal? What I'd like to know is what came of this supposed "relationship". Where does it stand today? Has it caused any real issues? What's the follow up? If there is a real story here to justify its own section? If something can be found, put it in. If nothing can be found, maybe this just wasn't a story to begin with. As I see it, we have A) An investor, and B) A Soccer game. Where does all this lead to? This isn't a new development, so there should be something more.Shortcut.road 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Dispute Resolution (Please don't edit this section unless you are an admin)

When there are disputes on Wikipedia, it's required that users turn to the Wikipedia guidelines to settle the dispute. The guideline on Public Figures states: " ... If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. ... "

To follow the Wikipedia guideline and resolve this dispute, we have to answer 3 questions:

1) Is the incident notable? A suspected top-level Russian gangster who is accused of large-scale fraud and alleged multiple murders on the run from the Russian authorities and is despised by the general public within one of the largest, most powerful countries in the world hangs out publicly with the brother of the President of the United States (the subject of the article) after giving said brother investment money. As can be seen in the sources below, the meetings between Neil and Boris have caused considered controversy as the Russian authorities continue to try and capture Boris for his alleged crimes.

2) Is the incident relevant? Boris is directly involved with the subject of the artice in this incident on several levels. Boris is a controversial and notable figure (see part 1). His combined notability and interconnection with Bush makes this incident relevant.

3) Is the incident well-documented? [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

More: (Added at 15:31, 9 November 2006)

" ... Much controversy surrounded the meeting, since Berezovsky is wanted for arrest in Russia, and the scandalous Russian businessman, who now lives in London, met with a relative of the U.S. president. ... " The Baltic Times

" ... Berezovsky is meeting Neil Bush on business, as the U.S. president’s brother is a stockholder of Berezovsky’s educational company Ignite, the spokesperson said. Latvian Interior Minister Erik Jekabsons said earlier that if Berezovsky arrived in Riga, he would be detained and extradited to Russia. ... " mosnews

" ... When Berezovsky turned up with Bush in Latvia two weeks ago, Russia’s patience frayed. Once again, prosecutors tried unsuccessfully to have him extradited to Moscow, where he is wanted on charges of fraud.

Even with a partner like Neil Bush on board, Berezovsky’s Latvia trip caused Riga’s political establishment to sweat. The prime minister and president late last week called on the country’s National Security Council to consider blocking any future visits by Berezovsky. ... " The St. Petersburg Times

"... Self-exiled Berezovsky, who has a foreign travel passport for the name of Platon Yelenin, visited Riga on September 21 together with Neil Bush, younger brother of the US President, and spent two days in the city. Officially he represented the Bush-created Ignite! Company engaged in children's education software. Berezovsky also visited Riga in February.

Both times Russian prosecutors demanded to extradite Berezovsky, who they accuse of major fraud, and both times Latvia refused. Latvian observers believe Berezovsky's visits, which strained relations with Russia, were the reason for the resignation of Interior Minister Eriks Jekabsons, who maintained contacts with Berezovsky. ... " People's Daily Online

√√√ This Boris section is proven notable, relevant & well-documented. This section conforms to Wikipedia guidelines as opposed to non-sourced opinions open to wide interpretation and further disputes. If you disagree with the Wikipedia guidelines, you need to take that up with Wikipedia administrators. If you can convince the administrators to change the Wikipedia guidelines to suit your needs, then feel free to come back here and edit accordingly. Otherwise, you'll be going against Wikipedia guidelines and be subject to potential disciplinary actions in order to stop further disruptive edits.

At this point, we should get some admins to take a look at this edit below and the various arguments in the Talk section above. If this reaches thier approval, we will remove the POV tag and upload this following edit (minus or plus thier suggestions):

REPEAT: (Please don't edit this section unless you are an admin)

DISPUTED EDIT FOR THIRD PARTY ADMIN REVIEW:

Bush's controversial relationship with Boris Berezovsky, termed a "Russian fugitive business tycoon" by the Los Angeles Times, [25] [26] has been noted in the media. Berezovsky is an investor in Bush's Ignite! program since at least 2003 and since then, Bush has been seen with Berezovsky in his box at a British soccer stadium for a game. [27] [28].

According to journalist Jerome Corsi:

"Reports also document Neil Bush traveling around the ex-Soviet Union to raise money for Ignite! with the notorious Boris Berezovsky, a Russian wheeler-dealer who has sought asylum in London to avoid Russian authorities who want to prosecute him for fraud." [29]

Catherine Belton, writing for the Moscow Times in October 2005, notes:

"The Kremlin is bound to be smarting at the Bush-Berezovsky partnership, especially since Putin has taken pains to build a personal relationship with the U.S. president."

"For Putin, it must be a very sore point that the brother of his friend has some kind of business with Berezovsky," said Vladimir Pribylovsky, the head of the Panorama think tank..... Berezovsky's investment in Ignite! appears to put him at a nexus of influence peddlers and financiers, as well as at the center of yet more controversy. [30]

---

67.190.61.6 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

67.190.61.6 Dodges the real question

Mr 67.190.61.6, please stop dodging the real questions, acting like you're the authority, and threatening others that they are going to subject to "potential disiplinary actions.

You say "That sounds like the premise of a movie, but it's real and very notable... and that's just summing it up, there's much more to it." What "much more" is there (as it deals with Neil)? Please answer.

BlazinBuggles 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "acting like an authority"... who made you the arbiter of judging what are the "real questions" or not? Besides, I'm just trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines as already determined by the authority and consensus of countless administrators who have spent countless hours here at wikipedia refining said guidelines over the years. If you don't like what they've done with the guidelines, then take it up with THEM. Quit wasting your time and everyone else's here, there's nothing we can do directly about the guidelines, nor would we want to groom them towards your "tastes" even if we could. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Also, please quit grandstanding and attempting distractions from the task at hand by asking the same questions over and over that have already been answered in Talk and/or can be easily read in sources and/or in the Boris Berezovsky wikipedia article. Also, I didn't "threaten" anyone. I just stated the fact that if anyone here, including myself, repeatedly goes against Wikipedia guidelines and policies they can be subject to "potential disciplinary actions". If you felt that was directed only towards you, then maybe it was just your guilty conscious. Please drop the distractions and finally do some work and find some sources to back up at least just one of your arguments. Now get out of the house and vote today or try to intimidate Democratic voters or whatever it is that you want to do today, but quit picking on me. 67.190.61.6 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Don't Edit Talk Page

67.190.61.6 is editing the talk page history. I'm restoring a comment from another user that he decided to edit out. Apparently 67.190.61.6 also thinks he gets to decide who gets to talk here. Shortcut.road 20:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

 : I think you're a little confused on the role of admins in wikipedia. Perhaps what you may be looking for is for an outside mediator? It's usually heavily encouraged for editors to try to come to their own consensus first, but you are within your rights to request informal or formal mediation. The lead times for even informal mediation are somewhat lengthy.--67.101.66.153 14:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I made it VERY clear that section shouldn't be altered except by an admin. If that person wanted to comment, they should have made another section unless they are looking to instigate trouble and create a distraction. As the 3rd party says below, the rest of the Talk page is a mess. The section is there for review, not to be ruined by malicious edits only meant to distract from the points. Once again, feel free to make your own clear points in your OWN section. The ball is in your court. Make YOUR points, if you have any, for removing the Boris section and make it coherent. It would seem at this point all you are capable of is grandstanding and various distractions from the task at hand. This section is yet another mere distraction and grandstanding. Is that all you got to represent your side? Get to work. 67.190.61.6 09:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

67.190.61.6, it is not your place to declare sections of talk uncommentable. It is also frowned upon to edit out other's comments on the talk page. I suggest you read the etiquette and working with others sections of wikipedia.

BlazinBuggles 16:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was posted at Requests for Comment

I saw this article posted at requests for comment. (And just to clarify, RfC invites comments from editors, not admins acting in their capacity as such.) I've read the above section that summarized one side of this. Could someone tell me the other? I'm not inclined to read the rest of this talk page which appears to mostly consist of threats and ad hominem, with little or no apparent discussion of the issues. What a mess! JChap2007 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My viewpoint:

Boris and his partner are already listed as investors in an earlier section. I'm OK with that.

Boris's reputation seems to be a big deal to a few editors. I think the mention of "reputation" and a link to the Boris page is sufficient. Expounding on Boris on the Neil page isn't necessary.

Some people are reading more into the Boris-Neil situation than is warranted. Other than Boris investing in Neil's company there haven't been any further developments in over a year.

The large block quote of a third-party opining about what this may have done to Russian-US relations makes the situation seem more important than it really is.

In closing, the section is disproportionally large compared to the rest of the article. It could be summed up in one or two simple sentences.

BlazinBuggles 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems we have a dispute between editors who want a complete section on a controversy involving Bush and Berezovsky and others who want to mention the relationship in a sentence or two. I read the article and then just went back and read it again. My initial thoughts are that when we write about controversies, they should be, well, controversial. It is important to note that whether we think it is relevant or not is not important: the key factor is whether reliable sources have considered it controversial. Or, putting aside whether op-ed pieces are reliable to cite for factual statements in articles, significant coverage in the opinion press would make this a controversy we should cover as well. (Molly Ivins, for example, is a frequent critic of the Bush family. Perhaps she has mentioned something?) Based solely on looking at the sources cited above and those in the article, this would not appear to be much of a controversy. The Bush-Berezovsky relationship is the focus of only one of them (the Moscow Times, which our article says is a free, English langauge newspaper given out to expats in Russia). The other articles focus more on his benefiting from NCLB, his trips to Dubai or Berezovsky possibly buying a football club. The mentions of Berezhvsky in the daily newspapers are in passing and the only other source that even gives the relationship so much as a paragraph is an article on a political website. It might be interesting to determine if this website is particularly influential. (not that this means much, but I've never heard of it.) Let's look for sources to try to see if this really is something that third parties believe is relevant and controversial. For example, mention in daily newspapers, syndicated columnists and prominent blogs like Daily Kos would be indicia of significance. JChap2007 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions to improve the article. As requested, here's more proof of controversy. Below are more sources that can be used on top of or instead of the sources already in place. As you'll see, the Boris & Bush relationship and visits has caused controversy & various turmoil:

" ... Much controversy surrounded the meeting, since Berezovsky is wanted for arrest in Russia, and the scandalous Russian businessman, who now lives in London, met with a relative of the U.S. president. ... " The Baltic Times

" ... Berezovsky is meeting Neil Bush on business, as the U.S. president’s brother is a stockholder of Berezovsky’s educational company Ignite, the spokesperson said. Latvian Interior Minister Erik Jekabsons said earlier that if Berezovsky arrived in Riga, he would be detained and extradited to Russia. ... " mosnews

" ... When Berezovsky turned up with Bush in Latvia two weeks ago, Russia’s patience frayed. Once again, prosecutors tried unsuccessfully to have him extradited to Moscow, where he is wanted on charges of fraud.

Even with a partner like Neil Bush on board, Berezovsky’s Latvia trip caused Riga’s political establishment to sweat. The prime minister and president late last week called on the country’s National Security Council to consider blocking any future visits by Berezovsky. ... " The St. Petersburg Times

"... Self-exiled Berezovsky, who has a foreign travel passport for the name of Platon Yelenin, visited Riga on September 21 together with Neil Bush, younger brother of the US President, and spent two days in the city. Officially he represented the Bush-created Ignite! Company engaged in children's education software. Berezovsky also visited Riga in February.

Both times Russian prosecutors demanded to extradite Berezovsky, who they accuse of major fraud, and both times Latvia refused. Latvian observers believe Berezovsky's visits, which strained relations with Russia, were the reason for the resignation of Interior Minister Eriks Jekabsons, who maintained contacts with Berezovsky. ... " People's Daily Online

67.190.61.6 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And that's all about Boris. It's not about Neil. At least one of the above citations has some factual errors, as Ignite is not "Beresovsky's educational company".

AuntEthel 01:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

AuntEthel: "... And that's all about Boris. It's not about Neil. ..." AuntE, you may want to seek ocular help as soon as possible. Boris' meetings, etc. with Neil are discussed in every single source that I read above. What are you reading or trying not to read? Cowicide 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Of the above sources: the St. Petersburg Times piece is identical to the article in the Moscow Times that is already quoted in the article, the People's Daily Online and mosnews articles are about the controversy generated by Berezovsky's visit to Latvia not that generated by his connection to Neil, and the Baltic Times quote mentions that Berezovsky's visit to Latvia was controversial because he is wanted by the Russian government and because he was meeting with Bush. The Baltic Times then goes on to talk about the diplomatic problems caused by Berezovsky's visit but never mentions Neil again. The diplomatic problems are due to Berezovsky, a prominent critic of the Russian president, being under indictment in Russia (as are, funny enough, many of the prominent critics of the Russian president). I found a few things on the net that might suggest this particular incident might be considered significant because (i) Neil is president's brother and (ii) he is in a business venture with a fugitive from Russian justice:

this Wonkette article, which mentions Berezovsky as one among Bush's numerous misadventures and this column in the Houston Chronicle, which provides a little bit more in-depth discussion of Berezovsky and Bush. Google generates 270 unique hits for "'Neil Bush" "Boris Berezovsky'" so it looks like the blogosphere is yawning about it, although the Wonkette piece is worth a read as it's quite inflammatory ;). I'm surprised Molly Ivins hasn't written anything about this: she's usually on any scandal involving the Bushes like white on rice, stink on an ape, etc., etc.

I believe that the rationale for including this was that it was it was significant that the US president's brother was a business partner of a wanted criminal. This has attracted some attention, but just based on what we've found so far, it does not seem to be enough to justify an entire section (as opposed to a brief mention) in the article. Contrast the coverage he got for Silverado. After all, the article should not just be a random collection of facts about Neil's life.

Personally, I think something may come out of the concerns in the Belton article: that Bush's brother's involvement with one of Putin's political enemies may cause problems in the US-Russian bilateral relationship. I haven't found anything in the reliable sources suggesting it has, nor have I found any other articles suggesting others share her concerns.

We should keep looking for reliable sources that discuss (not just mention) the above, but if we have to look too hard, that may indicate that this just hasn't gotten that much attention. Of course, maybe this should be getting more coverage, but to paraphrase an essay that seems applicable, Wikipedia is not the place to expose Great Wrongs, but rather the place to report what others have said about Great Wrongs. JChap2007 01:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JChap2007. would it be fair to say that in the brief mention that Boris and/or the Bush/Boris dealings/visits can be labeled as controversial and/or notorious? 67.190.61.6 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. Bush did nothing notorious or controversial, so it would not belong on this page. Like many earlier suggestions, leave note that Boris is an investor (along with all the others). The link on Boris article can speak for itself. Putin is frusrated he cannot extradite Boris. That is story for another page.Schlotzsman 07:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course Bush did something controversial: he's doing business with a Russian gangster. This is why the media sources are writing about the "Bush-Berezovsky relationship". I mean, does he have to hang out with Charles Manson before you think it's worth mentioning?? The press thought it was worth mentioning, and the article reflects that, with sources. That's how Wikipedia works. It's one thing if editors were trying to make a fuss about this without sources, but there are plenty of sources, and if you want even more, we can certainly add more. wikipediatrix 14:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, he's not a Russian gangster right now. He's an alleged Russian gangster. But, nontheless, considering the scope and breadth of what he's accused of... he is, indeed, very notable and he's considered notorious considering there is a concerted effort to capture him (even while meeting with Neil Bush).

Schlotzman, Bush getting money from an alleged Russian gangster and meeting him while he's on the lam is both a notorious and controversial act on Bush's part. That's not conjecture, that's the reality considering the various (controversial) effects his visits with Boris have had on others. It's documented, yet you continue to deny that reality. I find that strange, Schlotzman.

Our side has various documentation and sources to back us up.... you only have your own conjecture that because it's not blasted all over "USA Today" it somehow makes that reality go away. Facts are facts, the relationship is both controversial and notorious in several large countries and we have the sources to prove it. Just because the citizens of the United States aren't well aware of it, doesn't mean it's not happening and more commonly known in other countries (as our sources prove). It's a controversy in other countries as far as Neil Bush is concerned and this article is concerned with Neil Bush. We've easily met the requirements of the Wikipedia guidelines for this section to be here. We need to get some more third party opinions here to review this and get consensus. 67.190.61.6 15:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You all seem to be missing the point. It's not what we think about Bush-Berezovsky; it's what the sources think. With a few exceptions, even the sources that we have found that note the relationship only mention it in passing. My advice is to just stick to the facts on this one: Berezovsky is an investor in Neil's company who is Putin's political enemy and wanted in Russia for fraud. This is all true and verifiable.

Rather than talking about this in terms of "sides" you should simply look at how much controversy Berezovsky's connection to Bush has generated: the articles in the Russian newspapers you cite barely mention Bush. The coverage was generated because of the problems Berezovsky's visit to Latvia generated between Latvia and Russia. Except for the brief mention of Bush, each article would have read the same if Berezovsky had been meeting with Joe Blow. JChap2007 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

JChap, with all due respect, can you say with a straight face that the brother of the President of the United States meeting with a fugitive accused of large scale fraud, murder, etc. who is trying to be captured by the Russians WHILE the President's brother is meeting with him isn't notable? The point is, Neil Bush is not Joe Blow... he's a powerful public figure who also happens to be the brother of the President. While we're at it, Boris certainly isn't Joe Blow, either... for a wide multitude of reasons. See Boris Berezovsky.

...and if we admit the incident is, indeed, notable... then it falls into the Wikipedia guidelines. The guideline on Public Figures states: " ... If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. ... "

If we pruned every section of every article in Wikipedia because the sections source articles weren't in thier entirely about the specifc subject of the sections... We'd probably be talking about pruning between 60 to 70 percent of Wikipedia. There are more than enough sources combined to justify this very small section that notes the controversial nature of Boris and Neil's business relationship. Are you trying to tell me out of all the sources listed, not even one is up to par for a small section in a Wikipedia article? If so, we had better get to work pruning a giant chunk of all of Wikipedia's content. You can start here & here, and so on and so on... 67.190.61.6 05:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying it's not notable. The basic facts should be included. However, what the article should not do is combine facts in what's referred to as OR synthesis. If the subject has been the target of significant criticism, than it is appropriate to include that criticism. However, we don't criticize the subject ourselves. See WP:TIGERS. You might want to quote the Chronicle opinion piece or Wonkette to include this criticism. However, I would simply caution against representing this particular incident as a bigger deal than the sources make it out to be. As the sources discuss it in the larger context of Neil's misdeeds, perhaps you could change the section to "Controversies" and fill it out more. This would give more context to the readers. I think you would all be better off to focus on looking for reliable sources rather than attacking each other. JChap2007 16:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

JChap said above: "... the People's Daily Online and mosnews articles are about the controversy generated by Berezovsky's visit to Latvia not that generated by his connection to Neil ..."

JChap, sorry, that's only inserting your un-sourced opinion. Both of those articles make it explicitly understood who Neil is... the brother of the President of the U.S. That shows significance in itself (and I've provided other sources that show this, IOW, it's not just my opinion on this matter that I'm asking you to follow). As a matter of fact, the first article you dismiss even has this headline: "Putin Critic Berezovsky Meets U.S. President’s Brother in Latvia". Now, come again?

Please provide sources to back up your opinion. I've provided other sources that actually say that the main controversy and notability of these incidents is WHO Boris is meeting with... a brother of the President of the United States. Boris meets other, less high-profile figures all the time and they are hardly mentioned. Why ignore the sources that show that the Neil/Boris meetings have caused controversy and single out these two sources instead of looking at the overwhelming culmination of all the sources and where they obviously point to?

It appears you are straining to find holes that aren't there in the first place... and all without sources to back up your opinion.

JChap also said above: "... Bush's brother's involvement with one of Putin's political enemies may cause problems in the US-Russian bilateral relationship. ..."

We've provided sources that claim that already has happened. That's notable just in itself. Let's face the facts, the Bush/Boris meeting is notable, relevant and sourced. This is a very strange amount of discussion over such a small section of well-sourced facts. It's equally bizarre that a Neutrality tag has been slapped on a section that has literally NO Wikiuser opinion inserted whatsoever.... just quotes/facts from sources.

The same people who slapped the Neutrality tag on the section were blanking the section entirely earlier... they are not unbiased enough to be within Wikipedia guidelines to do that. They need to find a disinterested third party who is willing to put that POV tag on it. Therefore, I'm removing the tag now. Once again, if they can find a disinterested third party who is willing to put that tag on the section... have at it. Cowicide 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Care for some dip with that chip? If you'll read what I said, you'll see I'm in favor of including discussion of this. We should put whatever information is contained in those two articles about Bush in the article, without extrapolation. Could you provide me with the sources for this having actually caused problems in the US-Russian bilateral relationship? The Belton piece seems pretty speculative at this point. If there's another, I'd be happy to read it. JChap2007 16:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

JChap said: "... If you'll read what I said, you'll see I'm in favor of including discussion of this. ..."

Yes, I understand that. I'm just getting frustrated with non-sourced opinions.

JChap said: "... Could you provide me with the sources for this having actually caused problems in the US-Russian bilateral relationship? The Belton piece seems pretty speculative at this point. If there's another, I'd be happy to read it. ..."

First of all, I'd love to see a source of any kind, just one source, that backs up the opinion that Russia was possibly indifferent about the meeting or, while we are going for wild stretches, maybe even happy about it? Second of all, that "speculative" Belton piece (as you call it) has a direct quote from the Lativian prime minister that said Berezovsky's visit posed "a real threat to the Latvian state" by putting it at loggerheads with Russia, its powerful neighbor. source and other insider sources who acknowledge the obvious... that Russia is not pleased by the visit, to say the least. Neil Bush, the President's brother, is embracing a man who actively funds anti-Putin activities. I'm going to take Vladimir Pribylovsky's (among others) observations on the situation over some of the non-sourced Wikipinions expressed.

While I'm still waiting for sources that state otherwise, here's another article that says the Boris/Neil relationship is yet another thorn in the side of Putin (a.k.a. the Russian establishment). source (I bolded it for emphasis): "...Berezovsky now campaigns openly against Putin. He once took out full-page advertisements in American newspapers warning of the hazards of trusting Putin, and claims to have substantially underwritten the Orange revolution in Ukraine, which vexed Putin considerably. Berezovsky's most recent move, not unamusingly in the circumstances, was to go into business with Neil Bush, brother of George W. ..." It's not a matter of whether the U.S./Russia relations have been strained at all... it's about how much.

And, it's not really relevant "how much" it has strained relations. The point is... the Neil/Boris relationship is controversial... it's notable, it's relevant to Neil Bush, etc., etc. It's well within the wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. I'm glad you've expressed that you agree it's controversial and that it should be "discussed", but I still haven't seen any sources from you or anyone else here that states it's "insignificant" controversy and criticism.

Here's Jefferson Morley of The Washington Post: "...The younger brother of the president of the United States, seeking to establish himself independently of his more successful sibling, visits a small country in the company of a ne'er do well business partner. Their arrival sends law enforcement, government officials and local reporters into a tizzy, but the First Sibling emerges unfazed and news of his trip goes unnoticed back at home. But this is no script. In September, Neil Bush, brother of President George W. Bush, visited Latvia with Boris Berezovsky, a fugitive Russian tycoon who made millions in the violent scramble for control of Russian government assets after the fall of communism. Their mission, according to the Baltic Times, was educational -- promoting teaching software created by Bush's Texas-based firm, Ignite Learning. http://www.baltictimes.com/hot1.php?art_id=13659 The visit to the former Soviet republic earned lots of media attention in Eastern Europe and provoked an international incident. "Much controversy surrounded the meeting, since Berezovsky is wanted for arrest in Russia, and the scandalous Russian businessman, who now lives in London, met with a relative of the U.S. president," said the Baltic Times in its report. The Baltic Times concluded that "the imbroglio has threatened to destabilize the [government's] ruling coalition. ..."

I'm still waiting for any kind of source that says this incident wasn't controversial. Is anyone game? C'mon... a commentary... an obscure blog.... anything... ANY source at all??? You keep digging and digging at our provided sources while... still... not providing any of your own whatsoever. Sorry if you are mistaking my frustration for a "chip on my shoulder", but this is getting a bit silly. Please find a source... sigh, ANY source to back your opinions on the matter. By the way, this isn't all steered towards you, JChap, so please don't take offense. Regards, Cowicide 19:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) There may be something in the Jefferson Morley piece that could add to the article. Could you provide a link? You may want to consider that your discussion does not support the version of the section that you want to keep (which basically attempts to demonstrate controversy by including a blockquote from a newspaper handed out free to expatriates in the Soviet Union and a copy of a paragraph that was included in an article on a website that contained general criticisms of Bush), but instead supports rewriting the section on the basis of those sources you cite. You could try your hand at this.

However, remember that we cannot infer anything from the sources (see WP:OR#Synthesis) but may merely report what they say. This may be the source of your frustration. I'm not disagreeing with your inferences, just suggesting that WP editing policies would prevent them from being put in the article unless the reliable sources explicitly say the same thing. Also keep in mind that the burden is on whomever wants to include material to show why it should be included, so asking other editors to provide you with sources refuting what you want to put in the article is a bit of a non-starter. JChap2007 23:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading this again, I can see that some sources have been added. This is a good start. I would suggest that describing what the sources say rather than quoting them at length would be more appropriate and encyclopedic. JChap2007 23:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The third-party person asked for comment summed up saying:

You all seem to be missing the point. It's not what we think about Bush-Berezovsky; it's what the sources think. With a few exceptions, even the sources that we have found that note the relationship only mention it in passing. My advice is to just stick to the facts on this one: Berezovsky is an investor in Neil's company who is Putin's political enemy and wanted in Russia for fraud. This is all true and verifiable.

It is premature to remove the Neutrality tag. I haven't been terribly involved in this discussion but have been watching for many days with some interest. I have to agree with the arguments that we stick to the limited facts. AuntEthel 15:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It was premature to re-add the Neutrality tag. Please follow Wikipedia policy and request that a disinterested third party add the POV tag or risk the consequences of not following Wikipedia policy. Quit POV pushing. Cowicide 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

67.190.61.6 Alters Talk Page Again

Anyone get the feeling that the talk here is getting weird? Perhaps part of that is because 67.190.61.6 keeps altering his/her comments?

Note this edit made today: [31]

67.190.61.6 is deleting statements that they made and were asked to justify (i.e. the movie premise comment). This must be at least the third warning for 67.190.61.6 doing this sort of thing. BlazinBuggles 00:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, blaze. I was very obviously just adding to the section more sources and a reference to them in the section I created. It's not vandalism. Now, why don't you go ahead and blank the entire section again without consensus once again and call that something besides vandalism again? Your distractions aren't going to get you or anyone else anywhere. 67.190.61.6 04:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading the edit, it is clear you're trying to cover up a statement that you were asked to justify, which you refused to do, so you quietly edited out that statement a few days later. Looking at your talk page, you've been asked not to edit the talk page several times by several editors. This behavior is not appropriate and is making rational discussion on this page difficult. How many other significant talk page edits have you made that just slipped by?AuntEthel 15:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this what you are squabbling about? "... That sounds like the premise of a movie, but it's real and very notable... and that's just summing it up, there's much more to it. ... " That statement has been "justified" with sources and facts over and over and over... ad nauseum. You guys are really grasping for straws. Why not get cracking and bring some sources and facts to the table instead of bringing up inane distractions such as a small edit on a Talk page? Ah.. yes... because you DON'T have any sources or facts to justify your position. I guess you are hoping this will distract from the actual point that the Neil/Boris section is perfectly within the Wikipedia guidelines. I "see". Cowicide 15:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The POV tag on the Boris section

We need a disinterested third party to add the POV tag on the Boris section. Right now, all we have is an editor locked into conflict and a sockpuppet of his. If the section truly justifies a POV tag, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a disinterested third party who will add it. Get cracking. Cowicide 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I won't go as far to call anyone a sockpuppet just yet, but it's true that more single-purpose accounts seem to be popping up. If they persist in their revert-warring, I think it's time for a CheckUser on everyone involved. wikipediatrix 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"... If they persist in their revert-warring, I think it's time for a CheckUser on everyone involved. ..." Agreed. I think we'll find interesting results. Haha. Cowicide 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Here I went and suggested that Schlotzman & co. add the POV section tag to A) encourage them to discuss here rather than edit war on the article B) receive and provide good faith gestures that we could work to consensus. The removal of that tag by another user, when the editor who added it is engaged in active discussion, is A) bad form in the abstract B) something that, I would imagine, makes it much more difficult for Schlotzman to assume good faith. I am writing this here because now I feel guilty for having assured him that no one would remove his POV tag before consensus was reached. I would encourage you to readd the tag yourself as a show of good faith.--67.101.66.89 16:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

People don't get to keep a POV tag on an article indefinitely just by stubbornly continuing to insist on it. There has been more than enough discussion of the matter here. Those editors who wish to retain the info have provided numerous valid sources for their position, but those who wish to remove it or to modify it have not done so. wikipediatrix 16:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix, you are certainly correct that "People don't get to keep a POV tag on an article indefinitely just by stubbornly continuing to insist on it." However, it is my personal belief that there has not been "enough" discussion of the matter here. It's not enough that you or I have seen "enough." I do believe others are continuing to debate primarily in good faith and thus the tag should be present. And the tag hasn't been on there all that long. There's definitely not consensus. If you or others really want the tag to go, I would at *least* suggest first posting a question on the talk page along the lines of "I think it is time to remove the NPOV section tag" and see if you can get consensus on that. I would hazard a guess that we won't. Although I'd be interested in seeing where a little more ad hoc discussion goes, I think that it is getting close to time to submit this article for informal mediation, despite the extra week (at least) of latency involved.--67.101.66.89 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

67.101.66.89 (speaking of single-purpose accounts), there was no disinterested 3rd party and consensus to add the POV tag so it has been removed until it's inserted properly. The neutrality issue has been resolved as far as I'm concerned. If you don't think that I can remove the POV tag because I'm not a disinterested 3rd party and haven't reached consensus then you must agree that it shouldn't have been added in the first place. You're locked into a catch-22. You have to either admit that an editor embroiled in the dispute without consensus shouldn't add the POV tag in the first place or you have to agree that I can remove it. Cowicide 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

67.101.66.89, OK...OK... this is too funny to pass up.

You say, "... it is my personal belief that there has not been "enough" discussion of the matter here. ...". The funny thing about "beliefs" (which are usually defined as convictions of truth in a proposition without verification) is that they are often trumped by knowledge and facts. So, I took the liberty of making a screenshot of the the entire discussion on the Talk page from only the "11 Bush-Berezovsky Ties" and forward to this point in time.

OBSERVE THE SCREENSHOT OF THIS ENTIRE BORIS DISCUSSION HERE

So.... well... your personal "beliefs" aside, we can faithfully observe there has been quite "enough" disscussion on the matter. [source] Very much an ironic metaphor for the many other unsourced, faith-based opinions floating around here lately. Is Wikipedia now a "faith-based" operation that should be devoid of sources? Someone should tell Jimbo Wales. Cowicide 23:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This Boris section is a pain in the rear

All this struggle because of a link between Neil and Boris? I mean, c'mon... it's not like it's possible that Boris in in cahoots with the CIA to undermine Putin and put more pro-western programs into place within Russia, right? heh. Let's just let Wikipedia state the facts and let world events (that will surely come into play in the near future) alter history and, in turn, Wikipedia's account of it.

As I've stated before, I'm NO fan of Putin and I do think some of the charges against Boris are probably fabricated by Putin. I also think we are in a "Cool War" with Russia right now and people like Boris are in the middle of it (on our side, sort of). But, that's all just speculation from sources I can't divulge. And, it's beside the point that Bush admin goals are sometimes noble, yet the strategy is often terribly flawed... and dangerous. So... all we can and should do is state the facts and let the readers and history decide what it all means.

Let's just follow the Wikipedia guidelines and let Gawd sort em' out, OK? Once again, please show us your cards (sources) or fold. Cowicide 20:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only facts are Boris is an investor in Ignite and Neil traveled with Boris. You have not proved a Neil/Boris connection of any notability and that burden is on you. All you have is a lot to show is Boris caused an issue, but it is clear Neil being there didn't make any difference. As a third party has already stated, it could have just as well been "Joe Blo". In other words, Russia wants to extradite Boris, Neil or not.

Why is it that request for comments was responded to, it when it hasn't fallen the requestors way, and then all of a sudden people start asserting they are "boss" and make unilateral efforts, accuse sockepuppets, grandstanding, and more. No good faith is shown at all. Schlotzsman 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Schlotzman says: "...You have not proved a Neil/Boris connection of any notability ..."

OMG... Not only have we proven it's notable (over and over with sources, no less), we have consensus and even a 3rd party that came in and has agreed that it's notable (to some degree) and worthy of discussion within the Neil Bush article. For you to say that the Neil/Boris connection hasn't "any notability" at all at this point is ludicrous and is going to make it very difficult for anyone to take you seriously. Please find one source, anywhere, from any article or commentary, from any blog, from anywhere... to back up your opinion. I mean, can't you at least find one bad source to back you up??? Even if we wanted to "take your word on it"... Wikipedia guidelines wouldn't allow for it. Find sources. Get crackin' on it and maybe it'll make up for your ludicrous "not notable at all" comment.

Schlotzman says: "...Why is it that request for comments was responded to, it when it hasn't fallen the requestors way, and then all of a sudden people start asserting they are "boss" and make unilateral efforts, accuse sockepuppets, grandstanding, and more. ..."

The sockpuppet accusations come from all the one-hit wonder, single-purpose IPs and accounts that sprang up from nowhere to assist your "cause" without making any contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia. The grandstanding accusations come from doing exactly what you are doing right now... making ludicrous statements and asking the same questions over and over in the face of valid answers, consensus, sources, facts, Wikipedia guidelines, common sense and more. Hope this clears it up for you.. (but I fear that's not likely, is it?) Cowicide 21:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For all your talk, I notice your contributions, cowicide, are pretty recent and thin. Funny how you suddenly got all vocal all of a sudden on this subject.70.113.208.174 01:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

It is clear to me that the editors on this page are talking past rather than to each other. I would like to suggest that they may want to submit this dispute to mediation. Two types are available: formal and informal mediation. There is currently a wait for formal mediation, so I would suggest we go with informal mediation at first. If this doesn't work, we could proceed to formal mediation. JChap2007 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedatrix suggested this a long time ago and I was surprised to see that "they" didn't take her up on the offer. 67.190.61.6 23:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the time has come for mediation, and that we should try informal first.--67.101.66.89 00:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tendered a mediation submission. BlazinBuggles 01:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)