Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

→

These are the RfC related comments about Bush's alcohol and drug use.

Presentation of substance abuse issues

This article has seen a long-running dispute about how to present information related to Bush’s use or nonuse of alcohol and drugs. Everyone agrees that Bush’s conviction for drunk driving (DUI) should be mentioned, and should appear in its chronological place in the account of his early years, but otherwise, there’s been no stability.

Presented below are:

Four different versions of the treatment of this subject.
A summary statement on behalf of each version.
A poll section where you can express your preference.
A section for comments. (Your comments are welcome but please put them here, not before the poll.)

Versions

Each version includes a link to a snapshot of the article as it stood with that version incorporated. These snapshots were taken at different times; you can ignore any differences among them that don’t relate to the substance abuse issues.

Please don't edit these versions here. Other people are responding to specific text, and changing that text might distort their responses.

Version 1

In this version, the only items included in the body of the main article are essentially the items found in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Version 3. They are not found under a seperate heading, instead placed in the section under Personal life, service and education. There is no link to the internal daughter article created discussing substance abuse.

Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth." and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years; he says that although he never joined Alcoholics Anonymous, he gave up drinking for good shortly after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham. [1], [2]. In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [3], [4].

Snapshot of Version 1

Version 2

In this version, the entire subject is in a daughter article and the following reference constitutes the second section of the main article, after "Personal life, service and education".

Drug and alcohol abuse controversy

There has been much discussion regarding possible drug and alcohol abuses, primarily during Bush's youth. Though Bush admitted to alcohol abuse, he only alluded to using both marijuana and cocaine in his youth. Many books have been written and in at least two of these, Bush is described as having symptoms visible today which indicate that he did abuse drugs and alcohol excessively at some time in his past. See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for more discussion.

Snapshot of Version 2

Version 3

In this version, the details are in a daughter article and the following summary constitutes the second section of the main article:

Substance abuse controversy

Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth." and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years; he says that although he never joined Alcoholics Anonymous, he gave up drinking for good shortly after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham. [5], [6], [7]

Some Bush critics have suggested that his public statements and actions reflect a "classic addictive thinking pattern" common among former alcoholics [8], and one psychiatrist (Frank, 2004) wrote a book describing him as "an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies." [9] Other professionals have expressed their disagreement with these analyses. For further details on these arguments, see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy.

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [10] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [11]

In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [12], [13]

Snapshot of Version 3

Version 4

In this version, the "Business and early political career" section of the main article includes an internal cross-reference to a separate section on "Alcohol and drug issues” much later in the article, after the "Public perception and assessments" section. Text of the cross-reference, which would come at the end of the paragraph about Bush's arrest for drunk driving:

For further discussion of substance abuse issues, see below.

Text of the separate section:

Alcohol and drug issues

Bush has described the first part of his life as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth" and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years. He has stated that, some ten years after his guilty plea to driving under the influence of alcohol, he gave up alcohol, although he never joined Alcoholics Anonymous. He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham. The final impetus, he says, came when he woke up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." [14], [15], [16]

In an article published by Counterpunch on October 11, 2002, Katherine van Wormer, a professor of social work and writer on addiction treatment, stated that Bush still displays "all the classic patterns of addictive thinking", which can occur even in an alcoholic who has stopped drinking. [17] More specifically, she argued that Bush exhibits "the tendency to go to extremes," a "kill or be killed mentality," incoherence while speaking away from script, impatience, irritability in the face of disagreement, and a rigid, judgmental outlook. She added that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was primarily a result of his relationship with his father: "the targeting of Iraq had become one man’s personal crusade." Van Wormer's analysis, expressed in colloquial rather than clinical terms, drew on her own addiction treatment experience and writings, as she did not meet with Bush in person.

Justin Frank, a clinical professor of psychiatry at The George Washington University Medical School, has incorporated similar, though apparently independent, observations into a book about Bush, Bush on the Couch ISBN 0060736704 [18]. Frank's book has been highly praised by other prominent psychiatrists and has found confirmation from a childhood friend of Bush and from Bush's disaffected former treasury secretary. [19].

Frank's book also has its critics. Irwin Savodnik, a psychiatrist who teaches at the University of California, Los Angeles, described Frank's book as a "psychoanalytic hatchet job" and said that "there is not an ounce of psychoanalytic material in the entire book." [20] The code of the American Psychiatric Association, of which Frank is not a member, states that "it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement." [21] Although Frank had in the past written for Salon, the online magazine reviewed the book unfavorably, arguing that it included "dubious theories" and that Frank had failed in his avowed intention to distinguish his partisan opinions from his psychoanalytic evaluation of Bush's character. [22]

Bush has also been dogged by suspicions about possible drug use. He has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [23] He has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [24]

In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [25], [26]

In 1999, James Hatfield published a biography of Bush, Fortunate Son (ISBN 1887128840), a largely favorable account of the life of the younger Bush and the Bush family in general. Hatfield said that he had investigated allegations that Bush had been arrested for cocaine possession and that the Bush family had the record expunged. Hatfield wondered if Bush's work at Project P.U.L.L. in Houston in 1972 could have been community service performed as part of such an arrangement. Hatfield stated that this version of events was confirmed by three sources; he did not name them, but described them as being close to the Bush family. [27] Hatfield's original publisher later recalled the book after learning of Hatfield's concealed felony conviction resulting from an unsuccessful murder conspiracy. Hatfield responded that, before the Bush campaign brought pressure to bear, the same publisher had stated that the book had been "carefully fact-checked and scrutinized by lawyers". [28] Hatfield never named his sources, but in 2001 his new publisher, against his wishes, stated that they were Karl Rove, Clay Johnson, and Michael Dannenhauer. Bush called Hatfield's book "totally ridiculous". [29] Hatfield committed suicide in 2001. [30] [31]

During the 2004 campaign, a Salon writer asserted that, on April 21, 1972, the National Guard began random drug-testing of guardsmen, and that Bush stopped flying at about that time and took no more Guard physical exams. The issue had also arisen in 2000, when a Bush spokesperson said that he had not known of any drug testing by the Guard. [32], [33]

Snapshot of Version 4

Proponents' statements

For Version 1

Version 1 constitutes the only passages almost universally accepted as fact. It has been agreed by almost everyone involved that these two major points are factual, NPOV and based on reliable witnesses. In the two major points, Bush essentially admits to alcohol use and alludes to illegal drug use. Though some have argued that Bush was misinterpreted due to his usual poor choice of wording, most feel that his comments that he "hadn't denied anything", in response to a question posed regarding his public denial of illegal drug use, and his comment that "he didn't want some little kid doing what I tried" in response to why he wouldn't answer a question posed by others regarding marijuana use, are both essential admissions on his part to the use of illegal drugs. Placing the paragraph immediately after the DUI conviction he had in 1976 is a good fit as they are chronologically accurate. There is no link provided to the sub article because the same information is also there and the remainder of the information is the reason this is in Rfc. This version provides the only version that has information that is not under dispute. Proponents of this version feel that nothing more is needed to "prove" the issues, and that the remainder of the information is mainly opinion, sensationalistic and politically motivated. Incorporation of this version would contribute to the probability that the NPOV tag on the article could be dropped. An example of the version is here [[34]].

For Version 2

Version 2 provides a summary and an adequate link to the sub article which provides all details. The summary removes most of the argument off the main article helping it to become more streamlined. This compromise would result in a significant reduction in edits and or edit wars regarding information that has been disputed by some and supported by others. All of the material that has been in dispute can be easily linked to in the link provided. The summary provides a snapshot of the sub article in that it openly states that Bush admitted to alcohol abuse (which is not much of a revelation to anyone) and may have also abused two illegal drugs. Additionally, the summary mentions two detractors of the current behavior patterns of Bush as being the end result of previous alcohol and or drug use without making direct quotes which are provided in the sub article. Direct quotes in the main article have resulted in a demand by some for direct quotes disputing this information in a form of quid pro quo, making the article longer. The summary allows balance to return to the entire dispute as it removes the dispute to another article. This has occurred repeatedly in this article as evidenced by many links to discussions regarding election controversies and military service. This version appeared here: [[35]]

For Version 3

This version is based on some editors’ efforts to reach a compromise (discussion). It presents the issue in full in a daughter article with a summary in the main article.

As compared with Version 1, which wouldn't even link to the detailed article, Version 3 includes the link and at least makes the information available. The link is repeated in the second paragraph (contrary to normal style) because of a desire to make absolutely clear that there is controversy about the criticisms referred to in the first sentence of the paragraph.

As compared with Version 2, which says only that Bush "alluded" to past abuse, Version 3 quotes what he actually said. His statements about his past are unusually personal for a world leader and should be in the article verbatim. Furthermore, in treating the allegations made against Bush, Version 3 follows Wikipedia policy for spinning off a particular controversy into a daughter article: "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a ‘controversial’ section without leaving an adequate summary." (Wikipedia:Article size#Restructuring and splitting articles). The summary in Version 2 is not adequate. Its vague phrase "much discussion" doesn't tell the reader what allegations have been made. The only expansion it provides is misleading; the sources are discussing Bush’s underlying personality, not any lingering effects of past alcohol abuse. Version 2 also uses the word "youth" twice; Version 3 tells the reader that Bush quit drinking at age 40.

As compared with Version 4, Version 3 reduces the length and level of detail of the presentation by limiting it to a statement of what the allegations are, the fact of Bush’s denial, and the fact of professional disagreeents. All the evidence and arguments advanced by both sides are left to the daughter article. Some readers will be interested in seeing that detail and some won’t; Version 3 accommodates both groups.

For Version 4

The edit war over this issue has occurred because at least one editor doesn’t want to include opinions about Bush that "are dubious to a majority of persons..." This exclusion of minority opinions would contradict Wikipedia policy as set forth in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?. Version 4 describes points of view that are unfavorable to Bush, but it does not adopt them. In addition, it fairly presents the opposing POV, giving all the facts cited by critics. Each of the disputed passages represents a notable viewpoint that merits inclusion:

Drugs: Hatfield’s book, with his conclusions about Bush’s cocaine conviction, was a best seller that reached #8 on the amazon.com chart and has been the subject of a documentary film. There was news coverage of the book, of Bush's threat of a lawsuit, and of the publisher's decision to withdraw the book. Version 4 reports Hatfield’s charge, reports Bush's denial of it, and reports the publisher’s action, along with the other facts that people have pointed to in attacking Hatfield’s credibility. Bush's denial of Hatfield's charge is also relevant in assessing his refusal to make a blanket denial of cocaine use before 1974. That refusal is not based on a general refusal to speak about pre-1974 events, as some of Bush’s other comments might imply. The Salon article noted the coincidence in timing of Bush's National Guard career with the beginning of drug testing; the whole National Guard issue received heavy media attention, in the course of which this aspect of the drug issue was raised. Version 4 summarizes the article and a Bush spokesperson's response.
Addictive personality: Van Wormer is a professor of social work and has co-authored a book about the treatment of addiction (Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective, ISBN 0534596703, reviewed in an academic journal as "a must read for social workers and other allied health and substance abuse treatment professionals"). Her credentials make her opinions on addiction-related matters noteworthy. Her Counterpunch piece quoted here also appeared in the Irish Times (available online only for a fee), and a revised version appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle ([36]). Frank is a professor of psychiatry who wrote a book about Bush from a psychiatric perspective. His book received enough attention to be used by Fidel Castro as the basis for an attack on Bush, another indication of its notability. [37]

Version 4 presents these assessments of Bush, along with the opposing points of view.

The trouble with moving this subject to a daughter article, as Versions 2 and 3 do, is that there isn't really enough material to need its own article. (See, by comparison, the much longer George W. Bush military service controversy, which couldn't be accommodated in the main article.)

Some editors supported putting this information in the main article but didn't want it to appear an early section, even though that's its chronological place. Therefore, Version 4 leaves only an internal cross-reference in the section on Bush's early life. The section addressing substance abuse comes later on, after the description of Bush's presidency.

Poll

Please add your name under the version you think is best. If you’re fundamentally dissatisfied with all of them, you can pick “None of the above”, but please give us some idea of what you’d prefer.

Supporting Version 1

Note: Version 1 as it stands does not contain a daughter article, thus Tverbeek, PPGMD, and Maltmomma seem to be voting for a different version.

--MONGO 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--kizzle 20:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Tverbeek 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Though obviously a link to the daughter article should be added. Versions 3 & 4 aren't about GWB; they're about the debate (which is ultimately not a major feature of his life).
PPGMD 17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : With a link to the daugher article of course. The main article should be entirely based on known fact. Version 2 would be my second choice.
maltmomma 19:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) I agree about adding a link to the daughter article. I think the other versions are too indepth. JMO
--Hiding 09:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm not sure whether a daughter article link is needed. Is Bush's substance abuse a huge political issue in the US worthy of an article? If so, yes to a daughter article link, if no, then no link and no article.
--Nobs01 17:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Very concise & well written. Very, very informative too. All others are extrapolation, exploitation, etc. The "controversy" that exists regards brain damage, and this speculation will never go away.
--Dcarrano 29 June 2005 05:51 (UTC) Sets out all the facts just fine, and the Hatfield stuff is the only one I would miss from the expanded versions. The other sources mentioned seem like they haven't attained much notice or credibility among the general populace. Although I don't support GWB politically, I wouldn't like it if fringe positions were included in articles about people I do respect.
--Tysto 2005 July 9 00:56 (UTC) I'm politically opposite Bush (see my bonafides), but any mention of substance abuse beyond the admisson that he was a heavy drinker who quit at 40 and has refused to answer questions about drug use in his youth is not encyclopedic and not NPOV. No daughter article. No dry-drunk pseudopsychoanalysis.
TreveX^talk 11:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Would support inclusion of daughter article reference.

Supporting Version 2

This one works for me. I took a look at the Bill Clinton's pre-Presidency scandals (see Bill_Clinton#Public_image) and there is one short paragraph on sexual issues followed by one short paragraph on drug issues. With the links there, anyone can get all the details they want. Both of these men are well known and we seem to be underestimating the readers' ability to follow the links if the scandal issues are of interest to them. Keep the main article short, but have good detail in the linked article. Version 2 seems to do this for me. NoSeptember ^(talk) 20:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporting Version 3

Xaliqen 02:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) Seems like a good idea to me. Four would be my reluctant second choice.
~~~~ 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The demiurge 20:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) Four is good, but too long. The rest of the information can be expanded in the daughter article. Three seems to be just about the right length to get a overview of the situation without being too much for a relatively minor part of his life.
Ampracific 30 June 2005 21:24 (UTC) I'm sympathetic to version 4, but I don't think that the citations represent a majority viewpoint in the psychiatric community. Therefore, I believe that version 4 gives these minority viewpoints too much emphasis. Version 1 silences a credible minority opinion, which is contrary to the Wikipedia philosophy. (Note: I have changed my user name from Ampacific.)
khaosworks July 2, 2005 00:02 (UTC) My difficulty with version 4 is that it's neither here nor there - it's too long for a summary and it's too short to deal with the credibility issues that Hatfield and Wormer have in terms of their backgrounds and political leanings. Version 3, to my mind, adequately mentions both sides in summary, and pushes that debate over to a daughter article. That daughter article can then be expanded, organized and sectioned to include each allegation, the evidence supporting and the objections to in a way that will not clutter up the main article. In any case, if we are to be honest, Bush's history of substance abuse or lack thereof is the least of the problems in his administration and does not deserve such detailed treatment in a general, main article.
RichardMathews July 6, 2005 17:49 (UTC) Good summary with a clear path to the full details.
nicefriend July 13, 2005 01:18 (UTC) A good compromise.

Supporting Version 4

Neutrality^talk 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
JamesMLane 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC). My second choice would be Version 3.
Harro5 07:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) The two-eyes-shut approach in V1 is very pro-Bush, version 2 somewhat vague, V3 actually adds some perspective, but V4 fleshs this out.
Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
albamuth 13:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Trim 10%-15% of the words from version 4.
jamesgibbon 10:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) this one's my first option, but I also find V3 acceptable.
Cynical 18:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Leaving some information out makes it POV Pro-Bush. Making it out to be important enough to deserve its own article makes it POV Anti-Bush. This is the only version that does neither.

None of the above

Junes 09:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'd support version 1 with a link to the daughter article. Version 2 is too vague and uses a new section which is not necessary, and the other two are too long, making the allegations look more important than they really are (and I'm saying this as someone who can't stand Bush).
Sandpiper 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Version 1 with a link to the longer article. Version 2 is too short and the longer ones unnecessarily big. 1 reads quite well and covers all the bases, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. Then you can go on to read more detail if you want. The more controversial stuff should be accesible but there is no need for it to be absolutely front line. So we two seem to be in agreement with the three who have said the same but listed themselves under option 1.l
--Keairaphoenix 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm a new user, just browsing through, and I thought I'd give my perspective. As much as I can't stand the man and truly believe he is a meglomaniac ex-coke head, I'm voting for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article. Version 2 is too vague. Versions 3 & 4 read as too anti-Bush. Version 1, as it stands, is too pro-Bush, as it ignores the controvery altogether. Verison 1 quickly becomes neutral when you add the sentence: See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy for more discussion.
Eisnel 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC) - I vote for #1 with a link to the daughter article (NoSeptember referred to this as Version 1½). I put this here and not in Version 1's section, because it's been made clear that a vote for #1 with daughter is not a vote for #1. It looks like everyone in the None of the above section so far prefers #1 with daughter article, and in addition (as of this writing), three of the eight people voting for #1 say they want it with the daughter article. So far that's seven votes for Version 1½. #1 without the daughter article is unacceptable, IMO. Like Dcarrano said, I'd also like to see the short Hatfield paragraph from #3 put in, so I suppose I'd be partial to #3 without the "classic addictive thinking pattern" paragraph.
Agree with Eisnel (just above) about both #1 & #3. For #1, a link to the daughter article is required. For #3, if the 'addictive' view were widely shared in psychiatric circles, it deserves a role in the main article. Otherwise, off to the daughter article it goes. It's just too easy to find one or two experts backing any position. So, I need to see at least widespread support for the 'addictive' view to place it in the limited space here, rather than daughter article where it can receive fuller discussion. Else, main wikipedia articles will be swamped with the views of every crank out there. This is a classic right-wing trick in the media -- find one 'authority' that disagrees with overwhelming consensus to make it appear as if no consensus exists (e.g. global warming). We should be careful to avoid leaving any such false impressions here. Derex 19:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

The most recent discussions of the subject can be found in the last archived talk page (more than half the threads) and in several of the threads above on this page.

How does the voting work? Is it STV voting or First past the post ?

None of the above. It's not voting in that sense. It's an attempt to solicit people's views in the hope of moving toward consensus. Separate alternatives aren't provided so that we can apply different algorithms for counting the "votes" and picking a "winner"; they're provided because they're a convenient way to bring other people up to speed on the discussions that have occurred so far. JamesMLane 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV policy

The basic reasoning for Versions 1 and 2 is shown in this comment by MONGO: "I believe that if indeed, the arguments are as disputed as they are by folks like me and other critics of expertise in their fields such as Sandovik, then they are just opinion and politically motivated opinion at that." The call for excluding opinions from Wikipedia arises from a misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. We do not avoid reporting opinionated statements. Here are some relevant excerpts from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?:

The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present.

That's why this article reports many of Bush's statements, such as about Iraq, that are, in my opinion and in the opinion of numerous experts, lies, and politically motivated lies at that. We present the facts of what was said and other facts relevant to the reader's evaluation of the statements. It's up to the reader to decide whether Bush was deliberately lying about WMDs, or whether van Wormer and Frank are making stuff up for political reasons, or whatever. JamesMLane 01:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh boy...it has nothing to do with any misunderstanding on my part about what the NPOV policies are. I think that the use of this rhetoric is not what an encyclopedia is all about..this is not a political blog...Wormer has been shown to be opposed to the politics of Bush and her "evaluation" from afar hardly constitutes anything other than armchair quarterbacking...as with Frank's book, the American Psychiatriat Association would render her opinion as unethical in that it wasn't arrived at within what constitutes the normal parameters accepted by her field...her opinion isn't noteworthy. Justin Frank, as shown clearly in version 4 has some serious detractors of his book...it is almost self refuting evidence. Hatfield's claims are unsubstantiated, he was a felon whose book was originally pulled by the first publisher and there has been nothing to show by anyone that claims made in his book have any basis in fact. Obviously as discussed before, there have been numerous books written that make one accusation or another about Bush, yet I don't see them quoted in the article to the same degree. All three items are either politically or money motivated and serve little other purpose. The fight to ensure these items remain in this article is a violation of NPOV as they are all Junk science. Inclusion of these items is a violation of NPOV, even if the detractions are there because it instills falsehoods illusion and innuendos that are POV.--MONGO 03:36, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, MONGO, "misunderstanding" was a bit of a euphemism on my part. Based on what I remember of your past comments, it might be more accurate to say that you understand the policy but you disagree with it, and therefore you deliberately choose to violate it. Over and over and over you give the reasons for your personal disagreement with the opinions. Your opinion is irrelevant. I strongly disagree with some of Bush's opinions (and with his outright lies as to matters of fact), but my opinion is also irrelevant. Your conclusion that these commentaries "are either politically or money motivated" isn't based on any special knowledge of their motivations. (You haven't personally examined van Wormer or Frank, to apply the standard you yourself have argued for.) Instead, your opinion is based on certain facts. We disclose those facts. The readers can then choose whether to draw the inferences that you do. Your preference is to save the readers that trouble by drawing the inference for them. On Wikipedia, however, the NPOV policy "suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?. JamesMLane 08:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I deliberately choose to violate it" as you say is unfair. I have stated that my argument against Frank and Wormer is primarily due to the fact that their opinions are unethical...they never performed a diagnosis on the "patient" as the APA or their peers would expect them to. Obviously, based on what it appears have been their traditional political views, they can hardly expect to have any political congreguity with Bush, and since their opinion was rendered outside the scope of what the remainder of their peers would consider a traditional doctor to patient evaluation, we can also hardly expect them to be reliable witnesses to Bush's mental health or behavior patterns. If you can find one substantive mental evaluation that is sanctioned by the American Psychiatrict Association that proves that Bush is suffering from some post alcoholism trauma, then by all means do so. Hatfield's claims are completely unsubstantiated...so are a lot of other claims made about Bush as found in dozens of other books...books written by people with better credentials than Hatfield. As far as my not having any special knowledge about the motivations behind the opinions of these people, that may be true, but what is the alternative? Would we believe that Bush has these "problems" if they were "diagnosed" from afar by a conservative leaning psychatrist? I wouldn't. There is a great chasm that separates us on these points and I doubt we will ever agree so I would like to remind you to cease with your constant argument that I either don't understand what constitutes the NPOV policies or that I wish to ignore them...I wish to provide a fact based account on the life of Bush worthy of Wikipedia..if you agree with that then help me do so by getting rid of this unmedical claptrap.--MONGO 09:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You've said, "I disagree with the premise that it is okay to state facts about opinions if those opinions are hopelessly biased and without a basis in fact." (09:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)) More recently: "It is poor editing to include such items if they are dubious to a majority of persons." (07:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Both these stated positions of yours are contrary to current Wikipedia policy. You have edited according to your personal positions, not according to Wikipedia policy. I agree that there's a great chasm that separates us on that point -- I believe in following the community policies, even those I dislike, unless and until they're changed. JamesMLane 10:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That great chasm is about the information...not about any disagreement over Wikipedia policy. If it is "dubious to a majority of persons" perhaps I was defending NPOV whereby the inclusion of this jargon would be their POV and knowing that their POV is strongly opposed to the subject matter, then the inclusion of such opinion and the support of it is NOT in keeping with NPOV policy.--MONGO 08:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, MONGO, you lost me with that comment. I think you're saying that the term "dry drunk" is jargon and embodies a particular point of view, so it shouldn't be used. This is where you depart from Wikipedia policy. In keeping with the policy of "presenting conflicting views without asserting them", we have no rule against reporting someone else's use of a POV-laden term. For example, this article reports the Bush administration's use of the terms "Healthy Forests" and "Clear Skies" to describe bills that were widely considered to be exactly the opposite. Anyway, the point is irrelevant. The use of the term "dry drunk" seemed to irritate some editors, so I omitted it from my proposed Version 4. JamesMLane 19:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with you there James, but briefly tell us what specific criteria an opinion must meet in order for inclusion? Obviously there must be some criteria, or else any opinion that anyone has may be included? Does this threshold of criteria apply evenly to all pages? --kizzle 01:32, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

You raise a valid question that won't always have a clear answer. I think I said, somewhere in the archived ocean of talk, that we don't need to quote the opinion of every crackpot who's learned enough HTML to put up a website. We agree on that. I would say that an opinion merits inclusion if the proponent has expertise in the area (often but not always based on academic credentials); or if the proponent is in such a position that his or her opinion is an important fact regardless of its merits (most often a public official who can act on the opinion, but it could include an influential private-sector figure like Henry Kaufman, an economic forecaster who was so widely respected that his opinions could move markets [38]); if the opinion is held by a majority or by a significant minority (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#What is the neutral point of view?); or if the public statement of the opinion was itself a notable fact (for example, Rick Santorum's comment linking homosexuality with bestiality touched off the notable Santorum controversy). There will always be borderline cases where people can reasonably disagree. Under the policy, though, those disagreements are not to be resolved on the basis of which opinion we think is correct, or better referenced, or ethical, or nobly motivated, or whatever. JamesMLane 08:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page that the source of this dispute is the fundamental perception of whether the authors' works are considered notable, as I agree that editor endorsement of opinion is irrelevant. While I agree with you that this threshold will not have a clear answer, I do believe that this threshold which you describe should be directly proportional to the available commentary on the subject. If we are writing an article that details the school history of my local high school, we can't exactly quote notable historians or PhD's, so we use what we have. However, seeing as dubya is one of the most commented on presidents in history, I think the bar for inclusion of opinion should be much higher than simply "expertise in the area". Following this guideline, any Ph.D in behavioral psychology can add their comment to this page, as there is no requirement for being directly involved with Bush. According to your threshold, if I go out and get a Ph.D (which will take a while, as I'm still working on my undergrad), in behavioral psychology, comment on why I think Bush is a classic case of a narcissist with suppressed childhood trauma in a local newspaper, it can be included in this page? Cause I'll do it James. That's how dedicated I am. --kizzle 23:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

There's a lot of commentary about Bush's mental state, but we should prefer quoting experts, as opposed to quoting some Democratic Party official who says, "Bush is nuts!" We aren't talking about a "mere" Ph. D. in behavioral psychology. Van Wormer specialized in addiction treatment to the point of co-authoring a book about it. Frank is a psychiatrist with 35 years' experience and director of psychiatry at George Washington University. Furthermore, he wasn't just dashing off a letter to his local newspaper; he put in enough study of Bush (using public information) to write a book on the subject. I don't think we're opening the floodgates to every Ph. D. who rolls out of bed one morning and decides he wants to see his name in Wikipedia. Hatfield's notability, of course, rests on the best-seller status of his book. JamesMLane 00:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With the daughter article in existance, I see no attempt to exclude discussions of allegations, only an attempt to keep the main article shorter. Version 2 and Version 1 1/2 (those who want a link added to version 1) gets you to the information without anything be held back, just not in the main article (which is huge). NoSeptember 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The information would be effectively suppressed because the reader wouldn't know what allegations were discussed in the daughter article. By comparison, see this sentence from the Bill Clinton article, which tells the reader about a daughter article: "Chinagate involved Democrats accepting improper campaign contributions; allegedly the ultimate source of this money was the Chinese government." Note that it reports the substance of the allegation against the President. Version 3 is fairer than the treatment of Clinton, because it also reports the opposition to the allegations; Version 4 goes further and presents the facts cited by the opponents. JamesMLane 08:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At risk of finding furniture flying at my head, I would observe that if the 'ethical code' prevents fully fledged doctors talking about their patients, then there is no chance of ever getting an opinion from one and not much point in waiting for such an opinion before writing your article. I don't want to argue about the merits of the stuff, but I think it deserves reporting. I do not think it has to be in the main article, particularly because of the nature of this medium. If it was a book you would put the whole lot together somewhere, but huge pages are a real problem to deal with here. I am British and have a few issues with the Tony Blair article, but I am very wary of changing it to my point of view. I am content that contentious stuff is on a different page, just so long as the main page DOES mention it in enough detail for an interested person to go looking. If someone is not interested then I see no point in boring him with a screen full of stuff irrelevant to the main points of a biography. Everyone remember that unless articles are readable and interesting no one will bother accessing them. (Ducks chair)Sandpiper 20:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The information is politically biased as has been shown...that we all know this would make us look tabloidish to include it...this is not the place to push a POV with unsubstantiated opinion rendered by "experts" outside the scope of an authentic standard...I can see placing Frank's and Hatfield's books in the addtional reading section, but quoting them without also quoting the numerous detractors of their opinions would be POV pushing. However, the suppression of inforamtion is something I am opposed to so perhaps version #1 with a link to the article discussiong substance abuse controversies may be necessary to achieve a concesus and make everyone, as Kizzle stated, equally unhappy.--MONGO 20:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't need to quote all the "numerous detractors" of a particular position, any more than we need to quote each and every person who's criticized the invasion of Iraq. The intent of Version 4 was to report the opinions (pro and con) and to provide the reader with the salient facts relied on by each side in support of its position. Are there any such facts that are omitted? Not "does the article fail to beat the reader over the head with the inferences that MONGO wants to draw from those facts" -- the question is whether you are aware of any important facts that are omitted. JamesMLane 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as detractors to Hatfield how about that in addition to his 5 years in prison for solicitation of murder, he also was previously arrested for burglarly and embezzlement of 34,000 dollars in federal housing subsidies? Does this make his allegations more credible for you? Does the fact that after the book was rereleased by another publisher it was again pulled due to the fact that libel charges were brought by another author? Or how about this:[39]. This argument isn't about the NPOV policy James, it is about substance and quality control...if you want to talk about Hatfield and his book, do so in the article on him in Wikipedia...but not in this preeminent article, please.--MONGO 05:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait, hold on.

Does Version 1 include or not include a daughter article? You have 2 people (in addition to me) who are voting/would vote for Version 1 if it links to the daughter article, but yet version 1 explicitly states there is no daughter article? --kizzle 19:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle, I drafted version #1 and excluded the link to the daughter article. I have stated that the reason behind the Rfc is due to the dispute that the remainder of the issues are not factual, but merely opinion and should be omitted. As one reader calls it a two eyes shut view and very pro Bush...I disagree. I feel that it represents the only issues that are not in dispute and provide suffcient evidence that Bush did, in all likelihood, abuse alcohol and probably drugs too. In themselves, they can hardly be construed as pro Bush or help to elevate him as a leader. The remainder of the arguments are just political commentary. I think that this has been shown and is shown in version #4 by the counterarguments that dispute Frank and Hatfield books. I believe that if indeed, the arguments are as disputed as they are by folks like me and other critics of expertise in their fields such as Sandovik, then they are just opinion and politically motivated opinion at that. Besides, there are numerous books and opinions that could also be cited against Bush so why do these have particular merit? I am against the suppression of information and think all readers should "get their money's worth" but not if that information is just pure politics or unsubstantiated referencing just to sell a book. I feel that a link to the daughter article would compromise the efforts to eliminate this rhetoric. I do, however, see your issue and have sympathy with it to some degree...perhaps you think we should have a version #5 which would include all of version #1 and a link to the daughter article...you may wish to mention it to JamesMLane.--MONGO 20:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you actually have me sold, but look at the 2 other people who are voting for version 1 only if there's a daughter article. --kizzle 20:30, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting...I may have no choice. Again, I stated that (and I am not trying to sling mud here) that JamesMLane developed the daughter article so that all this information would never go away. It offered him a win-win scenario and I see no concession by offering a link. If the concensus says we need a link then that is what will happen...but I am completely opposed to one...if indeed there is a link, then version #2 is probably my choice and it also probably needs to be written better.--MONGO 20:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that it simply needs to be mentioned, otherwise next there will be another edit war when another set of allegations come out (as they seem to come out every election cycle since he was elected). Take the political bickering off of the main article, so only true credible facts will be left in the main. You can discuss all you want there, heck you could say that the President isn't even human instead a reincarnation of Hitler by aliens, just as long as it stays off the main article. PPGMD 05:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a link to the daughter article. It doesn't matter if the accusations are complete nonsense, as long as they are notable enough. I mean, we have an article on the flat earth society, haven't we? Of course, these books about Bush suffering long-term effects may not be notable enough to merit inclusion in the main article (I don't know enough about the US situation to judge that), but his alleged substance abuses sure are, and they deserve to be fleshed out for readers who want to know more. Now, of course the daughter article should be made neutral too. I think your objection is that it never will be - well, maybe, but at least the most controversial things will be off the main page. Junes 10:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, we may at some point end up with a version 1 with a link to the daughter article, but time will tell. I am opposed to the use of Wikipedia as a place to vent political frustrations and feel that any mention of the disputed information and or a link to them is poor referencing and makes the main article look like we are trying to peddle tabloid nonsense as supporting commentary. For anyone who may wonder, I even think that the two main points of version 1 are relatively weak...but they have some weight when placed immediately after his DUI charge of 1976.--MONGO 11:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we take version 1 and simply add to it as we see fit to fill in the missing bits? You keep banging on about political frustrations, but I notice that only you are removing factual references from Wikipedia. For instance your removal of the link to the facsimile of Bush's DUI, which for some reason you seemed to believe was a "weak quote about 1976 DUI arrest". --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony...is this how you really feel when you tell me that "I notice that only you are removing factual references from Wikipedia"? That seems to be a pretty bold comment...--MONGO 07:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I considered the new link to be more substantive...if my edit summary seemed rude I apologize. It's not like I removed the information...if anything, I made it more believable with a CNN link instead of a "smoking gun" link--MONGO 07:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of which link is "more substantive". They're different -- one is the primary source material, the other is explanatory and has relevant detail about the context. Each of them adds something. There's no reason not to have both. JamesMLane 20:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

James...come on..."smoking gun" I mean really...you're a legal man, does the facimilie look to you like it would be admissible in court in that it isn't fully descriptive...besides, it contains a link, right near the top, that takes the reader to none other than evidence you refute...the video of Bush partying at that wedding...the reference isn't a strong one and I think it makes the information less believeable, not more so. The reference I added is more than sufficent to substantiate the point.--MONGO 18:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about TheSmokingGun.com, I was under the impression that site was actually pretty reliable, as all they deal in is paper trails. --kizzle 18:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

We're truly through the looking glass now, when a site devoted to producing pdf and other graphical copies of evidentiary material is held up to be prima facie evidence of false evidence. Gzuckier 19:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am not familar with this web site...it just looks rather sensationalistic to me. that's all. The fact that there is a link to other information that JamesMLane didn't even think was substantive enough for his version 4 as shown in the Rfc...the video of Bush "drinking"...only supports my opinion that the web site isn't very substantive. If you think it should be there then replace it...everyone chill out as it was a good faith edit on my part and I thought this piece of rather unflattering information about Bush was made more believable with the CNN reference, not less so. It's not like I tried to suppress or delete the information....relax.--MONGO 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether you or anyone else considers the police record "fully descriptive" is irrelevant. An online reproduction of the document would be inadmissible in New York courts, whether it came from The Smoking Gun, The New York Times, or the right-wingers at Free Republic. You would need to obtain a certified copy from the issuing agency. Of course, if you were to start applying legal standards for admissibility across the board, and not just when it suits your purpose, you'd have to call for deletion of pretty much everything in this article, beginning with Bush's birth date. Bush has admitted that the news accounts of his previously concealed DUI were accurate. As far as I know, no one has raised any question about the accuracy of The Smoking Gun's reproduction. If you have a good-faith basis for contending that the police record has been doctored, you should present it. JamesMLane 19:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the survey has helped, and indeed I would have counseled against holding one if I had been around this article when it was being discussed. About half support version 1 and half support version 4 with a couple of votes for other options, so there is no decisive result. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the survey got us somewhere. So far, of the 15 people who've responded, 13 have said that there should be a link to the daughter article, with one more undecided on that point. I think we can say that MONGO's desire to omit even a link has not met with favor. Otherwise, you're right, that we have sharp disagreement.

It seems to me that the logical thing to do is to try to accommodate both views by crafting a version that's more informative than the cryptic Version 1 but not so detailed as the much longer Version 4. That was what we tried to do last month. What emerged was basically Version 3. Everyone more or less acquiesced to that compromise, which many of us disliked, and it was implemented. Then MONGO returned to editing the article and re-opened the question. Given that, as you say, the RfC hasn't produced a decisive result, we need to figure out what we can do other than engaging in a full-blown edit war. JamesMLane 19:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me you may be misreading the "results" (which I think should be determined after another week anyway so that everyone has a chance to chime in). It appears to me that the majority of voters favor version 1 so long as there is a link. Otherwise, Sidaway is right in that essentially there is no mandate for any major change. Furthermore, your constant referral to any previous recent concensus is erroneous, as only a small number of folks even made an imput into that discussion over the same issues. This Rfc has at least brought out some newer voices top consider. Regardless, you commitment to Wikpedia is highly commendable as evidenced by your development of the Rfc. I want to thank you for taking the time to develop it.--MONGO 20:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also James, why not archive all the information above the Rfc except the recent discussion going on about the pet goat picture to make it easier to access the Rfc.--MONGO 21:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Tony's reading is correct. As Weyes stated, and I agreed, before the RfC, the point isn't to get a majority behind one particular version. The purpose was to help us work toward consensus. So far we aren't particularly close. And if a few more people show up and prefer Version 4, we still won't be particularly close. JamesMLane 22:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GWB substance abuse controversy subarticle now linked

In reflection of the Rfc and the overall sympathy towards a link to the daughter article on substance abuse, I have added a link now in respect to the overwhelming concensus in favor of the link. I would like to make the following tired old comments.

Wormer's opinion was reached outside the scope of the traditional doctor to patient relationship...an opinion from afar that has no basis in fact. Her credentials are not noteworthy and her expertise is not necessarily in this field of diagnosis. The American Psychiatrict Association does not support this manner of diagnosis.
Frank's book is another opinion rendered from afar...and has been derailed by equally prominent specialists in the field of expertise as being nothing more than political fingerpointing. Again the APA would not endorse his manner of diagnostics but he gets around this by not being a member of the APA.
Hatfield's book was originally pulled by the first publishers after they found out that he was a prior felon having served time for solicitation of murder. The second publisher was sued by another author for libel over the distribution of the book. Hatfield claims that he has valid sources as did lawyers representing the publishers but they never provided any proof of many of the allegations in the book. Hatfield also pled guilty to stealing of at least 22,000 and as much as 34,000 dollars in Federal Housing subsidies. There is a myriad of those that consider the book to be just an effort to make a buck.

The argument has been made that it isn't POV to discuss these items. I have stated that they are less than credible witness. If we know that they are less than credible and still incorporate them in this article, even if we also include the detractors of their opinions proving how ridiculous their opinions are, then we spread gossip only and the entire article looks like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedic effort. My concern is about editing and quality control, not suppression of information and in an effort to appease the concensus, I added the link as mandated.--MONGO 06:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion of Drug Usage RfC

As I take a look at the above poll, I see 9 entries accepting Version 1, half of which refer to a "1.5" that includes a daughter article, along with 4 votes under "None of the Above" that also vote for this version "1.5"... It seems that a majority opinion has been formulated from this poll, but since polls are nothing in themselves, I want to ask the group if they believe that as it stands, the group seems to be leaning towards Version 1 with a link to a daughter article. Don't bite my head off if you disagree, I just want to get the ball rolling on this passage as progress on discussion has seemingly stalled. --kizzle July 9, 2005 01:45 (UTC)

Version 1 or 1.5 is fine with me (I originally voted for version 2) NoSeptember^T 9 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)
I agree that version 1.5 should is best. A sockpuppet account added a sentence to version 1 without contributing to the Rfc, even though he was repeatedly asked to do so. Not one other person seemed to need to "mess" with the sentences except this one person. I am removing the sentence due primarily to it being added by this person using a sockpuppet account...if someone puts it back in, that is not using a sockpuppet account then so be it. The evidence of this sockpuppet account is here [[40]].--MONGO July 9, 2005 06:54 (UTC)

Oh man, you've gotta be kidding me. You've already been busted for making things up, and now I'm somehow another user? This is my moniker throughout the internet, be it blogs, ie redstate.org, dailykos.com, tacitus.com et al. Considering I live in virginia, the other nonsense is just that. The discussion of voting irregularities is clear there, and the reasons for including fraud in that election, since it cannot be established to have effected only one race. You are absolutely destroying yourself mongo. -bro 172.169.252.227 01:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice try...what's it like talking to yourself? Do a lot of that do you?--MONGO 05:11, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

As kizzle points out, the discussion has stalled. I haven't taken any initiative because I didn't really have any good ideas. The RfC produced a consensus against MONGO's preferred version, which would have given the reader some of Bush's own words but nothing else on the subject, here or in a linked article. That was, I suppose, some progress, but otherwise we haven't gained much. We're left with a nearly equal division between those who prefer Version "1.5" (some of whom, however, would restore the Hatfield information) and those who want at least as much detail as is in Version 3 (although editors in this group represent several differing opinions about how much detail is appropriate). All I can suggest is that we go back to the project undertaken in late May, which I thought at the time had been concluded successfully, and try to craft a compromise version that displeases many people but not enough to start an edit war. JamesMLane 9 July 2005 07:22 (UTC)

No doubt these people said the things they did. No doubt in two cases, books were published. I do not contest these issues. I do wonder that since the opinions produced by van wormer etc. are considered to be parapsychology and quackery, why, as stated on your user page your opposition to such mindsets, you still deem this information to be worthy of this endeavour. As far as your wording that there is a consensus against "my" version, I see that to be a distortion. As evidenced in this talk page, I essentially conceded to the incorporation of a link to the daughter article, and in fact, I edited it into the article. As far as there being "some progress", I agree...the progress is that the concensus is that version 1 is fine, so long as we link it to the daughter article...this has been done...by me. I have conceded much here, James, and I see you as an immovable wall, defending exactly the kind of "evidence" that you claim on your user page to distain. Your further commentary that there was any kind of "concensus" to anything in late May is also incorrect. In that case, only a few people even chimed in and there have been at least two people that have stated that there was no consensus then so I request you refrain from continuing to claim this. I am stepping back from this now. If you start reincorporating these items then I will not delete them. But I go on record stating that I find all of it to be without merit, purely political, and misleading. At least in the articles I have been working on as of late, there is little room to argue over the height of a mountain or the blueness of a lake. Do whatever you want here...no edit war will occur from me...that much I promise.--MONGO July 9, 2005 09:59 (UTC)

MONGO, your preference was for the original Version 1, under which this article would not have included the information and would not have included a link to the daughter article. You favored that approach; one editor said he wasn't sure; everyone else opposed it. That was the consensus I meant. You and I evidently have different understandings of "consensus". You won't accept that term for a previous process in which everyone who commented acquiesced in the compromise that emerged, yet you now claim that "the concensus [sic] is that version 1 is fine, so long as we link it to the daughter article" when there is a sharp division and many people think that Version 1 is anything but fine.

I also don't understand this line: "I have conceded much here, James, and I see you as an immovable wall . . . ." What you have conceded, as far as I can tell, is that your attempt at the total suppression of the information, which only you unequivocally favored, won't fly. Other than that, you've conceded nothing. For my part, I said in the course of the compromise discussion in late May that I would live with the version that emerged from that process, even though it significantly truncated the information available to the reader in this article. You are certainly free to continue to assert your reasons for wanting the material omitted from the article, but your characterization of my position is not borne out by the record. JamesMLane 9 July 2005 15:29 (UTC)

Did I or did I not also draw up the vague version 2, in which there was a link to the red headed step daughter article. I also wrote the discussion, very neutrally about version 2. My count, (which I hate to see any of this as a vote anyway), is 13 "votes" for version 1 (or) 2 and 11 "votes" for version 3 or 4...of those voting for version 3, at least two of them have almost zero contribution history...not that this matters in the scheme of things. I think Sidaway's comment that there is no consensus (not sic) is pretty accurate. (Please stop correcting my spelling...it's very condescending...I have enough trouble typing with my hands in which I have to wear a size 16 ring...why they don't make keyboards for ogres like me I'll never know). I was merely stating that since I put in the link to the vile daughter article, then that was my "personal" concession...you know how much I would like to see all of that stuff vanquished. You conceded nothing...where oh, where is your concession? As far as it appears to me, "your" version, which is version 4, won't fly either...I am opposed to another "vote" on anymore versions...unless we draft up a completely new Rfc we probably won't get that many "votes" one way or another...in conclusion, do whatever you want, as I am not going to engage in an edit war...in fact, all I'll probably do now is edit true vandalism and contribute to discussion. I correct you again (and for the last time) that any plurality of anything was achieved in late May. I am not the only one that wishes to see no link...there are three others. Enough, I say...go ahead and install the quackery that your user page says you oppose. I think it makes us all look like writers for the National Enquirer: Bush has brain damage; Bush drank so much when he was young and gives lousy speeches so he must be a dry drunk; Bush was a coke head! Written by very authoritative folks with no axe to grind or desire to make a buck, folks like: van wormer (self described as a "hippee, commie, pinko protester") and no medical credentials. Hatfield , whose books were removed, have no basis in fact and he previously published another book which was also a lie. Then he has a prior for solicitation of murder, pled guilty to stealing federal housing subsidies and theft, then for some sad reason (since those nasty Republicans must have forced his hand)...committed suicide. Lastly, we have Frank, the most distinguished in the lot, practicing his profession in a manner not supported by the American Psychiatrict Association...he gets around this by, NOT BEING A MEMBER of this highly regarded group. An association of this nature is what science is all about...it allows there to be a system of checks and balances in which other members of the association can cross examine the work of their peers and if they find it to be unsubstantiated, to be able to sanction it as so. By not being a member, he avoids this potential for exposure as a fraud. As clearly specified, he has serious detractors anyway. These three are most definitely quacks! But, heck, they had something crappy to say about Bush, so lets put it in here!--MONGO 20:35, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that to solve this problem, we should have a run-off between v1.5, 3, and 4. It seems to me that while Mongo and I are ok with this v1.5, and assuming that 80% of the other people who voted only for v1 without a daughter article would be ok with v1.5, we have a clear majority opinion in the matter that I estimate is more than 3 and 4 combined. Let's do a final re-poll between v1.5, 3, and 4. --kizzle July 9, 2005 15:45 (UTC)

uhh guys, hello, over here? Re-poll? --kizzle 00:30, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we could expect anything other than another fairly close division. It's not normal procedure to decide article content by a simple majority vote. That's why I thought the only alternative was to try to fashion a compromise that everyone could grudgingly live with. For example, a couple of the people supporting Version 1 mentioned that they thought that something about Hatfield should be included. I also remember that, somewhere in all the talk that's gone on, there was a suggestion that quoting van Wormer's and/or Frank's exact point was giving it too much prominence, so perhaps we could come up with a short and neutral paraphrase. (Of course, the tough part is to find a paraphrase that lets the reader know what the contention is, but doesn't present it so fully that opponents feel compelled to try to insert the other side, and then the whole attempt to shorten the passage has misfired.) JamesMLane 00:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

True, except I think our poll deserves special attention due to the ambiguous nature of people voting for version 1. Basically, a lot of people (at least 7) voted for a version not even included in the original 4... I think it would only be fair to re-vote between v1.5, 3, and 4, and I do believe a concensus will develop during this process. --kizzle 02:13, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Most of those voting for Version 1 said that there should be a link, but even if you think there's ambiguity, what happens if we resolve it? It's reasonable to assume that all the Version 1 supporters would prefer Version 1.5 over Version 3 or Version 4. Also, the idea of adding a link to Version 1 was introduced early on, so it's also fair to assume that no one would defect from one of the other versions to Version 1.5. Wouldn't we just expend a lot of effort to get right back to where we are now? There wouldn't be a consensus. The current division might shift somewhat, depending on which of the original respondents bothered to return for the re-vote, but this isn't a matter of finding a one- or two-vote margin for one view or another. JamesMLane 08:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, draw it up... I still like version 1 but that one's out...so I guess it's version 1.5 for me. I hate to think we end up with something like version 2.75...--MONGO 05:57, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I am very strongly opposed to the protection of this page. Certainly, it's one of the most heavily vandalized in Wikipedia, but it also has more people watching it than do most pages. Any particular bit of vandalism seldom lasts more than a couple minutes. All this is nothing new. Soon after the election, the New York Times did a story about the continual attacks on this article: [41].

There's no point to protecting it until the vandalism stops. It won't stop. The adolescent mindset that wants to vandalize thinks of a prominent person to look up, and Bush is an obvious choice. We just have to keep reverting and blocking. The load is shared among many editors, so it's tolerable. In fact, my experience is that, more than half the time, my attempted reversion of a vandal fails, because someone else has already made the same correction. JamesMLane 9 July 2005 13:40 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you that protection isn't a great option. However, in this specific instance, a determined vandal was using dynamic IPs to evade blocks. The vandalism (and reverts) were happening so fast that the last 50 edits only covered about 45 minutes. The only real option at this point was to protect the page. In a few hours, I'm sure the page will be unprotected.

A more long-term solution could be a feature that enables admins to mark certain articles as editable only by signed-in users. This could be useful for heavily vandalized articles such as this one. Carbonite | Talk 9 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)

Man, do I ever agree with that...lets commence an Rfc just along those lines...there is no reason that that sort of thing can't be incorporated in articles like this one.--MONGO July 9, 2005 14:01 (UTC)

If you seriously want to pursue that suggestion, I think that starting a thread on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is the way to go. JamesMLane 9 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

I personally would like to see only registered users have editing capabilities...it would greatly reduce the vandalism, and make it harder to utilize sockpuppets for the wrong reasons...think of the prolonged life of the Wikipedia servers with the reduction of edits! If you stand with me on this issue, then I will be glad to assist you, but I certainly think that due to your higher organizational skills and better familiarity with drafting things such as a Rfc that my contribution in this would look amateurish.--MONGO 20:41, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I'll decline. First, I'm not sure whether I agree with the proposal or not. Second, my past experience with the breadth and depth of the commitment to open editing leads me to believe that this proposal would have no chance of succeeding... even with the benefit of my alleged organizational skills. :) JamesMLane 22:11, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, discussion of your suggestion is ongoing... you might want to help put your thoughts in both of you, and anyone else, as this is a good idea that has a lot of people interested and very little admin opposition so far. --kizzle 00:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

It would be a bad idea to let a few vandalized articles spoil our commitment to open editing. If users had been required to register before starting to edit, I would never have joined, and I suspect that's true for the large majority of users. Open Editing means that everyone should be able to edit and it's only by commitment to this principle that we will obtain the wide authorship necessary to keep the entire encyclopedia accurate and up-to-date. Limit it to registered users and the site will become deprecated very quickly. luketh 06:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, I made about 4 edits and then registered...I can see your point though...I doubt the limited requirements needed to register would have detered me, but that is just one example.--MONGO 06:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The proponents of a change would respond to luketh by agreeing that most articles should be open to anonymous editing. The idea presented is for a small number of heavily vandalized articles to receive this intermediate degree of protection. This is being supported and opposed in the discussion that kizzle found and linked to (thanks!). People who want to comment one way or the other would do much better to go there. JamesMLane 08:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Scope of details

I look over the article and see that there are three short paragraphs that discuss the military contribution of Bush, then a link to a huge daughter article. I look over the drug and alcohol discussion and see there are three paragraphs and a link to a small daughter article. The military daughter article is well detailed, authoritative and relatively NPOV. The daughter article on substance abuse is concise, not very revealing but also NPOV. If one of the efforts is to reduce the size of this article, how is that achieved if we keep adding things back in that a small concensus already thinks they should remain in the daughter article. I am not sure another poll will help. My biggest concern is that now we have a concensus which is essentially this version 1.5, which is currently in the article...I am not happy with it, nor is JamesMLane...so the two of us are already mutually unhappy. If James and I can agree that our mutual unhapppiness is equal then what is there left to argue over. James, the items are still available and there are three paragraphs that discuss Bush and alcohol. I think the drug usage information is really very weak. I do not think that Hatfields allegations, based on his personal history makes the accusations of drug use stronger, I think it makes it weaker. In fact, if I was trying to prove that Bush had used drugs, I probably wouldn't do so by referencing Hatfield. Can we agree that we are equallly unhappy...I mean, you wish to see all the info, and I absolutely don't want a link...we are the polarizations...I have a couple of folks that also don't see a need for a link, you have a couple of supporters that want to see it all just as you do...everyone else falls somewhere in the middle...I inserted the link...is this enough?--MONGO 07:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Version 1, with or without the link, omits all the disputed information from this article. Twelve people who responded to the RfC stated clearly that they opposed that omission. MONGO, you can disagree with us all you want, but when you assert that there was a consensus in favor of a version that had so much opposition, you lead me to wonder if there's any point in trying to discuss this with you. Your comments about the link are also misleading. There's no polarization over the link. Even if you look only at the people who supported Version 1, a majority of those respondents expressly stated that there should be a link -- then, of course, you have to add in all the people supporting Version 3 or Version 4. That's an example of consensus, MONGO. Your preference for a terse statement with no link has been overwhelmingly rejected. Our problem is that a terse statement with a link has not been overwhelmingly rejected, and a more detailed exposition in this article has also not been overwhelmingly rejected. Therefore, there's a consensus that the reader should have access to this information, either in the main article or in a linked daughter article, but beyond that there's no consensus. JamesMLane 07:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The majority favored a link only...the majority did not favor versions 3 or 4...even combined, versions 3 and 4 are less than those that see version 1 with a link as being the way to go. I inserted the link...that essentially means that I support it. kizzle supports it as well, even though he voted no link originally, at least he didn't say originally he supported a link when he polled. I am concluding from your comments that we are missing each others points. So now, do we draw up another Rfc which has version 1 with a link and then versions 3 and 4...a total of 3 versions...or is the fact that a small majority favor version 1 with a link sufficient?--MONGO 08:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

As I said before the RfC began, a small majority is not sufficient. You should also note that some of those nominally voting for Version 1 added that they'd like to see Hatfield included, so there's probably a small majority in favor of that (Version 1.5a?). I hope you're beginning to see my point that there's no consensus. Therefore, my suggestion is that we think about how to craft a version that takes account of the various comments and might be accepted as a compromise. JamesMLane 11:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the section, in comparison to the section discussing the military issues...are three paragraphs of fact and then a link to the daughter article just as there is in the military issues sufficient?--MONGO 08:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Here's how the military issues are treated now: The article sets forth certain undisputed facts about Bush's military service. It then has a link to the daughter article, accompanied by a description of the allegations that are covered in that article -- just the allegations, without including either side's evidence. If we were to follow that model for substance abuse, would that be acceptable to you? I think at one point we had something similar. Bush's defenders couldn't leave it at that, but started tossing in the evidence on their side (conflicting psychiatric views, character assassination of Hatfield, etc.). Then, of course, they complained when evidence on the other side was included. It has to be both or neither to be NPOV. If we were to follow the military model, we'd start with undisputed facts -- roughly what's now Version 1, but with the inclusion of the undisputed fact that Bush denied using drugs since 1974 while refusing to comment on pre-1974 use or nonuse. Then we'd have a paragraph stating what allegations are addressed in the daughter article, as the introduction to the link to the daughter article. All evidence and arguments, pro- or anti-Bush, would be sent to the daughter article, and we would all diligently revert future efforts to re-insert them. (We've seen some such efforts on the military service controversy.) Is that a possible framework for a resolution? JamesMLane 11:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the need to have hatfield, wormer and frank mentioned in the main article eliminates the need for a daughter article...we essentially end up with version 3+ and I know I wasn't the only one that came in and put detractions refuting their evidence so it would only be a matter of time before someone else would anyway due to the controversialness of their allegations. As I mentioned before, I'm tired of all this. I do want to put it to bed...but I am as expected, relatively inflexible on inclusion of anything beyond what we currently have as of this timestamp.--MONGO 12:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

If you mean that Version 4 would eliminate the need for a daughter article, I agree with you. I'm not talking about the kind of summary that was in the article for quite a while about, for example, van Wormer, with a few sentences presenting her thesis. I'm talking about just enough of a mention to give the reader an understanding of what's in the daughter article. Or, for example, with regard to Hatfield, I'm sure you don't mean that you'd want the article to have no link, but merely to say, "In a largely favorable biography of Bush entitled Fortunate Son, author James Hatfield presented his conclusion that, in 1972, Bush had been arrested for cocaine possession and had done community service as part of a plea bargain, and that the family's influence had succeeded in getting the record expunged. Bush denied it." People would surely start adding the pros and cons and pretty soon we'd be at Version 4. And, by the way, "what we currently have as of this timestamp" is not in any way, shape or form a "baseline" version that remains in place unless and until there's consensus to change it. It's in place because, at the time we were starting the RfC, you and others who preferred the current (totally unacceptable whitewashing POV) version were more willing to engage in edit warring than the rest of us were. I don't know if your reference was intended to suggest any such special status, and if it wasn't, I apologize. I may be overreacting because your comment triggered unpleasant memories of another editor, one who invoked this mythical "baseline" concept as an explanation for why his preferred language always had to remain in place. JamesMLane 12:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay...let me put this as plainly as possible. As of my last post, the article has three undisputed statements which discuss Bush, alcohol and the consequences he has faced due to alcohol consumption. These three items are not things that make Bush look good...they, in themselves suggest that there is a strong liklihood that Bush, as he even admits, did abuse alcohol...then we have one paragraph which is from an interview in which, in his own words, he essentially admits to drug use. I think that van wormer, hatfield and frank are all bad witness and are unnecessary...absolutely so in the main article. I do not consider the continued incorporation of the 3 small paragraphs to be whitewashing. They are fairly damming evidence in themselves. I consider all the rest to be speculation, opinion and well, bunk. Now if I stand alone on this I stand alone. I also feel that if you think that putting the information in dispute back in is what the consensus wants either now, or previously, then go ahead and reinsert them...I will not delete them. Or give me an example of a lead in paragraph to the daughter article.--MONGO 19:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle's Computed Poll

Please see Archive 26 for full text of RfC | image name=GeorgeWBush.jpg

Kizzle's Computed Poll - All stated user positions are estimates based upon direct quotations. Please go ahead and change your stance if I'm wrong.

V1.5

--MONGO 01:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I think you're for v1.5 now, Mongo, let me know if i'm wrong --kizzle 17:10, July 10, 2005 (UTC))
--kizzle 20:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Tverbeek 17:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) "Though obviously a link to the daughter article should be added."
PPGMD 17:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) : "With a link to the daugher article of course."
maltmomma 19:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) "I agree about adding a link to the daughter article."
--Hiding 09:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) "If so, yes to a daughter article link..."
Junes 09:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) "I'd support version 1 with a link to the daughter article."
Sandpiper 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) "Version 1 with a link to the longer article."
--Keairaphoenix 23:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) "I'm voting for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article."
Eisnel 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC) - "I vote for #1 with a link to the daughter article"
NoSeptember^T (since no one joined me in Version 2, I will support Version 1.5)
that works for me, or modified #3 as discussed under my 'none' comments Derex 20:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

V1 (probably will favor v1.5 (Tysto won't))

--Nobs01 17:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Dcarrano 29 June 2005 05:51 (UTC) "the Hatfield stuff is the only one I would miss from the expanded versions." (inferring a daughter article? --kizzle 16:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC))
--Tysto 2005 July 9 00:56 (UTC) "No daughter article. No dry-drunk pseudopsychoanalysis."

Supporting Version 3

Xaliqen 02:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
~~~~ 19:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The demiurge 20:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ampracific 30 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)
khaosworks July 2, 2005 00:02 (UTC)
RichardMathews July 6, 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Supporting Version 4

Neutrality^talk 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
JamesMLane 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).
Harro5 07:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
albamuth 13:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
jamesgibbon 10:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is why I believe we need to re-poll, because as it stands, it's 10-6-6, and given 2 out of the 3 who only voted for v1 vote for v1.5 (which is highly similar), we have one option getting as many votes as the two other combined. --kizzle 16:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I added my name to V 1.5 NoSeptember^T 18:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Kizzle, I support version 1.5...I prefer the original version 1, but accept this 1.5 version to try and achieve some kind of compromise.--MONGO 19:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The computation is helpful, but it should include another nuance: the comments about inclusion of Hatfield. Eisnel, in supporting Version 1.5, said, "Like Dcarrano said, I'd also like to see the short Hatfield paragraph from #3 put in ..." On the other hand, albamuth supported Version 4 but wanted to trim "10%-15% of the words".

Nuances aside, though, a re-poll could be expected to produce substantially the same result, unless there were a major change in the makeup of those responding. (Many of those who responded the first time probably wouldn't vote in a re-poll.) Assuming hypothetically that the result of the re-poll would be something fairly close to 10-6-6, we'd be facing the fact that none of the five versions polled achieved a consensus. (That would be true even if the result were 13-6-6, i.e., if one particular version had a narrow majority.) That's why I think we need to focus on creating a new alternative instead of re-polling the old ones. Hoping that one of the old ones would achieve consensus pretty much amounts to hoping for a miracle. On this article, I stopped hoping for miracles long ago. JamesMLane 20:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That's why it's Kizzle's "Computational" Poll, as I was just getting estimates of people's positions :). Here's the thing, James. As it stands, we have over 25 editors responding to this poll about drug usage, of which the leading option has the amount of the next two closest options combined. I think it can be said that this is as close to a concensus as we're going to get. We can draft a new one, but that's where we were about a month ago, which is the reason why we drafted this RfC in the first place. After going through the RfC process, we have a crystal clear front-runner which represents a large amount of editors contributing to this poll. With all due respect James, you are basically proposing to start back at the drawing board and draft a completely new alternative, which I think is unfair given the strong choice by the editors who have participated in this RfC. What happens then? Not everyone is going to agree with whatever passage we come up, and I don't think that whatever paragraph you craft (which I am sure will be well-written) will garner any more of a substantial support than v1.5 has right now. If we follow your suggestion, we'll have to repeat everything we have done before, and for no clear reason as to scrap what we have already accomplished with this RfC. --kizzle 02:28, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I realize you were just amalgamating the positions, and I think it was a useful post. As to what we do with your data, though, we can't treat Versions 1, 3, and 4 as three completely distinct approaches. Some of us voting for Version 4 expressly noted that Version 3 would be our second choice, and, given the nature of each version, I think it's reasonable to assume that all the Version 4 supporters would feel that way. If you think that the level of detail in Version 4 is the best, then it would be strange to prefer Version 1 to Version 3, since Version 3 preserves more of that detail than does Version 1. So, I don't agree that we have "a crystal clear front-runner". We have an approximately equal division on the question whether Version 1 is acceptable or omits too much. I agree there's no ready solution that doesn't involve more work, but that's the result of the opinions people hold. We can't avoid that problem by pretending that Version 1, opposed by half those responding, is any sort of consensus. Given that some Version 1 supporters actually wanted Version 1 plus Hatfield, and given that the comments suggest that the psychiatric stuff comes in for more criticism than Hatfield, maybe we could find something between Version 1 and Version 3 on that basis. JamesMLane 11:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

my comment

Geezus you're such a lawyer :). Makes me want to take the LSATs... Yes, there are stated second choices and nuances behind each vote as to present "semi-votes" towards other options. Yes, half of the people in the poll voted against version 1. But that's what you get when you have more than one option. We don't hold another election because more than half of the people voted against Clinton in a 3-party race. Given 4 options in a race, the fact that one now has 50% is relatively a crystal clear front runner.

My main point is this. Voting on Wikipedia is not a quantitative process, in that if the votes were 7-6-6-6, there's no way in hell we would favor option 1 over the others simply due to it having one more vote than the others. However, given the situation we have, option 1 has an equal amount of votes that the other two have combined. In a 4-party race, this is quite significant, and is not characterized fairly when you describe that "half the people voted against"... that's just lawyer-talk ;). In a 2-party system, yes this is significant. However, in a 3 or 4-party system, there will almost always be more than half of the people voting against any of the options.

Out of 4 options, the fact that option 1 has 50% of the votes is entirely significant, and in my mind is the closest we're going to get to concensus, unless you truly believe that re-drafting yet another option will get more than 50% of the vote. Of course, that would require us to take all the progress from this RfC and start from scratch, and I don't think people want to go through all of this yet again. No further questions, your honor. --kizzle 17:52, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think you would pass the LSAT's with flying colors as that is a good argument you present. However, since I see versions 3 and 4 to be almost the same on my undesireableness list, I almost group them together anyway. But then again, without getting James upset and starting another argument, I think there is a significant majority for version 1.5....twice that on either of the other two options....so what I would like to see now is an example from James of a lead in paragraph to link up the daughter article...that I can live with (I have to live with it, because I'm not going to edit it out)...personally, I like the redirect we have now, but I know that James wants to talk about the quacks...--MONGO 18:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Resume Rfc

Please see Archive 26 for complete RfC text

Since there apears to be a short respite from the trolls and sockpuppets venturing here...let us now resume the Rfc on drug and alcohol abuse. I appears that the majority wish to see some sort of a version one with a link to the daughter article. Why don't we recheck the tally in the Rfc at top, have Kizzle redo his summary to ensure it's correct and see if we can't achieve some sort of fully agreed conclusion on this matter.--MONGO 18:22, July 19, 2005 (UTC) Tally as I see it:

Version #1 no link: 2
Version #1 yes to link: 12
Version #1 plus hatfield maybe: 1
Version #1 plus hatfield definitely: 2
Version #3: 7
Version #3 or #4: 2
Version #4: 4

--MONGO 18:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think Version #1 with a link would be fine too (Doesn't seem helpful to put my name up top anymore), with one slight change. What is the purpose of mentioning the fact that he didn't join Alcoholics Anonymous? Wouldn't just saying that he stopped drinking be enough? Should we make it a habit of putting things people didn't do into their articles? --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that version one mentions that he didn't or did join AA, but the daughter article might...not sure.--MONGO 18:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right...it does say that...your point is valid as it suggests that Bush definitely DID have a big problem with alcoholism, and even though there is some circumstantial evidence to support that, it isn't clear whether he did or didn't have a substantial alcohol problem.--MONGO 19:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...James never answered my above response to his argument that the majority of voters voted against proposal 1. Lets see what he has to say in response. I think you've summarized my summary pretty well, except I think its 12 instead of 14 people for V1.5. James, buddy, I say this with all the respect in the world for you, but I think the concensus is against your proposal. Even still, I wouldn't mind if you have slight changes or nuances to V1.5 you wish to add. --kizzle 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Where are these different versions, and where can I cast my vote? If I'm too late to the party, that's OK. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 19:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's at the top of this page...but after reviewing the options, how about just add your thoughts down here...thanks.--MONGO 19:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Or you can find the updated version here. --kizzle 19:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'd vote for Version 1 with a link to the daughter article but without the AA reference, per Lord Voldemort's comments above. —Cleared as filed. 20:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

In response to kizzle's comment, I did indeed answer his suggestion. My answer is already a few hundred edits ago, though! There's no consensus for Version 1 because nearly half the people oppose it. I gave my analysis of the responses in this edit. More generally, I agree that we need to do something to wrap this up. It's going to have to be a compromise, with more information than the Version 1 supporters want but less than the rest of us want.

Here's one suggestion: It seems that quoting and/or naming van Wormer and Frank caught the most flak. By contrast, a couple of Version 1 voters mentioned including Hatfield. On that basis, we could: (1) not include the quotations about Bush's addictive thinking pattern and megalomaniac tendencies; (2) not even include the names of these two critics in the text; (3) not include the reference to Alcoholics Anonymous, which I think was added originally because it supported van Wormer's contention that Bush hadn't really treated his alcoholism; (4) substitute one sentence that encompasses both sides of the dispute without giving any detail, something like "Psychiatrists have argued about whether he currently shows alcohol-related traits."; (5) not include the second link to the daughter article; and (6) include Bush's denial of Hatfield's charge, but with no other reference to Hatfield's charge. Here's a draft proposal:

Substance abuse controversy

Bush has described his days before his religious conversion as his "nomadic" period and "irresponsible youth" and admitted to drinking "too much" in those years. He says that he gave up drinking for good shortly after waking up with a hangover after his 40th birthday celebration: "I quit drinking in 1986 and haven't had a drop since then." He ascribed the change in part to a 1985 meeting with The Rev. Billy Graham. [42], [43], [44] Psychiatrists have argued about whether he currently shows alcohol-related traits.

Bush has said that he did not use illegal drugs at any time since 1974. [45] He has denied the allegation (Hatfield, 1999) that family influence was used to expunge the record of an arrest for cocaine possession in 1972, but has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. [46]

In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.” When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." [47], [48]

[end proposal]

This suggestion is even less informative than what we had at the end of the previous round of discussion (late May). I don't like it. I'm sure MONGO won't like it. I'm sure most of the people who responded to the RfC won't like it, for opposite reasons. But I also don't like having this drag on and having the article saddled with the NPOV tag. Can we take this, call it Version 1.5 if you like, and be done with it? JamesMLane 08:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

If you select one single version, this version 1.5 has the others beat 2 to 1...you're assuming that folks that want version 3 would want version 4 but I don't see that as the case....I do see that folks that would prefer version 4 would reluctantly agree to version 3 though....if you want my final word, I say it should not be under it's own heading...insert it into the body of the text under the personal stuff, right after the discussion of his DUI arrest in Maine....then that will be the final word on that section, at least from me...but it certainly doesn't qualify the article in terms of being able to eliminate the neutrality tag, as some of the article is riddled with POV.--MONGO 17:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I archived most of the RfC stuff. Hopefully i wasn't wrong in doing so. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

James, are you sure you answered my comment? --kizzle 22:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)