User:JamesMLane/Bush RfC (draft)

On the RfC page
The RfC would begin with the addition of an entry on Requests for Comment reading:


 * Talk:George W. Bush - previous RfC drew little response; this time people from both sides have worked to create a section to give the background to RfC respondents, to make it easier for you to comment. 18:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The section below ("RfC: Presentation of substance abuse issues") is what would appear on Talk:George W. Bush. The RfC entry would link to this specific section on the talk page.

RfC: Presentation of substance abuse issues
This article has seen a long-running dispute about how to present information related to Bush&#8217;s use or nonuse of alcohol and drugs. Everyone agrees that Bush&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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. ,. In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: &#8220;I wouldn&#8217;t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don&#8217;t want some little kid doing what I tried.&#8221; When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." ,.

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. , ,

Some Bush critics have suggested that his public statements and actions reflect a "classic addictive thinking pattern" common among former alcoholics, and one psychiatrist (Frank, 2004) wrote a book describing him as "an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies." 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. 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. 

In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: &#8220;I wouldn&#8217;t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don&#8217;t want some little kid doing what I tried.&#8221; When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." ,

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&#8221; 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." , ,

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. 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&#8217;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. 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. .

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." 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." 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. 

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. He has declined to discuss whether he used drugs before 1974. 

In taped recordings of a conversation with an old friend, author Doug Wead, Bush said: &#8220;I wouldn&#8217;t answer the marijuana question. You know why? Because I don&#8217;t want some little kid doing what I tried.&#8221; When Wead reminded Bush that the latter had publicly denied using cocaine, Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." , 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. 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". 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". Hatfield committed suicide in 2001. 

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. ,

Snapshot of Version 4

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 [].

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: []

For Version 3
This version is based on some editors&#8217; 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 &#8216;controversial&#8217; section without leaving an adequate summary." (Article size). 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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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 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: Version 4 presents these assessments of Bush, along with the opposing points of view.
 * 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 .  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.

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&#8217;re fundamentally dissatisfied with all of them, you can pick &#8220;None of the above&#8221;, but please give us some idea of what you&#8217;d prefer.

Supporting Version 1

 * 1) --MONGO 02:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporting Version 2

 * 1) This one works for me. I took a look at the Bill Clinton's pre-Presidency scandals (see Bill_Clinton) 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)


 * 1) I too feel that this is the best option, largely for the reasons already given by NoSeptember. Version 3 is OK. V4 is far too long-winded a treatment of something which is not, in truth, all that important an issue in the big picture to merit inclusion in the main piece. V1 smells faintly of sabotage and suppression :D --jamesgibbon 14:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Supporting Version 4

 * 1) Neutralitytalk 03:46, Jun 16, 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.