Meta-history
Note that this page was initially entitled Bush dynasty, and the initial discussions here concern this somewhat controvertial subject
Reversions
I'm not even sure what the disagreement is because most of the reversions have gone without comment (Wik's reversions of RickK, RickK's reversion to his version instead of mine). Before either of you (Wik and RickK) revert again, please explain what you don't like in the current article. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan 20:20, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
I corrected a spelling ("occurence" -> "occurrence") yesterday, and this keeps getting reverted. --Wik 20:30, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
- I think it is inappropriate to revert a significant addition over the spelling of a single word and to summarize the change with simply "rv". You failed to mention the spelling error in each of 4 reversions. It would have been trivial, even easier, for you to correct the error without reverting. I already had added this page to Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles, but that now seems like the wrong place given your frankly inadequate rationale for these reversions. Misspelling that word seems like an innocent error on the part of RickK. Daniel Quinlan 20:45, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
- It's not that RickK misspelled it. He didn't deal with the first paragraph at all, yet he reverted my correction there. This may be the result of a rare bug, but in general this is caused by an edit conflict, when a user simply copies his revision over the previous one. I have discussed this with many users before (see my talk archives), but I'm not changing my principle of strict reversion in those cases. Of course it would be easier in a simple case like this to just ignore the other person's faux pas and redo my edit, but I don't want to encourage this kind of behaviour. (Note: I'm not accusing RickK, as he said he has no idea how it happened in this case. But if it was a bug, this is so rare that it does not change my principle.) --Wik 20:55, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
- What behavior? It would have been easier, more friendly, and more cool-headed to redo your edit (which was much smaller than RickK's) and send a polite note to RickK. The principle seems to have been to punish simple mistakes with no explanation, as in a Pavlovian experiment. Please treat other users with more respect. Daniel Quinlan 21:05, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
- The behaviour of ignoring edit conflicts. This is not a simple mistake; if you do it, you do it consciously, since you have to copy your revision from the bottom box and paste it into the top box. That is the unfriendly behaviour, not my reversion. I stand exactly by what I said. --Wik 21:08, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
- That may have happened, I don't know. However it happened, compounding it with unexplained reversions is decidedly unhelpful, unfriendly, and only serves to escalate matters. Daniel Quinlan 21:27, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
- Well, I know. That's what happens in at least 99% of those cases. And it is that behaviour that is decidedly unhelpful, unfriendly, and disrespectful, not my reaction to it. --Wik 21:55, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
- Would anyone object if I deleted this section (or moved it, perhaps?). It's not really relevant to the article itself, now this is resolved... Martin 22:23, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Delete the article?
I don't see how you even need this article. It's all just speculation and without any actual content. As it is, it seems like a worthless page to me, and I don't even like the Bush family. Dori 20:38, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
- I agree that Wikipedia would be better without the article. It seems like an ever-increasing amount of Wikipedia is devoted to discussion of and around punditry. Daniel Quinlan 20:50, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
- Do you think it should be put on VfD? -- Mattworld 21:01, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Why not? I would recommend looking to see if there are any similar articles of the same purely speculative nature and propose their deletion at the same time. This article would look pretty dated and silly if Bush isn't re-elected (which would probably mean Jeb Bush would be quite unlikely to become President), another encyclopedic-content test that it fails. Daniel Quinlan 21:22, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)
I can understand fears of partisanship, but does it really need to stretch to deleting a page discussing a very widely used term for the way the Bush family has succeeded in getting two Presidents so far, and looks like a good candidate for getting a third? Note that some of the references I just added were from a serious news organization after the current President was first elected, so it's not simply a question of GW getting elected again or waiting for his brother. The conspiracy theory merits attention. So does this more serious coverage of the topic. JamesDay 02:00, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
VfD and rename
At this point the page was listed on VfD, where it received a largely negative reception. Following discussions there, User:Cimon Avaro renamed it to Historic US political families, and various wikipedians set about adding additional US political dynasties.
Historic US political families
Good to see this page developing, so perhaps some suggestions on it?
- Keep in alphabetical order, as Daniel Quinlan said, chronological doesn't make sense given the spans of each of these families in history.
- Use bulleted lists as much as possible, which makes the names easier to discern.
- Possibly use hierarchical lists to show lineage and relationships of descendants. Not convinced this is a good idea yet.
Fuzheado 05:22, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- In many alphabets, "H" precedes "K". -- Someone else 05:25, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I think I've vote for a kind of "family tree" structure (which is kinda what I did for the Kennedys). This, combined with the inclusion of family members who held high (non presidential) posts, gives the feeling of the family trees of one of the european royal houses. This is kind of the thesis of the whole article (in its revised form). I think, for example, that Arnold Schwarzenegger should be added to Kennedy. Equally, a Al Gore/VP Al Gore Jr/Gore Vidal axis is interesting too. -- Finlay McWalter 05:40, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- It gets sticky when you get to marriages, because sometimes it's just celebrity, sometimes it's political, sometimes no big deal at all. So we should try to provide some guidance here as to what makes the grade (or not). For example, the Nixon-Eisenhower marriage is a nice trivia question, but it's not clear it has any "political" implications or tradition, which is kinda what we're striving for in this page. Fuzheado 05:44, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to be fairly catholic whom to include, but obviously people need to use their own best judgement. Plainly the "fact" that Gore and Bush are "related" (via someone in Yorkshire or whatever, ten generations removed) isn't encyclopedic. I would be inclined to include references to family members who are in the wikipedia but not necessarily politicians (Gore Vidal, maybe Samuel Adams (American revolutionary)). That said, my limited knowledge of American politics/history is now entirely exhausted, so it'll have to be someone else's better judgement, I'm afraid. -- Finlay McWalter 11:29, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- It gets sticky when you get to marriages, because sometimes it's just celebrity, sometimes it's political, sometimes no big deal at all. So we should try to provide some guidance here as to what makes the grade (or not). For example, the Nixon-Eisenhower marriage is a nice trivia question, but it's not clear it has any "political" implications or tradition, which is kinda what we're striving for in this page. Fuzheado 05:44, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Oh, I think I misunderstood what y'all meant about alphabetical order. Alphabetical order of the sections seems fine. I mistook you to mean alphabetical order within each family. DUh, silly me. -- Finlay McWalter 12:43, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Each family deserves its own entry once the content reaches a certain level. --The Cunctator 16:46, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)