Talk:What Happened (McClellan book)

Congressional Response

I have added this brief section because Rep. Wexler & Nadler have called upon McClellan to testify under oath in front of Congress about the allegations made in his book. I know that Wexler has said that his reason for doing so is to convince other members of congress to proceed with impeachment hearings and that McClellan has said that he would be "glad too," but I haven't the time to find or cite these sources right now so I did not include those facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.173.95 (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rough start

Okay, so the book isn't even out yet and the story is all over the place. References & content welcome & encouraged. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

That doesn't make a book "best-selling" in the real world. Being on the New York Times Bestseller list does. That's how we define sales of a book (every sale of every book is how that list is tabulated.) Some books are #1 on that list for only a day or so or even less. Amazon.com is not a reliable source for this purpose.PokeHomsar (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I haven't read the book, but I have a hard time believing that the main aspect of the book was Scott McClellan's criticism. It, therefore, looks like there's some WP:UNDUE problems with this article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Bush used 'spin' to push war, ex-spokesman says - The spokesman who defended President Bush's policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Title

Should the title of this page change from "What Happened" to "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception"? enderminh (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Book title

thumb|80px|leftthumb|80px|right Anyone know which cover is making it into print? I've also noticed that both covers show the title as What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong With Washington, however the amazon.com listing shows the title as What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception. Anyone know the deal? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Response Section?

Should we create a Response Section for the people who were mentioned in the book? Like Carl Rove's response on FoxNews, etc TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob Dole

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

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

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

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

Regarding Dole, the article currently reads: "Several political figures made high profile comments on McClellan's book. Former Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole, in an email that was later made public, accused McClellan of being a "miserable creature" who "[doesn't] have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues", and Dole mockingly suggested donating the proceeds from the book to "a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.'"" This is not, in fact, a comment on the book or on relevant facts, but is instead a condemnation of McClellan's having spoken out on the topic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.110.163 (talk • contribs)

Agree. Beyond that, more space is given in the article to criticism than it is to content. Removed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

McClellan's response

I don't think the McClellan response is necessary. This isn't an article for covering the back and forth between McClellan and the White House. Anything he said in the response can be covered elsewhere. Giving him a 'response' section gives his accusations undue weight and credibility. Trilemma (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sure, as it's clearly contained in one of the three most important policies on Wikipedia:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

— WP:NPOV

This also, of course, brings in to question how many of the responses currently present are "significant", though I haven't examined the issue enough to raise any concerns (yet). McClellan's responses are always going to be significant and germane, as the article's focus is McClellan's book; this isn't to say that every critical comment by any/everyone is also significant. More to follow, I'm sure. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Undue weight"

Blaxthos, I'd encourage you develop the section on the content of the book. As it is, you can not blank a criticism section under the guise of undue weight, when it is merely a matter of an insufficient content section. You're welcomed to develop the reaction section, too, if there are pertinent and reported comments that you feel would add to the article. But this attempt at squelching the criticisms section is very inappropriate. Trilemma (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Undue Weight

This topic is a very obvious POV target, and over the past month several editors have noted that this article appears unbalanced. An editor has repeatedly inserted criticism from subjects quite disconnected from the topic of this article that serves only to disparage the book and it's author, text redacted. An editor above notes that the Dole quote "...is not, in fact, a comment on the book or on relevant facts, but is instead a condemnation of McClellan's having spoken out on the topic." Likewise, criticism from McAuliffe carries no weight here -- he's never worked for or with either the Administration or McClellan, and has no affiliation with the book. Other reactions may be more germane and should be included, but detailing it here must remain limited to direct relationships. Doing otherwise, giving more article space to criticism than to content clearly violates WP:UNDUE. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is an undue amount (I am not sure any amount is encyclopedic) of reporting partisan spin control and attacks against McClelland. The fact of the White House, Bob Dole, Karl Rove, and a Democratic pundit criticizing McClelland are utterly trivial matters whose importance has not been demonstrated. Of these, only the White House reaction seems relevant at all. It does not seem at all notable that political operatives implicated in crimes would criticize a whistleblower as disloyal. Bob Dole's criticism is very interesting, and not one of Dole's finer moments, but it says more about Dole than anything in the book. Wikidemo (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The simple way of addressing your concerns is to expand the article. As it so happens, the book was widely condemned in many political circles. A former presidential candidate and the former Democratic party chairman's reviews, both of which attracted documented attention, are of the utmost significance. These are major political voices. Also to make clear, those major figures who comment on the book in any element, including the decision to write the book in the first place, which was addressed, is worth mentioning.Trilemma (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As a comparison, additionally, a simple search of several authors popular with conservatives finds a steady patter of a similar format:[2] [3][4][5]. some text redacted But my point is that sections documenting criticism from notable sources are perfectly fine and in keeping with wikipedia policy. If you feel their section is too large relative to the overall article, simply develop the other sections moreso. Trilemma (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1. point redacted
2. Your claim that it's okay because it's done on other articles is irrelevant. I am sure I could find plenty of articles that have the exact opposite, which is why we don't use what happens on other articles as justification to violate policies here.
3. You failed to address the policy points contained in the RFC statement above, namely the undue weight and neutral point of view problems.
4. Notability does not apply to content. Criticism contained herein should have a direct relationship to the topic of the article; Wikipedia is not a place to post criticism or "reactions" from wholly unrelated figures that serves only to disparage the subject matter. We're not going to include responses from every "major figure", and cherry picking responses from people who do not hold office, do not make policy, do not work for (nor ever have worked for) anyone directly related to the events elevates their criticism (giving them undue weight).
5. Until the content of the article is expanded, it violates WP:UNDUE to have more criticism than content.

Hope this helps. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll cease responses, for now, to open up room for other voices, additional comments removedTrilemma (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, please change the language on the RfC page to be more neutral. Trilemma (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Response from uninvolved editor. The article should include book reviews in the main media, e.g. New York Times, The Economist. These should be featured prominently. There is also a place for media coverage including the published statements of notable political figures. This should be given less prominence than the reviews but all coverage in the mainstream news media is notable and can be added, also all statements by notable political figures of whatever hue. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• RfC response: I did not read too many of the comments above, but just by reading the article, it looks unbalanced. That does not mean take away the info there, but the Reaction section is not comprehensive enough. Reaction is a good subtitle (maybe Controvery?). But, I imagine there are some political figures, white house staff (current or former) and certainly congressional members who champion the book; their comments should be sought and included as well. If more hated or liked the book, there can be more information depending on the ratio of press covereage (this requires true investigaton without bias on the part of the WP editors). But currently there is no possitive reaction aside from the comments of the author, which is highly unlikely to be the true reaction to the book. Then, there needs to be a section on critique from independent books critics (like the New York Times or NPR). --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Content

Suggest that you flesh out the content section. It is very difficult to actually tell what the book is about. Here is a link to passages from the book, though there may be better -

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=2C2AD8E6-3048-5C12-00DD5B339097C9F9

Quotes and Notable Passages from the Book

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes. • Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’” • “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.” • “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.” • McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.” • “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.20.211 (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible vandalism spree upcoming

Just a heads up - this popular webcomic has essentially outlined vandalism to this page, which at least one user has already inserted (see this diff). It's very possible that more vandalism of the same type will appear as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for 24 hours due to repeated vandalism from IP addresses. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

Fix email password — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.79.33 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)