Talk:White House denies that God told Bush to invade Iraq

I've flushed out the article more. I also have directly quoted the Press Briefing, as it should be public domain. I've listed the Briefing in the sources, but I'm not sure about any other attribution I should do.

Also, I can't find the questioning reporter's name beyond the first name, Peter. The White House Press Corps lists three Peters, so I'm not sure who it was. If someone knows for sure, feel free to update it.--Herda05 22:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've refactored the article to remove the Q&A style of the transcript.--Herda05 00:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Not sure why the NPOV tag has been put on without anything on the discussion page.--Herda05 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, looks like TUFKAAP did a tag and dash with the NPOV. He clearly should have explained the NPOV tag if all information is comming from the whitehouse press-briefing. - Nyarlathotep 02:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, based upon the consensus (including Chiacomo's ok below) I will remove the tags. If another admin. blocks me for removing the tag, I hope Chiacomo will unblock me. Neutralizer 09:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I added Shaath's statement providing more context to what Bush was reported to have said. I'm hoping that helps with the feelings of NPOV.--Herda05 22:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Misleading
The information in the article comes directly from a White House Press Briefing. Is someone indicating that the press briefing is factually wrong?--Herda05 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not add the POV tag, but I think the reason may be that the article is somewhat sensational and has an obvious bias -- though the article title is certainly accurate. Other fixes might include paring down the quotes to the important points and adding some additional context... I'll try to fix it, as best I can, after I become more familiar with the source material. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is looking better, though it could use more context -- like that of the BBC article cited. A "news style" is somewhat subjective and were I you, I wouldn't worry about it much. So long as every edit makes the article better in some way (and the writing isn't too crappy), an editor should be satisfied that he's done his best. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agress the article is sensational, but it would also be news if what Shaath is saying is true. I'm not in the UK, so I can only hope the Series gets released in the U.S. to actually verify it.
 * As far as biased, I diasgree. To people on the left they would see what Bush reportedly said as negative (the presumed bias), but there are many people in the U.S who would also view it as a positive thing. Thanks for the input Chiacomo . Also, I just updated your talk page while you were putting this here, so thanks for the quick reply ;)--Herda05 00:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see the article as warranting the Misleading or NPOV tags and the tagger did not discuss, so perhaps we can remove them right now? Neutralizer 00:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I, personally, would like to see a bit more NPOV context before publishing the article -- I think it would improve the quality of the article. Of course, do as you wish, keeping in mind that another editor can (and should) tag the article and explain that tagging on this page so long as they do so in good faith. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I tried to stick to what was being reported directly from the transcript of the briefing, as I have not seen the BBC Series (I think it starts Monday).--Herda05 00:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I should note that I felt constrained by the title, and tried to write the article to the title rather then delve into the issues regarding the BBC series.--Herda05 00:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, based upon the consensus including Chiacomo's ok above I will remove the tags. If another admin. blocks me for removing the tag, I hope Chiacomo will unblock me. Neutralizer 09:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________ I understand that the info originally appears to have come from an on-line source called whitehouse.. but nevertheless shouldn't the title of this piece read White House ....I changed it in the text but the title appears inaccessible, for reasons that I can guess at. MP
 * For those who don't know the reason -- anonymous (above) can't move the page 'cause he's not registered/logged in. Please consider creating an account and joining the community more formally. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit request - disambiguation
Please disambiguate the white house link to US White House. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems more like the . --Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was going based off of the history of Category:US White House - the Executive Office is a valid target, but I personally believe that the "White House" link is more applicable. Either way, the dab page is probably wrong. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Although they are intertwined, I think it should be the Executive Office rather than the residence. --Green Giant (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading the Cats right, I think this has been done.--Bddpaux (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not about the category, its the link in the references section --DannyS712 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)