Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 26

message: 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)
thread_title: Poll

message: :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)
thread_title: Supporting Version 1

message: #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)
thread_title: Supporting Version 2

message: #Xaliqen 02:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting Version 3

message: #Neutralitytalk 03:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
#JamesMLane 21:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Supporting Version 4

message: # Junes 09:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: None of the above

message: 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)
thread_title:  GWB substance abuse controversy subarticle now linked