Jump to content

Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Battle of the Intro - Aug 4

The first section of this article must state that this is a minority-led movement. This is not a mainstream topic. Please use the 9/11 conspiracy page as a reference for this page. The terms "some people..." (etc.) need to be used. This article is not legitimate when the writing does not qualify the people (or lack thereof) in this movement.

I stumbled across this page randomly — I'm glad I did. This page needs to become more neutral. Timneu22 19:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

According to public opinion polls, the movement could be construed as just-barely minority or just-barely majority...68.45.171.156 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I assume by "minority-led" you don't mean to suggest that the Republican party is behind it! Seriously, though, I think your comparison to the 9/11 conspiracy theory reveals a considerable misapprehension of the magnitude of popular sentiment in favor of impeachment. You asked for citations supporting the poll figures: a separate section of this article is devoted to that topic, including cites, which you can easily confirm. While I wasn't being serious about the "Republican conspiracy" to impeach, I hope you appreciate the point - the insertion of "minority" is either trivial, or it disguises a speculative judgment as relevant fact. Of course the "actions and commentary" by people on any subject represents a minority, since most people have not acted or commented at all, so in that sense the meaning is trivial. Of those who have acted or commented, have the majority opposed impeachment? Perhaps, but it would be misleading to assert as factual, and this really isn't the central issue. The movement to impeach George W. Bush includes such actions and commentary, but more broadly, it refers to a general public sentiment, which may be inferred, but can hardly be asserted as a quantifiable fact. The verifiable facts, duly summarized in this introduction, could be paraphrased "polls tend to indicate that more than a quarter and fewer than half currently advocate impeachment". However, there is no justification for simply inserting the unqualified word "minority" as you have done. - JCLately 21:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I generally do not agree with using adjectives in wikipedia. And this would be an adjective. --Blue Tie 22:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. - JCLately 22:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, this is not an ongoing news story or something that is being covered. I'm an independent and quite neutral on the whole American political system... there just really isn't an important movement for his impeachment. This article is quite unbalanced. It is giving life to something that doesn't really exist. You gung-ho editors are clearly from the left. I'm trying to keep this article neutral. If someone clicks "random article" to get here — as I did — they'll read this and say, really? There's a movement to impeach him?. This was my reaction, too. It's just not a mainstream reality. Timneu22 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article is unbalanced in a variety of ways. I also think it is not a very good article for an encyclopedia. At best, it is incorrectly titled. But it is popular now, to imagine that somehow this might happen. In a couple of years, Bush will be out of office in the normal course of events. and this article will look silly. Meanwhile it could certainly be less pov. Among other things its way too long... violation of WP:FIVE and WP:NOT. --Blue Tie 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps there's a small movement! Look what was found in the The Washington Post today... a liberal journalist who basically calls the movement a worthless joke. It's nice to have references. Timneu22 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I presume you intended to refer to the opinion piece The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make by Michael Tomasky. I don't think you summarized his point by stating that he "basically calls the movement a worthless joke". In constrast, he seems to fear it, writing that politically "Impeachment is not merely a bad idea, but the single worst course of action that Democrats could possibly undertake". Terjen 23:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
In any case, it's worth having something resembling neutrality in multiple places in the article, instead of hiding this information in one little section. Timneu22 00:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The first subsection in the entry leads with Pelosi's position against impeachment. Terjen 05:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the movement itself has been called The Dumbest Move the Dems Could Make by liberal journalist Michael Tomasky. This is not sufficiently notable to mention in the intro. Terjen 05:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You just beat me to it. I was making the same edit myself when the text disappeared under my feet. Neutrality is not achieved by piling on an equal measure of opposing POV, without regard to notability. A better way to assure the fairness and neutrality of the intro is to stick to relevant facts, presented without extra spin. - JCLately 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Terjen, I see that you also beat me to another edit - removing the re-inserted "minority" in the first sentence - thank you. Timneu22 - I hope you can see that we are trying to be fair and balanced about this: the numbers speak for themselves. I gave you a cogent argument why that adjective (in this case a noun used as an adjective) was not called for in this context. Your justification based on poll figures misses the point. Please read my previous comments carefully. The way you inserted the word comes off as unnecessary spin - or "counter-spin". - JCLately 06:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutlely not being fair and balanced. My last edit to this awful article will be to re-insert "minority" into the header. You're not thinking about the first-time reader. Someone who logs in from India for the first time and cruises to this article may read the intro and think, "wow, they're impeaching Bush!" No they aren't. There is simply a minority that thinks it should happen. I will NOT edit this again, so long as "minority" stays in the intro. Timneu22 10:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The intro already explicitely states that the House of Representatives has taken no action to impeach Bush. Besides, including "minority" in the lead does not make this any clearer. I will remove the term myself if reinserted, and consider it a bonus that you may stick around and perhaps provide valueable contributions to the article as you get more familiar with the subject. Terjen 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the Impeach bush page

It is very neutral. Just the facts. I wonder why people are uncomfortable with the truth?

Robert

Whether it is neutral or not (it is not), is irrelevant to whether it should stay. It is simply unencyclopedic and it details something that does not exist -- in essence it is a lie. --Blue Tie 11:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
For whatever reason there are numerous articles detailing non-existent entities, i.e. Valhalla, Ragnarök, Satan. Please advise as to why we should have those.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not a reasonable argument. Mythology is a basis of literature, culture and religion. An article that is, in essence, a lie, does not compare. --Blue Tie 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Robert, it's fairly common knowledge that conservative republicans not only do not like being told the truth, but in fact have a lot of contempt for those who tell it, as is illustrated here. Brotherchristian 11:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I just lurk mostly do to my feelings about this subject but just wanted to say something. I know three times this has come up for deletion and it has failed. But keep in mind; even if people wanted to impeach him, and yes many do including me, there is not enough time in his term to accomplish this. I think this article is very not encyclopedic and serves no just cause other than Bush bashing. I can't believe I said that! But it's true. If there comes a time for any kind of action against him, then maybe something like this might be appropriate. Of course, this is just my opinion. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Crohnie, to my knowledge there's nobody here who actually believes the impeachment will happen-- I certainly don't because for one there's not nearly enough congressional votes to remove him from office even if he were impeached, and like you stated, there's not enough time. Many believe it would be political suicide - I certainly see the rationale, not sure if I agree or not. The question is, "Is there enough sentiment for impeachment to make it worth mentioning," and I believe there certainly is. Actions within the government and private sectors prove that, and the very mention of the word by several congressmen cement it further. An earlier poster stated that a stranger from India would read this and say "They're impeaching bush" - I don't think they would or should think that from reading this page. They should conclude "Wow, a *LOT* of Americans want to impeach Bush, and are trying to impeach Bush" a statement which is both true and very noteworthy for present and future generations. Brotherchristian 21:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
O.K. I'm really confused here. Several months ago we had a discussion over whether to keep or delete the page. As you can see from looking at it, there was roughly a 2 to 1 consensus to delete the page. So why is it still here? I'm still mostly a lurker, but I didn't know that something else was required. Hadoren 05:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The article was not tagged during that debate. All 3 debates in which it was tagged yielded results remarkably in favor of "Keep."
People, don't be silly. If the article needs work lets clean it up. But this argument "The movement doesn't exist" is just... well, silly. Brotherchristian 13:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no movement to impeach Bush. The article should actually be deleted because it is unencyclopedic. But if kept it should be renamed. --Blue Tie 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we know Blue. What a compelling argument. Just a few dozen lefty nut-jobs in Vermont, right? You forgot to use either "Tripe" or "Cruft" in that post. Brotherchristian 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
No, did not forget. They just were not relevant to the issue under discussion. --Blue Tie 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It shall be renamed "The movement to give Blu tie something to do at night"Eonblu 02:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no logical rationale to remove the page. Some of us (ahem) are simply wrapping their point of view in the disguise of "improving Wikipedia quality." There's no way you can read the article and concede that the reports therein are true-- And again if there are any lies, half-truths or exhaggerations lets fix them-- and conclude that a movement doesn't exist. Perhaps we can split hairs and argue that it's not a movement by definition, but that's as far as a logical argument can possibly take you.
No, what we have here folks is, at best, a case of willful ignorance. But I don't believe that its even that. More likely it's people who so firmly believe that Bush doesn't deserve to be impeached that they'll say anything to get the article deleted. If you read from the top you'll see one argument for deletion after another absolutely dismantled, then a new, unrelated, but equally silly rationale emerges. This will continue for eternity until posters are threatening to throw bubbly-gum in your hair if it's not deleted. But as for the posters themselves- The more intelligent among them must realize how ridiculous they sound arguing that a movement (or something like it) doesn't exist. Brotherchristian 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is logical rationale to remove the page. But this is not about logic as you demonstrate -- for you it is emotional. Look at how you attack others rather than focus on the page content. That is emotion. This page is too long on a topic that does not really exist. There is no movement to impeach Bush. There is at best a bunch of folks who want there to be a movement to impeach Bush. But that is not the same as there actually being one. --Blue Tie 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Generally when someone wants something to remain the same (in this case me), the avenue is to refute the arguments of those who want it to change. "The article's content is evidence of a movement. The article consists of true facts. The movement, or whatever we choose to call it, is significant and notable." What more can be said on a "Keep the article" platform? It would be moot for me to attempt to explain why a movement exists because all I'd be doing is reitterating the article's content. Brotherchristian 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is evidence of a movement... but not a movement to impeach. I have never argued that there was no movement. There just is no movement to impeach. A movement to protest maybe. And ... It is not particularly significant or notable. Its cruft. --Blue Tie 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok this is my take, this article should now be put up for deletion to get a larger group of opinions. The last AFD (there where three times) was to keep but here are the dates when this happened. Keep, AfD 31 July 2005. Keep, AfD 12 May 2006. Keep, AfD 19 October 2006. As can be seen this was done last year. Maybe a new speedy delete should be attempted to see what the thought is about this article now. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
OK with me. I doubt the results will be any different, but if they are, the majority speaks and I go quietly into the night. Unfortunately I worry that if it ever is removed it will be for all the wrong reasons. Brotherchristian 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe it should be put up for deletion yet. I have said that repeatedly. I have said it should be deleted, but that because it is popular, it will not be. So we must wait a few years when it will be so obviously silly. It will look like a rainbow Afro Wig in a couple of years -- very silly -- because there is no movement to impeach and there isn't even much of a movement to create a movement to impeach. This is a non-player. Non-encyclopedic. But it is exactly the sort of thing that youthful, liberal, cruft loving wikipedians want to see. --Blue Tie 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
BrotherChristian, you stated that "The article was not tagged during that debate. All 3 debates in which it was tagged yielded results remarkably in favor of 'Keep.' " Now, I'm not sure if you and I are looking at the same link here. The link I posted (here) says Category:Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Also, the conclusion was reached that "The result of the debate was delete. Just because there are several people who wish to impeach them does not mean they are "grouped" as a movement. In fact most of those people are unrelated. >Radiant< 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)" There was definitely consensus (11 to 5) to delete the article. Edit: Sorry, I made a mistake; I thought that the title Category wasn't part of the article being discussed. Hadoren 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I can follow that logic to a point, but I guess the question is, who decides what is encyclopedic or not, and what is the procedure? The only benchmark I can think of is "Would this be appropriate for a tradional, paper encyclopedia?" The answer to which is no, it wouldn't -- A category that probably half or more of the articles on Wiki fall into. You must remember that Wiki is not bound by the constraints of a traditional encyclopedia. It can be browsed at will, extra articles do not impede users from finding the information they seek, and the storage space is infinate for all intents and purposes. You must also remember that Wiki is more than an encyclopedia, it's a current events venue as well. The paper encyclopedias of coming generations will not have an article titled "Movement to impeach George W. Bush", but a good deal of the information in this article will be present in "George W. Bush," perhaps under a heading of "Calls for impeachment." This article is more or less a collaboration of links to related information. A paper encyclopedia lacks the luxury of having such a page. Just the same, Impeachpac.org, Feingold, Feinstein, Hagel, the respective polls, etc will all have pages in future encyclopedias, and the majority of the information here will be present, just in a different, less convenient form.
Would it be safe to say, Blue, that a super-streamlined sub-section of "George W. Bush" called "Calls for impeachment," which catalogued super-brief summaries of the information of this page and links to respective pages, would not offend you? If the answer is no, it wouldn't offend you, then why does this page offend you? Brotherchristian 16:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is definitely not a paper encyclopedia. Among other things, this means that it can be more up to date about things. And I agree that many many articles in wikipedia are cruft, although I must bend to the sense that even cruft sometimes has such a wide following that it deserves at least some mention. You hit the nail on the head when you said this article will not exist. You also hit the nail on the head when you said that "it is a collection of links to related information". Which is what wikipedia is NOT supposed to be per WP:NOT. I would say that Bush's article ought to include a section on opposition and that should describe some of the comments or interests in impeachment. That would not offend me. The reason this page offends me is because it is crufty, I think it is misleading, I think it is too long and I think it should be part of the Bush article, not a separate gigantic piece. In essence, it offends me because it is a "popular culture" type of article -- and I hate almost all of those, but this one also impinges on politics in a pov way. So that is my problem with it.--Blue Tie 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You may have missed the jist of my argument there. While I do concede that there will be no article titled "Movement to impeach George W. Bush" in future encyclopedias, my point was that despite that fact, it can still be appropriate for Wiki. There are thousands of Wiki articles that fall into this category, usually under a Main article/Sub article format- It's nothing more than separating specific topics within one category to make them easier to access. A paper encyclopedia does not have the luxury of being organized in this fashion because there's a finite amount of storage space and the "sub-article" is not a click away - It must be looked up separately.
Anyway, if I'm understanding you properly, I gather that 1. You do concede that the article is factual, and 2. The facts are not exhaggerated or half-truths, however, you feel that 1. The article itself is presented in a way that exhaggerates the gravity of the movement (or whatever), and 2. The "Movement" is not a "Movement to impeach" by definition. Are those the only two things?
If so, would it be agreeable to everyone if the article was renamed "Calls for Impeachment of George W. Bush" and made a sub-article of George W. Bush, with a "Calls for Impeachment" section in the dubya page with a link to the calls for impeachment article, and a streamlined (say, 15 lines or less) version on the dubya page, with "Movement to Impeach George W. Bush" redirecting to to the calls for impeachment page? That'd be fine with me. Brotherchristian 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I would not say that I concede the article is factual. More correctly, I have not questioned the factual nature of the information presented. I think that some of the facts may be exaggerated or half truths. But I have not examined that either and have not bothered to question them, though sometimes I have read them and said "thats messed up". I do not say that the article is presented in a way that exaggerates the movement or whatever.. I would say that the article itself is an exaggeration of the movement or whatever. An exaggeration in that there is no Movement to Impeach. I think this deserves a few sentences in the Bush article -- relating to opposition to the Bush Presidency, but probably not more than a paragraph. On the other hand, this article is now larger than articles on Hitler, Jesus, The Koran, China, Abraham Lincoln or the article on George W. Bush himself. This confirms that this article is fancruft -- which I hate. Look at how many justifications for edits on this page or for keeping the page are essentially "I hope that happens so the page needs to stay" as though adulterating the quality of wikipedia will save the world. (It actually hurts). And note, that the very first sentence is original research. But this is the foundation of the article. So I do not like this article for all kinds of reasons. --Blue Tie 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Larouche?

Why are we quoting Lyndon Larouche, as though he is some sort of respectible pundit? 17:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No original research was required to discover the movement to impeach Bush

Blue Tie: I object to your persistent defacement of the lead sentence of this article on the basis of your opinion that a "movement" to impeach Bush does not exist, according to your personal definition. Having failed to persuasively argue that there are insufficient references, you switch to the ploy of claiming that it constitutes "original research", or some other contrived objection. This is not a factual dispute, but a semantic one: I don't see how the question of whether or not something qualifies as a "movement" in the sense of political movement is a matter of "research", original or otherwise. In the face of numerous legitimate references alluding to the movement to impeach Bush, for example those cited by Terjen in the previous discussion, Documentable proof that there is a Movement to Impeach Bush, and none disputing the very existence of such a movement, I see no justification for prominently elevating your bizarre personal opinion on this matter. If you can find a credible reference supporting your contention that a movement to impeach Bush doesn't even exist, not simply that it is weak, unwise, or unlikely to succeed, feel free to cite it in the Criticisms section. However, I doubt that many would consider such an obscure, hair-splitting, semantic debate to have the slightest significance. This preposterous line of argument is entirely unworthy of sullying the article's introduction. - JCLately 04:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you object. We evidently have a disagreement about what constitutes defacement. I am not making any changes to the article based upon my view that a "movement" to impeach Bush does not exist. That is not the issue as I have said several times. And I am not claiming that the existence of a movement is original research. What I am claiming is original research is what the movement is composed of. The opening sentence says the movement is _________. That's fine. I have no problem with that if it can be cited. But if it cannot be cited it is Original Research. This has NOTHING to do with an objection that it does not exist, so please do not refer to that. Instead, focus on the real issue: There is no source for the definition of the "movement". And as a fellow editor, it is entirely appropriate for me to request a citation. This is appropriate per wikipedia's policies on NPOV and Verifiability (which is in support of NPOV). And I do not particularly have a preference for which tag is used: OR or Fact but one of them belongs. I actually prefer Fact to OR.
Here are the policy guidelines that I am referring to:
  • Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. ... Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. -- WP:NPOV
  • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. --WP:VER
  • The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. ...Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{Tl|Fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{Refimprove|date=April 2008}} or {{Unreferenced|date=April 2008}}. -- WP:PROVEIT (You will note that is what I am trying to do)
  • Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses -- WP:NOR IN A NUTSHELL
  • Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position ... Compliance with our Verifiability Policy and our cite sources guideline is the best way to ensure that you do not violate our NOR policy. In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article; the only way to demonstrate that you are not inserting your own POV is to represent these sources and the views they reflect accurately. ... any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication. --WP:NOR
  • An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: * It defines new terms; * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; -- WP:NOR
You may consider it evil of me to want to exercise the wikipedia standards in wikipedia articles, but I think it is a good thing to do. Everyone is different. So we have a difference of opinion on this. And notice, I am not changing the article. I am only asking, in good faith, for validation of the definition given here of what the "movement" consists of. A reliable source for that definition. And the burden of proof is on those who propose it. There is nothing wrong with challenging an unsourced statement that relies upon synthesis for its validity. --Blue Tie 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
One of the things that impresses me about Wikipedia is the amount of thought that went into crafting its policies and guidelines, which are clear and reasonable, while leaving room for editorial discretion and common sense. There is no need for an immediate reference to support the obvious fact that the movement exists as described, especially since this statement is swiftly expanded into a chain of further elaboration and hundreds of supporting references, any one of which would satisfy your request for a citation. There is no cite on the first sentence, because it's not needed, not because of a shortage of references. Offhand, I don't see any single reference that perfectly suits this statement, nor do I see a need for one - at this point. The reader will not find this article wanting for lack of references.
As you are well aware, Wikipedia is based on reaching concensus, yet you have persisted in repeatedly making the same edits that have been shot down multiple times by a number of editors. You're not just in the minority, you are a minority of one. We are advised to assume good faith, but I find it increasingly difficult to explain your behavior as anything but deliberate disruption that serves no constructive purpose. - JCLately 05:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules are not always that great. But they are what they are. I accept them. The policy on NPOV is unambiguous in its pervasiveness and its primacy. It is absolute. No exceptions. All articles. All editors. All subjects. The way to be NPOV is to provide verifiability. Through Reliable Sources. This is very clear. This article does not do that and I think that this is a problem -- a fundamental problem with the article. Notice that in your reply, once again, you do not address the issue. You seem stuck on the idea that the existence of a movement needs a reference. THAT is not the issue. It is the definition. What do I mean by that? Well, the "Movement to Impeach George Bush" might possibly be:
1. A coalition effort by anti-war veterans groups using Facebook.com to seek the impeachment of George Bush on a nationwide basis. (This is actually citable.)
2. A political effort by various Vermont towns to vote for impeachment and seek to have these votes influence the House of Representatives to impeach Bush. (I think that could almost be cited.)
3. A motion or motions made in the House of Representatives (this could be cited but it would mean the article had no purpose if this were the movement.)
4. An alternative Rock/Hip Hop Band, briefly in existence from February to April 2007.
5. A phrased used by bloggers, activists and some press to describe efforts opposing Bush by seeking his impeachment. (To me this is synthesis but perhaps it could be supported).
6. Statements and actions supporting the removal of Bush from Office by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
Which of these is the right definition for the phrase? Like you, I might claim it to be any one of these things. But simply claiming it is not enough. That is how the policy works. Original Research in particular, contemplates the "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position", and that could definitely be a factor here. I believe other editors have mentioned it previously. You are simply waving your hand and saying "We do not need to follow policy for citing" -- because you just do not want to. The article has been and is tagged for neutrality issues. This is one way to take care of neutrality problems.
You also claim that the term is "obvious". I say it is only obvious by SYNTHESIS of ideas -- which is defined as Original Research. Looking at it from your perspective you are, I think, making the argument that it is reasonable to make some assumptions and justs pass over them without discussion. Here is wikipedia guidance on that: "there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. --WP:NPOVFAQ But the assumption you are making is not discussed on any other page. It is right here. So it needs to be dealt with, particularly if it is challenged or likely to be challenged. And this page has been challenged quite a bit. Wikipedia guidelines also say: "Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, still your view is just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held." --WP:NPOVT I read that to say "Do not be so quick to suppose that because you do not agree with me, that I am wrong." The best way to fix the problem I have identified is to provide a cite of the definition from a Reliable Source.
So, you claim that citation is not needed but the policy is very clear. You must absolutely WP:PROVEIT. If this is very easy to do, then why not do it. I personally have tried to find a reference and cannot. But it is not up to me to find it anyway, because I am not asserting the definition. (I am also not removing it, just seeking a citation from a reliable source).
And you are right, wikipedia runs by consensus. But that does not mean Majority Rules. Nor does it mean that NPOV can be overrun by some agreement among editors to do away with it. I have not made changes to the text of the article. I am simply making the appropriate observation that it is uncited. So, as long as I am not changing the text but (recognizing a flaw and) putting an inline request for a citation, per wikipedia policies (which have also been established by consensus) does not, in my mind, violate consensus . If you do not agree, that is fine with me, but it just means we disagree. I can accept that. And really, I have only seen two objections to my request for a cite. So, to me that does not seem like a huge bunch of folks saying "We can suspend wikipedia rules and standards of NPOV and Verifiability for this article". --Blue Tie 12:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead is weak, but at least neutral

The current lead sentence is "The movement to impeach George W. Bush is a political movement advocating the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush."

I am not against this sentence but I consider it to be so simple it is redundant [i.e. "The Movement to impeach George W. Bush is a (political) movement to (seek the) impeach(ment of) George Bush"]. It is "self defining" and in at least that regard, it is neutral. But self definition is really weak. That underscores and highlights the inadequacy of this subject as an encyclopedia article. It really should just be a 2-3 sentence paragraph in the Bush article saying "During his presidency he faced opposition, including people who wanted to see him impeached". --Blue Tie 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lead sentence states the obvious and little more. That's why I previously added the seemingly innocuous "loosely organized", but you then contested this qualification with your mis-quoted Dean reference. Dean didn't say the movement was "highly organized", he said it was "well organized", which I don't regard as particularly notable or contradictory to "loosely organized". That the movement is loosely organized doesn't strike me as a controversial judgment. It also doesn't seem like a point easily cited or worthy of citing - it's pretty obvious, but still adds a shred of additional information to the lackluster first sentence. If someone is going to demand a cite for this minor addition, I'd rather just omit it than besmirch the lead sentence with an obnoxious ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] request. - JCLately 17:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it is organized in any way -- loosely or rigorously, we ought to find a cite that says so -- otherwise it is OR. I made a mistake in misquoting Dean. Sorry! You could have corrected it to "well organized". I take no issue with the current sentence either. Its fine. But it highlights the problem with this article. It is an article that is approximately like "People who want speed limits increased". And the lead could be: "People who want speed limits increased are people who express a desire to have speed limits increased". OK, its dumb. But some people might just have an axe to grind about speed limits and so they want to see it in wikipedia. --Blue Tie 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you have painted yourself into a corner with your overly dogmatic interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines, leaving insufficient room for common sense and editorial discretion. Is there really any controversy that the movement is "loosely organized"? I don't read Dean's statement as contradicting this, and I doubt you could find a credible reference on this hypothetical "highly organized" conspiracy. There are plenty of references that support the contention that the movement is loosely organized, but mainly by implication and not necessarily in so many words. It is not reasonable to demand that every single word in a Wikipedia article be cited, or it would become rather tedious, don't you think? Think about it - what reference could possibly be expected to substantiate the claim that a movement is loosely organized? Because someone says so? But if it's loosely organized, no one can speak for the movement as a whole, by definition. Yet it is obvious and non-controversial to make this observation. So I would prefer to add "loosely organized" and leave it at that, without a ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed] unless someone produces some obscure but credible reference to the contrary, in which case I would simply amend the qualification to "is generally regarded as loosely organized". Lacking any such contradictory reference, I think it would be best simply to assert the widely agreed-upon fact, which is not the least bit controversial. - JCLately 19:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think I am in any corner. If there is no controversy that the movement is loosely organized you can find a cite for it. Otherwise that is original research. I personally believe that the term "loosely organized" is pov and is a matter of opinion. I read Dean's statement as opposite to "loosely" organized. But if we just quote people, we do not have to interpret. We can just let the reader decide. Whether it is tedious or not, it is wikipedia's standard that things which are contested must be cited. I would not necessarily expect there to be a cite that credibly describes something as "loosely organized" because that is more of an opinion than a verifiable fact, but I have seen stranger things out of "Reliable Sources" so it is possible. In any case, it is exactly wrong for wikipedia to invent this description. If you put in the reference to "loosely organized" I will want to see a cite. This is not unreasonable. If this article is about something then that something should be well cited. Otherwise, I will prefer the cited opinion of Dean -- that it is -- in his opinion -- "well organized". But it should be credited as his opinion not as an objective fact. --Blue Tie 20:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You complain that the lead sentence is lacking in informational content, yet it is your own contrived objections that stand in the way of offering the reader a morsel of additional information. "Well organized" is not the opposite of "loosely organized": "tightly organized" or "centrally organized" would be, but that's not what Dean says. A tightly organized movement is not necessarily well organized, and a loosely organized movement might be well organized, in some piecemeal fashion. In any case, it's clear that "well organized" is a value judgment, whereas "loosely" or "tightly" organized is more genuinely descriptive. Many of Dean's comments are noteworthy, but his opinion that the movement is well organized is not a central point of the reference in question, nor does he offer anything to back up that statement, so I would object to the attachment of this controversial description to the lead sentence, with or without the reference.
It does not follow that there must exist a suitable cite for something to be true and clearly evident, when the something in question is an absence - in this case the absence of a tight, centralized organization. If such an organization existed, we would have heard about it: after all, political movements don't try to keep themselves secret. Here is a somewhat random reference that specifically uses the phrase "loosely organized": [1], if that makes you happy. I don't think it merits citing in this context, because the point in question is not sufficiently significant or controversial to warrant an explicit cite. It would look a bit silly to attach this as a footnote to the lead sentence, and I just don't think it's necessary. If you aren't satisfied with my reasoning, I'm content to leave the lead sentence in its present, mildly anemic form. - JCLately 00:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead is lacking informational content, but that is just the way it has to be. As I said, it is part of the problem with the article. I accept that. Whether well organized is an opposite or not, is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it is reasonably "opposite". It is ok with me if you disagree, but either way, that is an opinion. I also think that "loosely organized" is a value judgment as well, requiring a citation. I do not mind if we do not quote Dean.
It may not follow that there must exist a suitable cite from a logical standpoint but it does follow from the rules of wikipedia. As wikipedia says, it is not about Truth it is about Verifiability. I do not mind if you want to use the cite regarding the nannies as a loosely organized group, but if you do, then this article should be about the grannies and not about the movement to impeach bush, unless they are exactly the same thing.
I too am content to leave the lead in its anemic form -- though I do not claim it is mildly anemic. I would even suggest that there is no need for a defining statement if the article were titled "Calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush" or something like that. It is only the sense of "movement" that suggest a definition ought to be provided. --Blue Tie 01:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Very funny, except that I'm not so sure you're kidding: we don't need to go down that route again! No number of such specific references could ever satisfy you, despite their cumulative weight and lack of contradiction. As I see it, you've defined an unreasonable requirement based on your warped conception of Wikipedia guidelines. Fortunately, we've managed to settle on a mutually acceptable, if not ideal result. Of course, I completely reject your analysis, and you, no doubt, will insist upon having the last word. - JCLately 06:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
While I do not agree that my perceptions are warped, I am, of course, biased in my favor. But it appears that I offended you. I apologize for that. --Blue Tie 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What will happen to this article?

It's not long before Bush is no longer the president, so what will happen to this article if he is not impeach by then? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Presuming no impeachment occurs, the article will chronicle a historic movement that did not achieve its goals, just like Blaine Amendment chronicles a failed attempt to amend the Constitution. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What?

No article on the movement to impeach Bill Clinton? Congress never has voted on even impeaching Bush, but they voted on impeaching Clinton. Major POV on behalf of wikipedia. Carbon Monoxide 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a false accusation. There is an article on the Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Terjen 03:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the NORTH AMERICAN UNION??

I am surprised that the most important reason for impeachment is not even mentioned here. George Bush has BETRAYED HIS PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF OFFICE. He is betraying the sovereignty of our nation by his clandestine meetings with both Canada and Mexico with the intent to dissolve our national borders and establish a NORTH AMERICAN UNION which would engulf the United States and obliterate our sovereignty as an independent nation.

Too few of the plans already in place to build a "superhighway" across our nation which would expedite transportation of goods and persons from other countries - without proper security measures - or the fact that Bush, and others in power, visualize a merging of all North America in a manner to replicate the European Union (complete with an "Amero" dollar). For more info see youtube.

All other reasons proposed for impeachment are debatable, often motivated by partisanship. However, the very dissolution of our country and its subsequent subjugation to the laws of other nations should be our primary reason for impeachment. Furthermore, we should be finding means to QUESTION ALL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AND THEIR PARTIES ON THIS SUBJECT before the next presidential election and the possibility that this threat may be perpetuated by the next administration! KCMax 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

president is gay and a dushe bag —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbonnett (talk • contribs) 16:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Two of the magazine covers are up for deletion

Two of the three covers are up for deletion now. All three were up for deletion but I removed one.

You can remove the deletion tag by simply:

  1. clicking on the image and then clicking "edit page"
  2. then remove the warning from the image description itself.

I removed the book tag because the reason given for the deletion is:

Image of magazine cover used in article that the magazine is not the subject of..

The book image clearly is the subject of this article. The magazine images may fail the draconian wikipeidia fair use rules. If anyone cares to remove these warnings, you need to post a reason. I have no desire to get into a fair use argument.

Travb (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheney is a separate issue.

I noticed that information about the Kucinich impeachment resolutions has been added, but the article fails to mention that they are directed at Dick Cheney. This effort to impeach Cheney is distinct from any movement aimed at Bush (even if the reasons are said to be the same). This needs to be made clear in the article (or removed from the article). Cheers! bd2412 T 05:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:Be Bold 99.9% of all recommendations on talk pages are ignored. Travb (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you don't know who you are talking to. Prodego talk 02:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've sort of downshifted into a mode of nudging others to do for themselves as much as possible before I do for them. I think it raises people's involvement. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no particular preference as to how it is addressed. Just raising the issue so that those more involved in the page can make a decision. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The efforts to impeach Cheney is linked to the hip with the efforts to impeach Bush, so I am comfortable with including Cheney in the entry.Terjen (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this explained in the article? bd2412 T 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

International Community?

The intro to this article sites that many members of the American public support the impeachment of Bush and also states that the international community has feelings on the subject of impeachment.

The importance of what the international community opines is useless when we are talking about the removal of an AMERICAN president by the AMERICAN VOTERS. I request that we review the importance of even entertaining the international communities' ideas about an issue that is totally AMERICAN.

Thanks

RRM MBA (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


POV again

This acticle is so full of POV it looks like a liberal left wing site.

There is NO counter point to ANY of the supposed "charges" that would even warrant impeachment. By not providing counter points to each of the specific charges, then you are being biased. I would highly recommend that this entire article be wholesale deleted. Remember, President Bush's testimony for the 911 commision was NOT done under oath. VS Bill Clinton's Grand Jury testimony. So a Perjury clause does NOT pertain to President Bush. Also WMD WAS found in Iraq, just not anything made after the Iran/Iraq war. Did Pres. Bush specifically say WMD made after a certain day? NO. The FISA issue has its own problems, Pres. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush have ALL done things under this WITHOUT a warrant. Precident CAN be cited as a source of a legal ruling wich has been done many times in the past. Chefantwon 216.153.166.69 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to second this, even at a glance at the section detailing justifications re the War in Iraq, it is so rife with non-facts it displays the kind of POV garbage that has turned Wikipedia into a laughingstock to be used as legitimate reference in any politically influenced subject. If the case for prosecution for leaders lying to go to war must itself be comprised of half truths, distortions and outright lies, not only is that no case but perhaps the accusers need to be on trial. (this kind of thing also guarantees there will only be a "movement to" impeach page, and never "the impeachment of" page on Wiki. I stand by that belief 100%) The Joint Resolution is displayed currently on the white house website, you would think those citing "arguments" used for the war would be able to find the one document the government generated and controlled- not provide thirdhand media filtered spin recollected in the twisted memories of those with anti-war, anti-Bush agenda. A POV Wiki, is an ignored Wiki. Batvette (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

On June 9, 2008 Dennis Kucinich delivered 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush to the U.S. House of Representatives

After having stepped away from this article -surely we all remember the mess surrouding certain now blocked editors on this and related articles- I must say this should at least be a thumbs up to all those who tirelessly kept working to maintain the high quality of this article. After numerous frivolous AfD's this vindicates those who believe WP should be immune to ideology and merely adhere to WP:V. Those insisting impeachment was impossible, unwarranted and a radical left-wing partisan's fata morgana should at least acknowledge there indeed are grounds for impeachment, and claiming "there are none" is more violative of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP than alleging "there are." Too all I want to say: good job and stay cool in the coming days.:)Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush/Archive_12&oldid=1136691274"