Jump to content

Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Chronolgy

The public opinion section was changed to be chronological. I believe the most important points should go at the top. Reverse chronological would be better, though being recent does not necessarily make a point important.--RichardMathews 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've read the arguments above, and have removed the NPOV tag. The main argument seemed to be over the article's existence, not over the content. That argument was settled by the AfD. Any other issues can be fixed. Rich Farmbrough. 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What? I made plenty of arguments that have nothing to do with this article's existence, please read them again. Nathan J. Yoder 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag of 3/8/06

Dear anonymous user. Please discuss your reasons here and work toward improvements rather than tagging the article yet again and thus devaluing the considerable work of others on a controversial article.--164.106.227.118 21:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Oops, the computer logged me out, making me anonymous, too!--Beth Wellington 21:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See #title of__page Rich Farmbrough 22:31 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Original research

Although many factual assertions of this article are true (I assume), the synthesis of these facts into a "movement to impeach..." appears to be original research (which is prohibited - see WP:NOR). No sources are cited for the central claims of the article. Mirror Vax 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

titles of articles are often just place holders, not be taken literarly, the lead section clarifies what the article is about. --Stbalbach 05:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
There are a number of groups that are sincerely fighting for impeachment, and the article points to some of these at the end. These groups existed before the article was created. Several members of Congress have called for impeachment, most recently Sen. Kerry (last week). Rep. Conyers just introduced a resolution of censure and two resolutions for investigations that ask for consideration of articles of impeachment. An ImpeachPAC is collecting real money to support candidates who support impeachment. The movement is very real.
Unless a change is made to this discussion to immediately identify specific factual assertions that are not supported, I will remove the tag.--RichardMathews 06:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Original research is prohibited regardless of whether it is correct or not. So arguments that it is correct mean nothing. You must cite sources. Mirror Vax 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The original research claim is rediculous. Not only does the article cite sources, see the comments posted below showing a google search of a dozen or more organizations on the web. We report on what exists in the real world. In the real world, there are movements to impeach george bush. It's really that simple. --Stbalbach 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, whether the claims are correct or not is irrelevent. It is original research unless you can find a source to cite. You haven't found any sources yet. Mirror Vax 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
There are movements to impeach george bush. That is an undeniable fact. Your using a technicality to run interference. Wikilawyering. I wont remove the tag right now because of 3RR but will return to do so if needed. I would suggest we work this out in discussion in the mean time to avoid a prolonged edit war. Now, please explain in more detail why you believe that, despite evidence of the existence of somthing in the real world, it is original research to have an article about it. If your looking for a citation to prove that they exist, I can easily cite any number of books or newspapers which mention these organizations. However that is a rediculous stand to take when one simply has to go to their web page and see that they exist. --Stbalbach 17:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not making a technical point. I don't believe there is a movement to impeach Bush. But I'm not trying to convince you of my view. I'm just trying to get you to abide by the requirement to avoid original research and cite sources. If you can cite somebody who says there is a movement to impeach (as described in this article), then I can accept it. Mirror Vax 17:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
impeachbush.org, an organization fighting for impeachment. Just one example of a movement to impeach GWB. Also just a reminder that the [[3RR] rule is used to encourage discussion and discourage edit wars. Youve reverted this quite a few times in the past 24hrs. ----Stbalbach 17:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I am just asking for sources. What's wrong with that? I am not even asking for good sources. If you want to cite Michael Moore as an authority, go ahead. Mirror Vax 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I think my comment in the section below was missed: The second part of the definition is vetted by polls. George_W._Bush#Impeachment Kevin baas 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Kevin baas 17:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? The article says there is "a degree" of public support for impeachment. That is a tautology! There is always "a degree" of support for anything you can name. Besides, it is irrelevent. Mirror Vax 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It is certainly relevant to the second part of the definition, which is whether or not there is a significant degree of public support for impeachment. And that is certainly relevant to the reader who comes to this article for interesting and important things regarding "movement to impeach George W. Bush".
By tautology I think you mean that it is insignificant/uninteresting because it is expected, and it is therefore simply rhetorical and thus POV. However, to be more precise, there is a signifcant degree of public support. Kevin baas 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Where does this "definition" come from? It seems to be original with Wikipedia. Mirror Vax 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not. "Movement" is often used to refer to a social movement, especially in political contexts. Kevin baas 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
So when the article says the phrase "is used" this way or that, are we supposed to read that as "is used in this article"? Because I am reading it as the phrase is actually used in the real world. Perhaps it is. If so, it would be nice to see a citation. Mirror Vax 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I would imagine it's used in such a way on websites supporting impeachment. And as w/Stbalbach, I can speak from anectodal experience that the term "movement" is used in this sense in the context of impeachment of Bush. It has existed for a long time, and there really is no other term for it. Kevin baas 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Mirror Vax, it's really not clear at all what the problem is. You say you want a citation from an authoritative source. Can you please provide a hypothetical example of what that would look like? I mean, one only has to do a google search of "impeach bush" and you will find thousands of hits that support that there are movements to impeach bush. So, im really not sure why you dis-believe that they exist, that you require a citation. It is beyond reason. Its like requiring a citation that mount everest exists. This is a waste of everyones time. --Stbalbach 19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say I wanted a citation from an authoritative source. I said above, "I am not even asking for good sources." Cite the best sources you can find. Remember, I am asking for the sources about the movement and not about some person or other calling for impeachment. There are always people calling for impeachment; that does not necessarily make a "movement". Mirror Vax 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
THE MOVEMENT - The article makes no claim to a single unified movement. It says there are many, of different types. The word movement has multiple meanings and connotations. Your mis-representing the article title, the very first paragraph defines what the article is about. --Stbalbach 19:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Google "movement to impeach". Also:

Merrian-Webster: 2a : TENDENCY, TREND <detected a movement toward fairer pricing> b : a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>

Dictionary.com: 3a. A series of actions and events taking place over a period of time and working to foster a principle or policy: a movement toward world peace. 3b. An organized effort by supporters of a common goal: a leader of the labor movement.

Also social movement on Dictionary.com: n : a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals; "he was a charter member of the movement"; "politicians have to respect a mass movement"; "he led the national liberation front" [syn: movement, front]

People calling for impeachment does not necessarily make a "movement", but when a substantial number of people and groups of people work together vigorously to achieve a common purpose, that is a movement, by definition. Kevin baas 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

148,000 people don't make a movement? — goethean ॐ 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

definition of movement

The lead paragraph defining the movement is very awkwardly worded and completely unsupported. It currently reads:

The phrase "Movement to impeach George W. Bush" is used in two ways. It is used to describe actions by individuals and groups within the public and private spheres intended to support the impeachment of US President George W. Bush. The phrase is also used in a more broad sense to refer to a social movement, related to public opinion polls, including both Democrats and Republicans, which indicate a degree of public support for the impeachment of the president).

I see no evidence in the real world of the latter definition. A web search finds it used exclusively to refer to an effort by particular organizations to lobby Congress and solicit public opinion in favor of impeachment. I did a google search for the phrases "movement to impeach" and "bush" (736 hits) and for the phrases "impeachment movement" and "bush" (929 hits). The top hits (other than Wikipedia and a news article about this Wikipedia article) were:

  • impeachbush.org, an organization fighting for impeachment
  • votetoimpeach.org, the same organization
  • disinfo.com, an news article on the organization led by Francis Boyle
  • impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com, an organization fighting for impeachment
  • informationclearinghouse.info, news re the efforts of votetoimpeach.org
  • irregulartimes.com, interview of the leader of impeachcentral.com, an organization fighting for impeachment
  • gp.org, an endorsement of impeachment by the Green Party of the US
  • afterdowningstreet.org, , an organization fighting for impeachment
  • tompaine.com, commentary about afterdowningstreet.org
  • impeachbush.pephost.org, a copy of votetoimpeach.org
  • locustfork.net, a blog about ImpeachPAC, an organization raising money for impeachment
  • commondream.org, an article about protesters marching for impeachment

Can we agree on a definition that better matches these real-world examples of using the phrase?--RichardMathews 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I wrote that definition (although it has since been copyedited, and now appears to be causing problems). Anyway, the evidence of the second definition is not somthing you can google for. Rather it is simply all around -- there are people who informally take a partisan and common stand that GWB should be impeached. You can see evidence of this everywhere, from blog posts to casual conversations at parties. The word "movement" is being used in a different sense than in the first definition. --Stbalbach 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The second part of the definition is vetted by polls. George_W._Bush#Impeachment Kevin baas 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not. At best, polls indicate that someone holds a certain view, not that they're part of a movement. As I've already mentioned before, you can find the most ridiculous polls online, because they're so easy for people to create and sign. The "stop ashlee simpson from singing" poll has over 300,000 signatures so far. Does that mean there's a movement to stop Ashlee Simpson from Singing? Hardly, I doubt there's anyone who really took it all that seriously, since it's just an internet poll which is effortless to sign.

impeachbush.org and votetoimpeach.org exist exclusively as websites and their only support is in the form of a worthless internet poll. They have only managed to double the Ashlee Simpson poll in number of votes. Given that this is supposedly a significant movement, one that is serious, I would expect it to have an order of magnitude more votes. disinfo.com, informationclearinghouse.info, irregular times and so forth are unknown websits that just happen to have articles on people working for impeachment--they are not part of the movement. The impeachbushcoalition is just a blog, not an organization and all they do is post articles. impeachcentral.com has an alexa rank of 5 million.

Please make a list of just websites that directly represent a significant movement (insigificant websites don't count). Make sure each one in the new list represents a significant movement, because I'm not going to go through them all, I'm just going to test one at random and if I find it doesn't qualify, then that only says to me that you can't construct such a list. Remember, they must be working to advance the cause, not simply believe that he should be impeached.

Definitions from the Compact OED which are relevent here: 3 a group of people working to advance a shared cause. 4 a series of organized actions to advance a shared cause. ~Compact OED

Individuals are therefore not a movement. It needs to be a group of people.

Nathan J. Yoder 11:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are just your personal opinions. Your argument is weak. Factually, there are indeed groups of people working on a shared cause. There are indeeed organized actions to advance a share cause. You seem to have some pre-concieved notion of what a movement must be, this article should not be held hostage to your personal vision of what a movement is. --Stbalbach 17:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are groups working towards a shared cause for everything imaginable, but it doesn't mean we should have wikipedia articles on every fringe minority movement. You say my argument is weak, but you don't bother actually addressing it. The burden of proof is on you, demonstrate that there is some significant movement. If the best you've got is some internet polls, then you're out of luck. Nathan J. Yoder 07:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

We do have a few wikipedia articles on fringe minority movements, like the ku klux klan, for example. We certainly shouldn't have one for every. I don't think anyone is in disagreement with you on this point, and I don't understand the relevance. If you want to see that there is some significant movement, why don't you read the article? For instance, the article states (thou not in so much detail) that a professional phone-poll with an unbiased sample and a margin of error of +/-3% found that about 1/3 of americans want the president impeached. 1/3 is significant. Even if anything you just said had any merit, Stbalbach would still be correct in that "this article should not be held hostage to your personal vision of what a movement is." - that would be anti-wiki (I state it this way to avoid being uncivil). And the burden of proof is, ofcourse, as always, on the person who wants to make a signifcant change, to infringe, to bite off more than is properly his/hers (such as holding the article hostage), etc. My suggestion to you, in light of all of this, is not to try your luck. Your bias is so apparent it's spilling over the brim; and instead of your arguments being made of premises they are stuffed with your bias - which is so bloated it's coming out every seam. Your argument was said to be weak. In fact, it contains manly factual and logical errors (such as liberal use of ad hominem abusive), i.e. it is unsound and invalid, mostly likely as a result of your mind being so clouded by your bias that you can't address the issue logically and empirically. I think of the words "indecent exposure" to try to express to you how you come off - not because i find your opinions/bias distastefull but because i find it distastefull to reveal them so carelessly, recklessly, w/out discipline, regardless of what they happen to be, in what is supposed to be a critical debate. Kevin baas 14:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The KKK used to be big and it has a lot of historical relevence, that's why it has an article. As this isn't part of history yet, since he's still in office, you can't argue historically nor that it is big. You didn't read what I said. That 1/3rd of people aren't all part of aren't part of a movement. You shouldn't be editing the article if you can't distinguish between support for an idea and being part of a movement for that idea. I mean, I like strawberry ice cream, does that mean I'm part of a pro-strawberry ice cream movement?

Your criteria for burden of proof is silly. I'm asking the people who support the article to back up the most basic assumption of it--that there is a significant movement. Otherwise anyone can create an article for any reason and require that the burden of proof be on the people who don't want it to support its most basic premise. I'll just go create a "Movement to support strawberry ice cream" article and require that everyone else prove that there isn't one. I'm not "holding the article hostage," I'm just putting an NPOV tag on it. If you call putting an NPOV tag on an article, "holding it hostage," then I don't know what to say.

And I have never used ad hominem, that is a nice try though. You, on the other hand, supported someone who removed the fact from the article that there were no impeachment proceedings and supported them to insert a personally speculative statement (forbidden by WP:NOT) implying there would be impeachment proceedings. That reeks of bias. Nathan J. Yoder 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not seen you make any personal attack on any user of wikipedia. I meant that you were using logical fallacies in your argument, including this one, if subtly and indirectly, and that such lack of objective thinking shows an influence of a position established before reasoning.
I did not and do not support removing that statement, not did not and do not support putting in a speculative statement. Your are attacking a straw man. That is logical fallacy and as such reeks of bias.
Also, you did not comprehend my full argument. My argument is not only that ~1/3 of the american populace supports impeachment, but also that there is a substantive number of groups of people working actively together in a coordinated manner to compel impeachment. This is different than public sentiment, this is a substantial, deliberate, and executive "going towards". That should be clear to you by now. Kevin baas 18:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why did you accuse me of using ad hominem abusive? Ad hominem abusive is, by definition, a personal attack. It seems now you're retracting that statement. You didn't just cite ad hominem as an example, you said "liberal use of ad hominem abusive." So I'm to believe you were referring to some hypothetical person there? I have not ever used logical fallacies, but feel free to point them out. You explicitly supported this edit by Sterling Newberry which was not only POV, but implied there were would be an impeachment proceeding. You also defended Sterling Newberry as not in any way inserting POV into the article, even though he was the one who removed the statement (at least 2 times) saying that there weren't any impeachment proceedings.

And your argument is weak, since you haven't bothered supporting it. You say that there are a significant number of people who are part of a movement, but your only evidence is the number of people who simply agree with impeachment. Mind you, the same number Clinton had. Did Clinton have a significant impeachment movement against him? Following your logic, yes he did. I'm sorry, but a lack of evidence doesn't make something clear to me. If you're going to m ake a point that there are also a significant number that are part of a movement, you better support it with something. Nathan J. Yoder 19:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus, read the frickin article, read the discussions in the other sections of this talk page. And you obviously aren't following my logic, so I don't see how you can pretend to make any statement about it. Clinton had that number supporting impeachment after impeachment hearings had already begun - a very substantial difference - besides, after the impeachment process has already begun there it is chronologically impossible to have a movement to begin the process. There's a logical fallacy for you, I guess I'll point them out as you do them, instead of going retrogressively, it's just as well. That one's called a false analogy. Kevin baas 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing in the article supports this being a significant movement and your refusal to provide evidence that there is a significant movement is an implicit concession that there wasn't one. Just admit it when you're wrong. And you have your facts wrong. The impeachment hearings were from November 9th-December 12th. There were polls on it in August, September and October. All before the impeachment hearings were even started. It's not actually a logical fallacy to get a fact wrong, but if it were, you'd be doing it right now since you clearly got your facts mixed up and apparently didn't even check when the hearings started. Getting a fact wrong wouldn't be a false analogy by any measure, I'm not sure how you came up with that one. Nice try though. Also, you meant 'retroactively.' Nathan J. Yoder 13:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There are many mainstream media publications that have called for the impeachment of Bush in the last few months. Sukiari 04:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Howard Fineman piece from MSNBC

I suppose this will of some use to somebody editing this article: Spying, the Constitution — and the ‘I-word’ - 2006 will offer up Nixon-era nastiness and a chorus of calls to impeach Bush. bd2412 T 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Name change proposal

This is not a vote or poll, but it seems like the article would be less controversial and more accurate if it was called Movements to impeach George W. Bush (plural movements) .. since the article makes clear there is more than one movement, and more than one definition of the term movement applies. Thoughts? --Stbalbach 02:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with this.--Beth Wellington 07:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The common meaning of the word "Movement" in the sense emploted in the title is multiple people/groups working together towards a single end. Pluralization in that sense would be redundant. Kevin baas 22:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. While "movement" can be used in a sense described by Kevin (3a in Houghton-Mifflin), that usage is rather uncommon. Certainly the immediate interpretation is as in "An organized effort by supporters of a common goal" (3b in Houghton-Mifflin) Can I propose the name "Calls to impeach George W. Bush"? --Brian Brondel 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "Calls" is more definitive, less ambiguous, less controversial than "Movement"; and "Calls" matches the name of the section header in the George W. Bush article: Calls for impeachment. --Stbalbach 23:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Pluralization is not redundant in this situation, as there are (and probably will continue to be) multiple uncoordinated efforts occurring spontaneously. I support either "movements" or "calls", although I prefer the former because "calls" strikes me as including anyone publicly calling for impeachment, which I think is too broad. I think we should stick to organized efforts, which "movement" conveys well. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
How about History of events leading to the impeachment of George W. Bush ?68.183.79.103 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You can't write the history for an event that has and probably will not happen.--RWR8189 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Media editorials?

I'm not sure media editorials are encylopedic or notable. Who is THOMAS G. DONLAN from Barrons and why should we care what he has to say, is he really that notable that his personal opinions are to be included in an Encyclopedia? --Stbalbach 03:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved the section here for discussion:

Editorials by business magazines seem more notable as a subsection for opionion than that of entertainers. In an editorial, Donlan speaks for Barrons. Barrons, not Dolan is notable.

Media Editorials

  • The business publication, Barron's issued an editorial commentary on December26, 2005 by Thomas G. Donlan entitled "Unwarranted Executive Power: The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws" [http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB113538491760731012-lMyQjAxMDE1MzI1NDMyODQ0Wj.html#EDIT). "Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. ...The most important presidential responsibility...is that he must 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power...Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

"It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law." [1]

Original research (again)

There is material in the article that implies it is related to impeachment, but the sources themselves make no mention of impeachment. This is original research. I'll go ahead and remove them, and list them here and the reasons why it was removed:

  • Rep. Barbara Lee has introduced a Resolution of Inquiry, H.Res 375, that demands records related to the decision to go to war and to the Downing Street Memo.[2] It has 84 sponsors/cosponsors including one Republican and one independent.[3] This resolution is considered to be a first step in opening an impeachment investigation. The International Relations committee voted 22-21 on September 14, 2005 to report the resolution adversely to the full house.

Considered the first step to impeachment by whom? Isnt it possible this is simply a Resolution of Inquiry without a hidden agenda? It's original research to draw a connection to impeachment with this H.Res

  • In a related issue, Steve Urbon, Senior Correspondent for the Standard-Times reported [4] that Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) together with Rep. Conyers, sent a letter in July to the Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress asking for clarification about the impeachability of Karl Rove for the disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. "We believe the rationale for impeachment clearly applies to high-ranking officials who wield presidential authority in many cases with even more impact than some Cabinet officers. And we do not see any constitutional language that would exclude such officials from the impeachment process," they wrote.

This article is about the impeachment of GWB, not Karl Rove. In any case, this is simply a question and not a statement: is Rove impeachable? We dont know.

So, if Bush supporters chant "Nuke Iran" at a rally, does that mean Bush himself supports the nukeing of Iran? This does not belong under the Congressional activities section. Moved to the "Public demonstrations" section.

  • On that same date, Representative Jerold Nadler (D-NY) issued a press release [5] asking Attorney General Gonzales to appoint a special counsel to investigate the President’s possible violation of law in asking the National Security Agency to monitor, without warrants, Americans’ international phone calls.

Tieing this activity with a movement to impeach bush is original research. Unless Nadler has said otherwise.

  • On December 22, 2005, Salon quoted an interview with Chris Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, an expert on government surveillance of civilians and a former military intelligence officer who blew the whistle on the U.S. Army's domestic spying program during the Vietnam War. The American public has to understand that a crime has been committed, a serious crime....This president has admitted committing the crime. He just claims he's above the law. So the issue is: Is the president above the law?" [6]

No mention of impeachment.

  • Journalist Judith Coburn agrees with John Dean that Bush's crimes are "worse than Watergate."[7]

No mention of impeachment.

  • Nation journalist John Nichols wrote on John Conyer's resolutions to investigate and censure Bush and Cheney on December 20, 2005 [8], "Members of Congress in both parties will need to feel a lot of heat if these improtant measures are going to get much traction in this Congress."

No mention of impeachment.

  • Barron's, the conservative business journal published by the Wall Street Journal, editorialized in favor of impeachment on December 26, 2005, "Unwarranted Executive Power: The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws" [9], "Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. ...The most important presidential responsibility...is that he must 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

No mention of impeachment.

  • The Capital Times, the progressive Madison Wisconsin newspaper founded in 1917, editorialized on December 30, 2005, "The evidence shows that serious wrongdoing has occurred. And those responsible need to be held to account not just by academics, former White House aides and national publications but by the citizens who can persuade members of Congress to become the watchdogs on executive wrongdoing that the founders intended." [10]

No mention of impeachment.

--Stbalbach 17:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC

Barron's article was not original research

You state, "the sources themselves make no mention of impeachment"

You are incorrect. Did you read the sources or only the parts cited? If needed, I will remedy it by quoting the part about impeachment, rather than just linking to it.

Yeah that's what needs to be done, the word or concept of impeachment needs to be quoted (BTW Barrons is a subscription only service and probably %99 of Wikipedia readers dont subscribe, so no, I could not read the article). We report on what other people say about impeachment, not make a case for impeachment ourselves. --Stbalbach 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The Barron's article was picked up and reprinted by numerous secondary sources easily available on a google search, such as [11]. Should I use that link instead?
That still doesn't speak to your same charge about the other editorial (see below}, which was easily available and actually cited the Barron's editorial including the impeachment language. When you take things down wholesale, it takes more time to repost them than if you had just asked for an additional quotations. It discourages me from even editing.--Beth Wellington 00:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you feel discouraged, but you shouldnt, we all have a right to edit pages, it's a positive process. If you examine the section above, that is what I removed from the article, the quote(s) make no mention of advocating impeachment. If the quotation is advocating impeachment, then it certainly has a right to be in the article. --Stbalbach 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment."

"It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law."

I believe I had part of the second paragraph in there the last time you axed this source on other grounds.

Captital Times Editoral

No mention of impeachment. The title was "Talking about impeachment"

The lead paragraph was

"The dwindling circle of right-wing defenders of the Bush-Cheney presidency would have Americans believe that only the most reckless partisans would even consider the prospect of censuring or perhaps even impeaching the president and vice president. But the prospect of officially sanctioning Bush and Cheney, as has now been proposed by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is gaining ground in unexpected quarters."

Web Polls

I posit that web polls, as easily manipulated as they are being that there's no control over the sample population, are wholly different from any commissioned poll and is not notable enough to report. This is referring to the MSNBC web poll in line 62.

The whole basis for using polls as a tool for analyzing public opinion is that there's some validity to their methodology. If there's no scientific validity, why quote it? It's on the same footing as a letter to the publisher in a major newspaper. It's been opined elsewhere that editorials should not be cited unless the author is a notable source or the writer is giving the opinion of the paper itself (I believe this was in reference to a Barrons editorial on this very talk page). Just because it's published by a reputable source doesn't mean that the publisher lends its authority to the author. Similarly, just because it was a poll on the MSNBC site doesn't overrule the fact that it has no scientific validity, a fact MSNBC is quite clear about.

--Mmx1 07:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

True, I added a note to that effect. We can still report on it. Another option is to move that paragraph from the "Polls" header to the "public demonstrations" header. --Stbalbach 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of can we, but should we? Objectively, do the results of one web poll contribute anything to the article other than a statistical outlier? --Mmx1 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think this article in part is trying to support that a movement exists, to document it. Forgetting the ratio of the poll, that about 150,000 said "impeach" is notable. --Stbalbach 08:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
In comparison to a scientifically valid poll that would imply 300M * 32% = 96 million, 150k doesn't say much. I'll move it to public demonstrations.
--Mmx1 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The MSNBC poll does not really stand for the proposition that 160,000 voted to support impeachment - online polls are frequently (and easily) gamed, as partisans with access to multiple IP addresses will cast multiple votes. This should be so noted in the article. bd2412 T 23:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • MSNBC Internet Poll

I don't think this internet poll ought to be included in this section especially. An internet poll is not a valid measure of public opinion, nor is the sample scientific or representative of the population, as the other polls mentioned in this section are.

Having this poll in the same section as other scientific and representative polls implies validity, of which this internet poll has none.

There is also no way to verify that the 250,000 votes in this poll are unique. It is common practice for internet activists to urge others to vote in these polls numerous times.--RWR8189 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Its a careful point to make. We are not saying it has equal weight. What we are doing is reporting the poll. Whatever may be, it is (reportedly) a large number. It maybe and probably is biased, but we are not judges and formers of opinion. We just report what is notable. A web poll by a major business that claims 1/4 million responses is notable. We avoid bias not by removing it, but by making clear it is an informal web poll and not a formal survey. That we've done. A reader will not be in doubt as to that information needed to form a decision as to what they make of it. FT2 (Talk) 22:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
A web poll just doesn't mean that much. Since there are already scientific opinion polls in the article, I don't see what the benefit is of adding a nonscientific poll as well. It's not much of a public demonstration either given that the only effort involved is clicking on a web page. --Metropolitan90 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

additional impeachment information

There's a lot of information about gwb impeachment movements in this blog post from Metafilter. --Stbalbach 20:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed sections as original research

Removed the following sections for the listed reasons:

  • Fourteen of the nation's top constitutional scholars, from across the political spectrum, sent a legal brief to the 535 members of Congress in which they concluded that "the Bush administration's National Security Agency domestic spying program... appears on its face to violate existing law." [12] The fourteen authors are:
Curtis Bradley, law professor, Duke Law School, former Counselor on International Law in the State Department Legal Adviser's Office
David D. Cole, law professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Walter Dellinger, law professor, Duke Law School, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel and Acting Solicitor General
Ronald Dworkin, law professor, NYU Law School
Richard Epstein, law professor, University of Chicago Law School, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Philip B. Heymann, law professor, Harvard Law School, former Deputy Attorney General
Harold Hongju Koh, law professor and Dean, Yale Law School, former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ
Martin Lederman, law professor, Georgetown University Law Center, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ
Beth Nolan, former Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
William S. Sessions, former Director of the FBI under Presidents Reagan and Bush I, former Chief United States District Judge
Geoffrey Stone, law professor and former Provost, University of Chicago
Kathleen Sullivan, law professor and former Dean, Stanford Law School
Laurence H. Tribe, law professor, Harvard Law School
William Van Alstyne, law professor, William & Mary Law School, former Justice Department attorney under President Eisenhower

The legal brief makes no mention of a call to impeach GWB.

  • Edward Lazarus, law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and federal prosecutor, has argued in articles such as "Warrantless Wiretapping: Why It Seriously Imperils the Separation of Powers, And Continues the Executive's Sapping of Power From Congress and the Courts", that "Unilateral Executive Power Is Tyranny, Plain and Simple". [13]

Edward Lazarus makes no mention of impeachment of GWB.

  • Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in surveillance, speaking about Bush's admission that he authorized warrantless wiretaps, was quoted on December 20, 2005 by Knight Ridder writer Ron Hutcheson, "The president’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear. When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.” [14] Turley had testified against Clinton, according to an December 22, 2005 interview in Salon. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism. I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle." [15]

Jonathan Turley makes no mention of impeachment. A president can be accused of committing "high crimes" without calling for his impeachment.

--Stbalbach 18:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

St. B. You write, "Jonathan Turley makes no mention of impeachment. A president can be accused of committing "high crimes" without calling for his impeachment."

Turley did mention impeachment in the Salon piece, "Bush's Impeachable Offense". As I've written before, regarding your deletion of the citation of a Barron's piece, if you would spend as much time looking at the original article and inserting the language that specifically mentions impeachment as writing long discussions in order to delete stuff as original research, we might be better get further on improving this article. In the case of the Barron's deletion, you said you didn't have a subscription, but Salon lets anyone view its articles after watching a short ad. Again, I find this frustrating; it makes me want to stop contributing. Here is the quote:

"The fact is, the federal law is perfectly clear," Turley says. "At the heart of this operation was a federal crime. The president has already conceded that he personally ordered that crime and renewed that order at least 30 times. This would clearly satisfy the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors for the purpose of an impeachment."

I will rewrite this to include the term impeachment. I suspect, but don't have time to check, as they were not my contributions, that others you deleted may have actually used the "i-word" too. I do appreciate, however, that you moved the items to discussion, rather than completely deleting as I have seen others do. --Beth Wellington 00:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Look Beth, this article is already too long, this is not an impeachment Blog. We only need one quote from Turley, we dont need to mention every time he calls for Bush's impeachment, one is enough, we know he is on record, we know he's going to keep saying it. I would ask that you please pick one quote from him and give him one paragraph, and then mention the other sources at the end if you must, or even better put the extra quotes in Turley's page. The truth is there are dozens of people calling for Bush's impeachment every single day - this is an encyclopedia and we try to summarise the most important and notable within a restricted amount of space - so for 3 quotes for Turley, that's two less for someone else, we have limited space and the article is already very long.
--Stbalbach 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of blogging here. This article has gotten longer in at least three paragraphs because you suggested I include the actual word "impeachment" in quotes as a remedy when you had previously mistakenly deleted them as "original research". There are actually only two quotes from Turley. I kept the first one--somebody else's--in rather than replacing it. I will shorten it.

Moved these to NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. - Reaverdrop 02:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

These issues list grounds for impeachment which have been commited. That is an implicit call for impeachment, because it is the constitutional duty of congress to hold impeachment hearings if the president exceeds his authority. It's automatic, in theory at least. The fact that they are making the allusions they are; using the particular phrasings - makes a very strong and unambigious legal statement. Kevin baas 18:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes implicit, sometimes supportive of impeachment. Relevant and not independent research in either case. St. B.? Reaverdrop?--Beth Wellington 19:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

reasons for recent revert

I've reverted the edits by Ian 2k3k

1) A narrative account in a paragraph format is preferable to a "list of", in particular in the lead section of an article. There is no reason to turn it into a list when its allready a well-written paragraph.

Yes there is. A bulleted list is easier to read than a sequence of items separated by semicolons. Point is to make things easier for the reader. BYT 13:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Per the MoS, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a detailed point by point explanation. There is too much information in the summary section about "reasons", and nothing about other parts of the article. The whole paragraph needs to re-written - the actual section in the article about "reasons" has less detail than the summary lead section! --Stbalbach 16:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

2) POV tags have been a very contentious issue on this article. POV tags must have a corosponding talk page reason why it exists so that other editors who disagree can address it, including actionable items for its removal. See previous debates about POV tags on this page.

--Stbalbach 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As a result of one of the reversions (I can't quite figure out which), the article currently contains the sentence,

"Conyers along with Representative Frank (see below) asked for research into the impeachability of Karl Rove with regard to the disclosure of CIA Operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters.",

but there is no refferent to the "see below"; that is, there is no subsequent mention of Barney Frank in the article. This inconsistency should be fixed.

This article is in poor shape

Half the statements and sources given for this article completely lack encyclopedic credibility.

I tried to clean up some of it, but this article is in desperate need of attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RWR8189 (talk • contribs) .

Out of curiosity, what ID did you edit under for your attempted cleanup? This message and the note on the main article page are the only edits showing for this ID. --StuffOfInterest 12:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I was not signed in at the time, and I made some edits under 138.87.147.27.-RWR8189
Ahh, that explains it. Thanks, and welcome! --StuffOfInterest 12:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesnt have a policy about "encyclopedic credibility". It has policies on Verifiable Sources (original research) and NPOV. --Stbalbach 14:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Inappropriate tone" tag

If there needs to be a discussion (instead of just editing the article), then do so on the discussion page, that is what discussion pages are for, there is no reason to add a tag which deprecates the validity of the article, in particular on such a controversial topic. Please provide point point examples and actionable items that are "inappropriate tone", or just edit the article directly. --Stbalbach 14:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

9/11 in quotes - NPOV?

I find that the irreverent tone used in this article towards the terrible twin tower attack on 9/11 is plainly demonstrated by 9/11 being placed in quotation marks in the "Reasons" section of the current version of this article. Please try to be a bit more neutral, thanks.

  • One imagines that the phrase is placed in quotation marks inasmuch as it is a shorthand form of referencing the attacks. I do not apprehend any irony or sarcasm in the usage. I readily recognize that one--especially in this article--might use the quotation marks as a biting pejorative in view of GWB's frequent invocation of "9/11" to justify sundry actions, but I don't believe that's the case here. Joe 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Anons comments

Who is Winters? I have tried to make legitimate amendments to this page. FOr example: to note that "some people consider impeachment to be partisan extremism." This has been immediately edited out and I received "vandalism" warnings. Whoever does that is ruining the who purpose of Wikipedia: it is NOT a forum for your stupid political views - its a objective. This won't be accepted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.173.8.75 (talk • contribs) .

Uh.. "some people" is not an objective statement. If you have specific names and sources and citations from notable sources, it would be allowed under the Wikipedia constitutional policies. --Stbalbach 20:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No,your argument is worthless. My changes were no less specific than "actions by individuals and groups" and "a social movement which indicates a degree of supoort." LEAVE YOUR IDIOT POLITICS OUT.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.173.8.75 (talk • contribs) .

The lead section of an article, per the rules of style, is a summary of the article. The article body contains the supporting evidence for the statements in the lead section. Please sign your posts. --Stbalbach 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The following information is relevant

  • At the most recent state convention, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin cited the Downing Street Memo in calling for the Impeachment of both George Bush and Richard Cheney. [16]
  • Robert Zaller, History Professor at Drexel University, writing on January 20, 2006, in "George W. Bush: The Case for Impeachment" maintains that the country is in a state of constitutional crisis. "The common name for a political system in which the legislative and judicial branches of government have been subordinated to the will of the executive branch is dictatorship. It is precisely the system that Bush is attempting to create. The only proper response to this is impeachment." [17]
  • Congressman Frank advocates investigation, but feels that calls for impeachment are premature. [18]

This is a sourced information about the impeachment trial by experts and there is no reason to randomly delete it from the page. Dr Debug 06:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


  • There is not a proper citation for the action of the Democrat Party of Wisconsin.
  • Robert Zaller is not notable, and judging from the source, the heighth of his publication is a student run newspaper on his own campus.
  • Congressman Frank advocating investigation cannot be construed as any endorsement of impeachment, at this point he explicitly rules it out. These claims are not sourced either.--RWR8189
Frank is now sourced and it is about the impeachment and is a member of congress and that makes him important enough for his view.

Robert Zaller is a professor of the Department of History & Politics and has written several books about history. He may not be notable for his own page, but he is notable enough for his opinions.

It seems that the link to the original story is no longer online, but the democratic convention can also be sourced on truthout [19], it is on wikinews [20] and Indymedia[21] and they all refer back to the Capitol Times which reported the news. Dr Debug 06:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


  • There are tens of thousands of history professors across the country, we could have a list that is 500 pages long with statements made by professors on such an issue. Being a history professor does not make him an expert on constitutional law either. His comments in a student run newspaper are not notable.
  • I think the main purpose of the article is to show evidence of a "movement(s)" which covers not only notable people but non-notable people, including academics. Otherwise we would have to remove the public opinion polls from the article, since they are not notable people. --Stbalbach 15:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The difference is that public opinion polls are scientific and conducted by polling organizations that have a long reputation for fairness and accuracy, this makes the results of their findings notable. A professor of history writing in his own university's student run newspaper is not notable.--RWR8189
  • Saying "There are people in the academic world who support the impeachment of Bush" is notable. It doesnt matter "who" in the academic world is saying it, so long as its someone from a credible institution that qualifies as "academic". Just the fact there are people in acamdeia supporting impeachment is notable, for the purposes of this article. --Stbalbach 03:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that Zaller rises to the level of "legal expert and scholar" that is listed in this page. Listed in this category are highly notable legal scholars among them John Dean and a former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Listing their opinion side by side implies that the notability and worth of their opinions are equal, and this is clearly not the case. A more notable figure in academia, Jonathan Turley, is already represented in the article. Adding second rate figures diminishes the credibility of the entire article--RWR8189
  • The article you sourced about Congressman Frank is about the viability of impeaching Karl Rove, not President Bush, as is the topic of this article. It might be better placed in Karl Rove's article if it is not already there.--RWR8189

Kerry Impeachment

In this Boston Globe article [22], Kerry claims his comment was made in jest. This means that his comment cannot be construed as an endorsement of impeachment, as the header suggests. RWR8189 10:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless any of these comments were made on the floor of the senate or house chamber I contend that none of them are actual endorsments.--mitrebox 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Senator Specter

An edit has asserted that Specter "also raised doubts as to the constitutionality of the FISA statue saying 'If a statute is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Constitution governs and the constitutional powers predominate'."[23]. First of all, this is Original Research because a Wikipedia edior is making an analysis of a quotation that does not exits in the source he/she is citing. The source only provides the transcript of the hearing, with no such analysis. Furthermore, the very next line, which was omitted from the quotation inserted into the edit, makes clear that Specter was in fact reaffirming his view that the Statute was constitutional, by saying: "But here you have the President signing on and saying this is it, and that’s why I’ve been so skeptical of the program because it is in flat violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but that’s not the end of the discussion." This is why I reverted that addition. --AladdinSE 07:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Senator Specter makes no determination whatsoever as to whether or not the FISA statute is constiutional or not in this interview, he only states his opinion that the President has not complied with FISA, this is a definite distinction.
The full quote pertaining to constiutionality is this: Tim, which we’re going to get into in some depth, as to whether the President’s powers under Article 2, his inherent powers, supercede a statute. If a statute is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Constitution governs and the constitutional powers predominate.
In other words, the President cannot possibly break a law which itself is unconstiutional.
If these hearings deserve any space at all in this article, it should be noted that the constitutionalily of the FISA statute is being brought into question, and will be examined at this hearing as well, albeit, perhaps worded differently than I originally did.
  • Also, I checked the transcript from Meet the Press' interview with Senator Specter, and nowhere in that interview is the phrase "warrantless surveillance program" used by Senator Specter, so I believe we ought to defer to the official title of that program which is "terrorist surveillance program" --RWR8189 08:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes, that's correct, he makes no determination, nor does the source say he "raises doubts." We cannot editorialize. You once again do not want to include the line that follows:"But here you have the President signing on and saying this is it". he was playing devil's advocate and then rebutting that argument, and reaffirming that the statue was constitutional. The fact that we disagree about the interpretation of his comments is a clear reason to disallow your editorializing comment that he was "raising doubts as to the constitutionality of the FISA statue" because no analyst in the source you used to cite this makes that postulation.

As for "warrantless surveillance program" vs "terrorist surveillance program", my source for that was not MSNBC, it was The New York Times. The first paragraph of that article states: "The Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee said today that he believed the Bush administration had violated the law with its warrantless surveillance program and that its legal justifications for the program were "strained and unrealistic." When you made your edit, you displaced my citation and made it look like my NY times article was only supporting the line about when hearings were scheduled to begin, and that the MSNBC link which you inserted was supporting my edit about "warrantless surveillance program". I will return it where I originally placed it. --AladdinSE 09:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


  • You are confusing constitutionality with law breaking. Specter never affirms nor denies that the FISA statute is constitutional, essentially taking a NPOV on the issue until it is resolved by the hearings. He says that Bush is in violation of FISA, but then goes on to say that this would not be the end of the discussion. I have already conceded that my original comment may have contained POV, however some mention of the constiutionality of the statute should be included in the article.
Perhaps it could be better worded to say: However in the hearings Senator Specter will also examine the constitutionality of the FISA statute as it applies to powers that are inherent to the presidency. --RWR8189 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well in this instance, your source is incorrect as Senator Specter never "said" anything in regards to a "warantless surveillance program" however the New York Times editorializes to this effect. I would contend that there is no longer any reason to include your original source as everything said by Senator Specter is included in the MTP transcript that I have provided, sans bastardization by media outlets. And that since no mention is made by Senator Specter, as your source claims, we should defer to the official title of the program which is "terrorist surveillance program." --RWR8189 10:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I am not confusing constitutionality with law breaking. I am just refraining from OR and from entering competing interpretations of the meaning of Specter's words. Certainly you can include some mention of the question of the constitutionality of FISA, but not by editorializing on what Specter said, but by quoting an outside source that gives the interpretation you favor. An no, we cannot insert the wording you propose about said constitutionality, until it is supported by a credible source that is making that interpretation. Otherwise we would be inserting our interpretation. I do agree that the debate regarding the constitutionality of FISA is important now and stands to increase in importance if the controversy escalates. We needn't get hung up on Specter's interview with Russert to include it. I'm certain there are many other sources that clearly articulate these conjectures. As for your contention that my source is incorrect, well by all means produce another one contradicting the New York Times and we can list both interpretations side by side. Of course the Times editorializes, that is what newspapers do. That is just another word for interpretation. Wikipedia is full of such citations. Finally, you cannot "replace" the Times source which puts forward an analysis with the MSNBC interview with only quotes and analyzes nothing. I'm not saying don't include the MSNBC interview, use it by all means to report any quotation (not analysis) you wish. --AladdinSE 12:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Specter article makes no mention of impeachment. This Wikipedia article is specifically about impeachment, not anyone who has a gripe with the President. Has Spector said he is calling for impeachment because of the wiretap? If so, lets see it. Otherwise, dont include it here, it's just opinion to associate Spector's comment with impeachment. --Stbalbach 15:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems that Specter's comments are being associated not with impeachment, but with whether the president broke the law. Clearly some folks have said that if the president broke this wiretap law, that's impeachable. Specter is opining that the president probably did break this law, which, in turn, is relevant to the question. However, the article should also clearly specify whether Specter has made any statement on impeachment itself. bd2412 T 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
BD's comments are valid. One of the issues discussed regarding impeachment is whether the president broke the wiretap law. Therefore, Specter's comments are appropriate for inclusion, in the proper context. molly bloom 03:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I started this section to talk about the revert of my edit regarding an update about what Specter on Feb 5. The impeachment edit was not mine and was dated Jan 15. Nevertheless, I examined it, and it is perfectly viable. It does not say Specter called for impeachment. It says Specter "mentioned impeachment and criminal prosecution as potential remedies if President Bush broke the law." He did mention impeachment, as the sources will show. The Washington Post article link the original editor used is now dead, I will replace it with a couple of current links.--AladdinSE 00:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Move reasons section down

It would make sense to me to have the "Reasons" section of this article lower on the page. The article is about "actions by individuals and groups" and public opinion polls, so I think the writing about the actions themselves and the polls should come first. I suspect "Reasons" would fit better after "Public opinion", unless the "Endorsements" section is also intended as a description of a movement as opposed to endorsements of a movement. Any comments on this? --Brian Brondel 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I've made this change. --Brian Brondel 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Zogby Internation poll Jan 17

Regarding this paragraph, removed to here:

A Zogby poll released in January 2006 shows that a majority of Americans (52 percent to 43 percent) believe Congress should consider impeaching the president if it is shown that he wiretapped U.S. citizens without approval from the courts.[24]

The source link is to a press article that says it had pre-release access to the poll. Is there a reason we cant link directly to the poll results? This poll needs to be verified and the methodology and other details examined. --Stbalbach 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The openening paragraph has long been a source NPOV problems (people adding NPOV tags to the aricle), and the current version is one that most people have been able to live with for a while. The problem with your version is it can be seen as NPOV. It suggests that there is an actual movement. That is why we had the "for the purposes of this article" phrase to be a little more ambiguous to appease both sides. Second "a movement to impeach" suggests there is a singular movement. This is not accurate either, there are movements or a singular movement, again, this is not so well defined nor should it be. Third it says "In American politics", which suggests that outside of American politics there is somthing else, that this is a "political term" - again, not accurate, it is simply a term of convience "for the purposes of this article". I would encourage you to read previous talk page discussions and the many POVs on this issue and the problems associated with the phrase. --Stbalbach 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving your objections to my revision of the lead paragraph. I understand that this article is the result of a lot of discussion, but I feel that it still needs a lot of work. I don't think I'm alone in this feeling. The problem that I was trying to correct is that this article has the flavor of an essay, rather than an encyclopedia article. It goes way beyond documenting the "movement".
You say that "a movement to impeach" suggests that there is a singular movement, but I see it as just the opposite. Not using an article at all implies that the title is "The Movement to..." Using the word "a" suggests that the entry doesn't refer to any unified movement in particular. (Really, I think the title of the article is itself very misguided -- it suggests that a singular unified movement exists.) In regards to the "for the purposes of this article wording", this lends to the "essay flavor" I mentioned earlier, and it's very much incompatible with the idea expressed in Wikipedia:Lead section that the lead section should be able to stand alone as its own "mini-article". One idea being advanced for a print Wikipedia is that the print version would only include the lead paragraph of most of the articles. I'm willing to forget about "In American politics" because I don't feel that it's all that important (and because I don't really get your meaning), but I hoped that the standard "In blah blah blah" format might dull the editorial tone, and I see it as helpful to international readers who may or may not know who Bush is.
I appreciate that a lot of people have contributed to this article and weighed in on its wording, but I don't see where that closes it off from further revision or other opinions. I've read the Talk: and did my best to keep others' opinions in mind when I made these changes. When you reverted my changes without explaining yourself, you showed a disregard for my opinions.
The lead paragraph as it stands deviates wildly from the guidelines in Wikipedia:Lead section. It's editorial and it's misleading. I'd like to see this changed. I'd appreciate comments on how to address the concerns I've raised. --Brian Brondel 18:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you think the title of this article is "misguided", and the changes you made to the lead paragraph reflect that. In which case, I would suggest make a proposal to change the title of the article. As for the lead paragraph being an "editorial" and "deviates wildly from the guidelines" that is simply an inaccurate characterization. There are many professional encyclopedia articles that use the very words "for the purposes of this article"; it is as well accepted and proven method of handling sensitive and controversial topics that dont have hard definitive black and white answers and where the title is simply matter of convience and not implying anything on its own (like Medieval science - there was no "science" in the Middle Ages, but for the purposes of the article as a matter of convienence to understanding the subject that is being discussed in terms we all understand, we call it that). If you need to drop the lead paragraph into another article, then just drop that line; it is simply a tool to remove the definitive harsh definitions that have caused so many NPOV battles in this article. --Stbalbach 21:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

ABA

The ABA article makes no mention of impeachment, and the ABA makes no endorsement of impeachment. This article is called "Movement to impeach" and it documents people/organizations who call for or endorse the impeachment of GWB. Including the ABA article here with no attribution to anyone else implicitly suggests that the ABA is calling for Bush's impeachment which is original research. Note, the sections of this articles are not divided by the issues, but by the people and organizations who discuss the issues. There is already another article that reports on the details of the wireless issue. --Stbalbach 02:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The ABA material is the evaluation by one of the most eminent legal associations in the United States of what they explicitly state to be an unconstitutional act committed by the President. The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy is discussed in the article itself, indeed in the Legal opinions section, as one of the reasons cited for why the President should be impeached. Evaluation by a prominent legal association as to the constitutionality of that program is highly relevant. They do not have to "endorse impeachment" for it to be germane. --AladdinSE 23:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand your reasoning, however the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy is discussed in the article only in the context that a particular person or group is calling for Bush's impeachment. There has to be an attribution, wikipedians can not randomly include people or institutions in this article that do not endorse impeaching Bush. The section is called "Legal and Scholars". Including the ABA in that section means you are attributing the ABA as calling for Bush's impeachment. To summarize, yes, a group or person needs to endorse Bush's impeachment to be included in the article. You cant include external links on an issue-only basis, there has to be an attribution, this article is about the "Movement to impeach GWB" and if you include the ABA in the article you are including them in the movement. --Stbalbach 00:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing random about the inclusion of the ABA's comments here. Their comments in this article does not by any stretch of the imagination mean they are endorsing any action which the edit itself does not say they are endorsing. They are making a basic constitutional evaluation on executive authority that is a cornerstone of the impeachment movement. People and organizations have made allegations that Bush's actions as far as the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy constitute cause for impeachment because the program was unconstitutional. Here is the ABA giving its considered official opinion that it was in fact unconstitutional. The material does not portend to endorse anything the ABA does not explicitly state. No "attribution" in the manner your describe is required because no claim of "impeachment endorsement" and the like is made. You cannot disallow relevant and sourced legal analysis on such grounds. --AladdinSE 01:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

..not by any stretch of the imagination mean they are endorsing..
The name of the section is Endorsements of impeachment -- perhaps I have a wild imagination but having the ABA with their own bulleted point under a section called Edorsements of impeachment is clearly saying that the ABA Endorses impeachment. The name of the article is Movement to impeach and its stated purpose per the lead section is to document those persons and organizations that support the impeachment of GWB. Your inclusion of the ABA, as a separate bulleted item under a section called Endorsements of impeachment is clearly implying that the ABA endorses impeachment. IF YOU WISH TO USE THIS AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAS CALLED FOR BUSH'S IMPEACHMENT, that's fine, then add it under that persons bullet header, but as it stands it is original research to suggest that the ABA is endorsing the impeachment of GWB. --Stbalbach 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The ABA is stating quite literally that the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. It is an example of an strong consensus that the Presidnent has commited an impeachable offense. That is quite relevant to this article, esp. because this article includes opinions from Republicans that the president has not commited any impeachable offense; that the movement has no merit in law. The ABA has stated that it does. It's important that this be included for the sake of balance; NPOV. Kevin Baastalk 03:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This is resolved now, but I don't see how you can include the ABA in the section entitled Endorsements of impeachment, where every other entry is someone endorsing impeachment. Reasons for impeachment, and endorsements of impeachment, are different things. -- Stbalbach 02:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we've arrived at the agreement that the ABA material is relevant to the article. I wish to state for the record that I entirely overlooked the fact that subsection Legal experts and scholars was located under the section Endorsements of impeachment. That was my mistake. If that had been noted from the start I would have immediately agreed to its being moved. However, initially the argument was that the material was entirely irrelevant. The transfer to Reasons seems correct to me. --AladdinSE 21:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't figure it out either until after I wrote the above. Looked at the whole article structure and saw the "endorsement" section and the "reasons" section and logically the ABA article is not an endorsement, but it is a reason; glad it's been easily resolved. -- Stbalbach 02:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I object to the title of this article

"Movement to impeach..." is an absurdly biased title on its face. There are also many other problems with this. Merecat 08:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The title and NPOV status of this article has been extensively discussed in the past and the consensus is that, although strong opinions are reported in the article, the reporting of them is fair and NPOV. Please read this discussion and address it before unilaterally placing an NPOV tag on the article. Thank you. –Shoaler (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article has NPOV problems, and I think an NPOV tag for this article would be appropriate. --Brian Brondel 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Where are the neutrality problems? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see anything wrong with "Movement to impeach". Could you be more specific? How else do you suggest we title this article? Activism to get Bush out of office? trust me, this is the best title. --Revolución (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See name change proposal section above. "Calls to impeach GWB" is what the section is called in the George W. Bush article. I think its more neutral and accurate and less ambiguous and has precedence. --Stbalbach 02:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"Movement" is more accurate, and has precedence in society - in real life, unlike "calls". Kevin Baastalk 03:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
heh, if you want to get literal and say "real life" is the criteria, than most of this article is OR because few of the people/orgs listed here have used the literal word "movement" to describe their own actions; "movement" is being tagged to them by wikipedians. That is the real source of continual contention most people have with this article, it also the reason I had to include the "movement.. for the purposes of this article.." in the first sentence, to avoid OR claims since most of these groups/people don't use the word "movement" internally. I find it interesting that despite most of these groups not using "movement" to describe their own actions, you are calling forth "real life" as a justification for the article title, its in fact all the more reason to change the title. --Stbalbach 03:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no "movement" except in the most POV fringes of the partisan mind. If "movement" is in the title, the word "partisan" must be added. Other than that, substituting "calls" in the title, would satisfy my concerns there. Merecat 04:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

well, I think it would be less contentious to call it something else, since the word "movement" can be interpreted multiple ways. The lead paragraph says "movement..for the purposes of this article" -- which makes clear that the word is being used generally and not literally. I responded to Kevin_baas above who was trying to interpret it literally, but that doesn't mean the title is POV, when you take into account the lead paragraph qualifier. Titles of articles are not always literal, the lead paragraph is what determines what an article is about, not the title, which is often just a matter of convenience. --Stbalbach 05:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this a valid article?

I strongly question the validity of this article or any article of this type. If the impeachment of GWB became a real event, like the real impeachment of Clinton did, then this would be a historical article. Of course impeachment just means bringing charges against which ends up in a trial, not particularly a conviction. However, just because there is a wish list of events that just aren't happening is not cause for a similar list of articles. Clinton's impeachment is but a mere footnote in the article on impeachment and is completely glossed over in the article on Bill Clinton referring only to a few sex scandals.

I'm dreaming of a white Christmas, but there is no article on it, and I am not about to write one.

Magi Media 04:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. And it was only a sex scandal, that became a legal issue when Clinton lied about it. The impeachment was a partisan charade, hence the reticence of many Democrats to do the same. However, the reasons for impeachment of Bush are considered far more serious in the effect to national security and our democracy. The criticisms - if not impeachment - of Bush have become a movement. Only 29% of Americans now approve of Bush, and every day a new scandal emerges.molly bloom 05:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there are at least three articles on white Christmas. White Christmas, White Christmas (song), White Christmas (film).
This article simply reports the existance of (calls/a movement) to impeach George W. Bush, which is a "real event" which really is happening, despite what you state. If you have missed the three seperate articles on White Christmas, you might have missed the calls for impeachment, too.--Firsfron 14:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

To me the factual basis of this ongoing debate / discussion is as much sociological as it is politial or legal. Much thought and effort is going into a well-thought-out list of reasons to not lose hope for the best-case-scenario of: '2006 Dems take back the House amd Senate and impeach Bush and Cheney putting Pelosi in the White House, disgracing Bush forever'. If the same people who spend so much time with this issue, on this forum and elsewhere, would use their energy to elect Democrats, their goals may be met. Even if the Dems take the House in 2006 and 60 seats in the Senate, an impeachment would be politically untennable. Impeachment will always be 95% poilitcs and 5% law so all the lists and petitions and endorsements mean nothing unless they are senators and congressmen. It is the amount of work put into this article that is the most interesting fact to me. (and here I am writing about it :))

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 21:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Vote on Name Change

I think it's appropriate at this point to have a vote on the name change issue.

Movement to impeach George W. Bush → Calls to impeach George W. Bush – "Calls" is more neutral, better supported by external references, and matches the corresponding section in George W. Bush.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~


Discussion

Add any additional comments
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed articles of impeachment from Rhode Island

-- http://www.carlsheeler.com/articles_impeachment_GA.asp

--James S. 21:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

James, first off you don't need to post the entire document, just post the link to the document. Second off, why are your posting the link to the document on the Talk page? You said so "it can be verified" -- what does that mean? Verified by who, why, in what way? There is no one asking to verify it except you -- in fact as someone else already pointed out on Talk:George W. Bush this whole thing is nothing but a publicity stunt by a wannabee Rhode Island canidate. It even looks like an attempt to increase the Google hit rating by spamming the document and/or link to it in as many places as possible, an abuse of Wikipedia and its resources. -- Stbalbach 05:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to allow me to make comments on each of the articles or are you going to keep deleting them before we've even gotten started on it? Please review the talk page etiquitte guidelines and policies. --James S. 07:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to post the document. You made no comments. Nor has anyone solicitied comments about the document. Talk pages are not personal blogs. -- Stbalbach 08:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove other people's comments on talk pages. I will be making comments. --James S. 08:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The text removed is not a "comment", it's a verbatim cut and paste of the above link, and you keep saying your pasting it here to comment on it, but you never do comment on it, and no one has solicited comments on it. All your doing is spamming this talk page and the George W. Bush talk page with some kind of promotional material for a Senator who is running for office in Rhode Island, probably to increase google hit counts, or perhaps to stir up controversy for the purposes of increased exposure. -- Stbalbach 16:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Even if the specific article is from a single senator running for state government, there has been talk among democrats in seeking to file formal complaints to the U.S. congress via state legislatures as stated in the constitution, specifically in the states of Rode Island, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Perhaps this possibility could be mentioned in a broad sense in the article (and not just from the source of the single state senator).

--Chris S.

Harper's magazine cover

I contend this is a more appropriate illustration for this article. --James S. 08:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The fair use rational is almost not-existent. Are we sure this is fair use? Proposed for deletion, see links in image above. -- Stbalbach 15:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It can't be fair use, as it's not being used to describe Harper's Ferry (the copyright holders), but rather only as a convenient illustration for our article on something they put on their cover. It shouldn't be in the article, even provisionally while the deletion process goes through. And especially not in the talk page (no fair use applies outside of articles), so I've removed it from here. Dmcdevit·t 06:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
See the February 27th Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, it passed, it does not appear to be a copyright violation according to a jury of our peers. -- Stbalbach 06:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. It wouldn't be a copyright violation in an article that discussed the cover, but it is one in this article.--Sean Black (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Not that I support the cover one way or another, but it would be easy enough to add a comment about the Harpers Magazine article into the article in the "media" section. Until then, your right it would be a copyvio. If it were added, the picture should be located next to the text that discusses it, not at the top of the page. -- Stbalbach 06:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
That may work, but you would need to ensure that the publication of the article itself is analyzed, and not merely mentioned in an attempt at fulfillment. It has to illustrate an actual citical commentary of the article. Also, I'll point out that even if something does qualify as fair use, non-free immages in general are discouraged, and if there is a suitable substitute, it may not qualify for that reason as well (as only if "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" does it qualify). Dmcdevit·t 06:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is your local intellectual property lawyer chiming in. It certainly doesn't have to be an article about "Harpers Magazine" for the cover to be fair use - see Melinda Gates (cover of Time Magazine); Ally McBeal (cover of Time Magazine); Britney Spears (cover of ELLE). The factors examined for fair use are that the use be critical or educational (this is educational, as is all of Wikipedia); that the use not be for profit (ditto); that no more of the original is taken than is needed to make the point (small, low-res image of a magazine cover); and that the market value of the original not be diminished (no one is going to decide not to buy this issue of Harpers just because we post the image here - in fact, it would more likely boost Harpers sales). On an editorial note, publication of this sentiment on a major magazine cover is probative of the existance of a "movement", and illustrative of the sentiment being expressed. Certainly a better lead than the previous pic. bd2412 T 16:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it had to accompany critical commentary of the magazine/article itself. This is at least what the current policy page and templates seem to say. Is this the wrong impression? Dmcdevit·t 03:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Commentary on the source of the material being used has never been a requirement of fair use, although it can strengthen the case where one of the other factors is lacking; for example, use of a copyrighted image in a book sold for profit is more easily justifiable as fair use if the book is commenting on the image itself. However, an educational purpose is sufficient, particularly where it is nonprofit and the expropriation is minimal (as magazine covers almost always are, since the cover is a promotional image relative to the material inside the magazine). bd2412 T 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I've reverted the anon editors changes to the lead section. The lead section follows the rules of Wikipedia:Lead section which is a summary of the article body contents. If the anon editor (who left a private message on my talk page) thinks it is "POV", then anon editor should edit the body of the article first, because that is what the article says. Second, the "As of March" statement suggests that thing's are fluid and may change on a monthly basis. ie. if the anon editor had said instead "As of Sunday".. than things will change on a daily basis.. if anon editor had said "As of 12pm" then things are changing hourly. So please, there is no reason to say "As of X time" it is leading and suggestive that things will in fact change. The picture caption is relevant to the context of the article, and is factual and NPOV. Finally there is no need to use the word "various". And that statement about the history of the movement, move it to the body of the article it doesn't belong in the lead, and make sure you source it because it looks like original research. -- Stbalbach 16:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot comprehend why I keep deleting your fallacious appeal to authority, then I guess you will never understand what the problem here is. 192.168.204.130 02:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You've addressed none of the points above. The intro doesn't appeal to authority. Please provide a detailed example and explanation of "appeal to authority". -- Stbalbach 03:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You are joking, right? The listing of only certain important occupations of certain anti-Bush people linked together as you do it, implies that the so-called movement must have validity because those important people support it. This is an appeal to authority in the vien of "Mr. Big supports x, therefore x must be correct". It's a logical fallacy and it's POV. I am sure that some insane winos also want to impeach Bush - why not list them too? See what I mean?... Also the entire intro is as you make it tries to infer that there is some actual effort underway on a broad-based nationwide large scale basis to oust Bush. This is simply a false inference to make and a POV one that that. My intro is fine and much more NPOV. 70.85.195.225 06:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Lead section? The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article content. If you have a problem with listing those names, then you should address the problem in the article, and remove the names from the article body. The lead section is simply a summary reflection of the article. If you dont like those names, pick some others, but a few of the key people need to be represented in the article summary.

Regarding this:

Prior to the current controversies of 2005 and 2006, anti-Bush critics were already calling for his impeachment for some time. More recently however, the "impeach Bush" advocacy has focused mostly on complaints relating to Bush's handling of the Iraq War.

This doesn't belong in the article, it implies that "anti-Bush critics" (a double negative BTW), are trying to impeach Bush not based on factual policy grounds, but based on whatever the current/latest complaint is, which happens to be the Iraq War at the moment. This is highly POV language. Plus, there is no discussion of this at all in the article body, why is it in the lead section?

Regarding this:

The justifications advanced for seeking Bush's impeachment vary

They are not "justifications", they are reasons. In fact our very article has a section called "Reasons". Justifications is a POV term. The lead section reflects the article contents and the article says "reasons" throughout.

Regarding this:

As of March 2006, the United States House of Representatives as a body, has taken no action of any kind toward the impeachment

This is fine except for the "As of March 2006" statment. There is no reason for that. It implies that things will change in the future. This is POV. Is there some reason you are unable to say straight forward with no qualifiers that the HoR has taken no action toward impeachment?

Regarding this:

Also the entire intro is as you make it tries to infer that there is some actual effort underway on a broad-based nationwide large scale basis to oust Bush. This is simply a false inference to make and a POV one that that.

This has been discussed to death numerous times in the above talk page(s), please review. There was even a vote the change the article name from "movement" to "calls" but it never achieved consensus. That's the real source of pov concerns, the title of the article, as it "could" suggest a large unified effort -- but then again, the lead section says clearly what is meant by movement in the first sentence, so your interpretation is taken out of context and not an accurate portrayal. -- Stbalbach 17:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

-- Stbalbach 06:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally wrong and completly out of tocuh with reality. It is an established fact that this "impeach" angle against Bush has been pushed agressively by a limited few of his critics for many, many months. It is an established fact that this "impeach" angle against Bush has been pushed agressively by a limited few of his critics Again I repeat: the leade section the way Stalbach writes it is too POV and I will not sit back and let him hijack this article. 67.15.76.188 01:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
This article will conform to the standards set forth by the Manual of Style. I'm happy to work it out with you. You have not responded or replied to any of the points above about the rules of style and how to write a lead section. Your comments above show a clear bias and a strong personal opinion, your edits are clearly not being made in good faith. I have no bias, I dont care if he is impeached or not, in fact I hope he's not; I'm only interested in a neutral article, and your edits both violate the manual of style and are misleading. I would ask again that you respond to the points made above, one by one. There are 5 of them, you responded to one, "Totally wrong" - that's not much of a response. -- Stbalbach 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC) -- Stbalbach 02:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've answered you enough - now all you do is attack me personally "your edits are clearly not being made in good faith"; whereas I only commented on your fact set "totatly wrong". Suffice it to say, I am not going to fight with you. If you edit unacceptably to me, I will either revert or modify. If not, I won't. I've talked here in good faith and you answer with insults. Come what may, I will not repond to you again - unless and until you apologize. 192.168.204.130 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's no surprise you would get upset about Wikipedia's rule about Good Faith, because you are a sock puppet, as evidenced by these two edits here and here. The first link you acknowledge your a sock puppet, the second link you try to cover your tracks and look guilty as sin. -- Stbalbach 06:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? What does editing from a pool of rotating IP's, without logging in result in? An edit log pattern just like mine has been tonight. The fact that I keep answering your off-base accusations is self-evident proof that I am not a sock, but rahter, am merely not logging in. If you accuse me even one more time of being a sock, I will not speak with you any more, and then you'll have to guess. 66.98.130.204 07:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Means of impeachment by a state

Pages 314-315 of the House Rules for the 109th Congress state:

Section 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House.
"In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion: .... charges transmitted from the legislature of a State...."

Now can we have a discussion of each of Rhode Island's proposed articles? --James S. 03:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Rhode Island hasn't proposed any articles. Some guy running for office in Rhode Island has. He is not Rhode Island. Kevin Baastalk 20:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Reasons"

Uh, we can't just go listing points that we think are reasons and we can't cite other wiki pages as sources. We need outside sources. Else we are committing original research which is a big no-no. 70.84.56.172 09:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course I will provide the sources but I would imagine that this has already been done on the original article page. Here they are [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Should you need more sources let me know.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As to torture and Katrina, it is not neccesary for me to find evidence to the contrary in order to insert the phrase "alleged"

Innocence must be presumed until the president has been convicted of any wrongdoing.--RWR8189 10:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict

    • No, impeachment only requires enough reason for suspicion. If guilt had been established the President would be behind bars. Impeachment stands for inquiry. Torture has happened, that is a fact. The "Torture memos" have been written, that is a fact. Bush and Cheney have vehemently tried to get some exeption for the "anti-torture" bill, that is a fact. The only thing we do not know is did Bush explicitly order torture? But, under the command responsibility he is legally accountable for acts he did not prevent or stop. Clearly, for years it has been known torture is happening, so this alone makes him culpable and therefore it is a reason to impeach.
    • Nobody maintains Katrina was adequately handled. The only thing that has to be established is who were responsible. There is ample suggestion the WH did make serious mistakes. Once again, these warrant investigation: impeachment.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Then it could be better stated as "The alleged mishandling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath by the George W. Bush administration.--RWR8189 10:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Or "The mishandling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath and the alleged inadequate response by the George W. Bush administration.--Holland Nomen Nescio 10:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That sentence is starting to sound long and redundant.--RWR8189 10:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina." Better?Holland Nomen Nescio 11:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Much better--RWR8189 11:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Have inserted it in the article.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the final two paragraphs in "Reasons" they have no place in this article. First, the DCCC or DSCC makes no endorsement of impeachment. Inferring things from their usage of terms is original research and has no place here. Second, the ABA makes no endorsement of impeachment, this article is not the place to discuss exclusively the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy--RWR8189 10:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The spying on US citizens is part of the suggested reasons to impeach. Why should that not be discussed?Holland Nomen Nescio 10:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It is already discussed throughout the article, and even in the "Reasons" section. The fact is that we are inferring things from the statement "abusive of power" and that is original research. The DCCC and the DSCC make no endorsement of impeachment, and rehashing the NSA thing again is redundant.--RWR8189 10:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not need this per se, however, my objections were about the numerous and elaborate changes. Feel free to delete this if it is incorrect.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The ABA also makes no determination about impeachment, and all this paragraph does is repeat already expressed concerns about the legality of the NSA program.--RWR8189 10:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"Exceeding powers," comes close to saying impeachable offense. Better yet, if a blowjob warrants impeachment, acting beyond your mandate surely warrants the same response.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Close perhaps, but no such determination is made. Inferring otherwise is original research. The alleged offenses committed by President Clinton were impeachable offenses because the House of Representatives said they were, no other reason. Without an endorsement or mention of impeachment, these paragraphs have no place in the article--RWR8189 11:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You must be aware that both Houses are controlled by the Republican Party. They have been unwilling to exercise oversight as is demanded by the Constitution. Investigation has been frustrated into the arguments for invading Iraq, the allegations of torture as policy, et cetera. To think that these representatives would stop their partisan voting, and support impeachment (as part of overseeing this administration) is unrealistic. That does not mean the offenses in themselves do not warrant impeachment. It only means that for political reasons impeachment is not an option.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You are letting your POV get in the way here. According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives has sole authority over impeachment, whether that is right or wrong is not our determination to make. Something is not an impeachable offense unless the House says it is. There is no constitutional provision that spells out methods of oversight, or even whether oversigh must happen either. Either way, the ABA makes no determination about impeachment in the cited article--RWR8189 11:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Question: if we were again talking about the exact incident as with Clinton, and if it was decided not to impeach. Would that mean the blowjob no longer is an impeachable offense, or would it mean that for whatever reason (political IMHO) the procedure was not started?
Question, if I robbed a bank, the police arrested me. Then the prosecuter decided not to press forward (for whatever reason), would that mean that robbing a bank no longer is a crime?
What I am trying to say is that starting impeachment proceedings is decided by the House, and is politically influenced. However, what constitutes an impeachable offense is decided by the law.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The "blowjob" was not the reason for Clinton's impeachment. He was impeached by the House for two counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of high office.
Your second situation is not comparable to impeachment as described in the Constiution.
The point of this all is that impeachment is politcal in its entirety. The House of Reps is given full discretion to determine what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" at any given time, they can interpret it however they want to, there is no list sitting around as a guide.
Finally, I'm going to delete the paragraph relating to the ABA unless you give a reason not to--RWR8189 11:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly you are nitpicking, but you are correct, it was about lying. This President has lied. The infamous: "Who could have know?" response to 1 not finding WMD, 2 no link SH and AQ, 3 failures leading up to Katrina (you have seen the video?). Why not impeach him?
Although the Constitution is ambiguous, an impeachable offense is determined by the law. Feel free to read the sources I provided at the top of this paragraph. However, since we can debate the subject of what makes "high crimes and misdemeanors" until we are green in the face, in practical terms it is decided by the representatives. And this is subject to political motivation more than anything else.
As to the ABA, they are talking about a President exceeding his powers. If that does not constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" what does?Holland Nomen Nescio 12:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand, there is no lawbook that contains "impeachable offenses." If it so chose, the House could declare jay-walking a high crime or misdemeanor and impeach a president for it. Impeachment in the House is entirely political and arbitrary, it is not just in practical terms defined by the House, it is fully and solely defined by the House.
The ABA just doesn't mention impeachment, as a remedy or otherwise. You have to make the leap there yourself from the article, and that is original research.--RWR8189 12:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
We are splitting hairs. Of course the law determines what constitutes an impeachable offense: "high crimes and misdemeanors." The problem is that nobody knows what that means, the law is ambiguous. Somebody has to think about it and interpret this law. When contemplating impeachment proceedings representatives have to face this difficult question: what actions constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors?" This is a political procedure. We know what is impeachable ("high crimes and misdemeanors"), but we do not know what "high crimes and misdemeanors" stands for.
As to the ABA, although nobody knows what "high crimes and misdemeanors" means, it would surprise me if the following actions (most under the guise of broad war powers, see ABA)do not fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors:" misrepresenting the case for invading Iraq, war profiteering, refuting the Geneva Conventions, inadequately investigating torture incidents, misrepresenting the facts in Katrina, violating FISA, editing scientific articles that contradict official policy, et cetera. Holland Nomen Nescio 12:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll just restate my point a final time. No law determines what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are, a simple majority of Representatives present and voting do.--RWR8189 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Which is exactly what I said. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" do constitute an impeachable offense!Holland Nomen Nescio 13:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I know you want to make this leap with the ABA, but you simply can't make something into something it is not. The ABA easily could have cited impeachment as a remedy, they could cited censure as a remedy, but they provided no remedy. All they did was denounce the NSA program, this has nothing to do with impeachment, and it does not belong in the article, except maybe as a link in "Further Reading" or "External Links" and I think that is a stretch itself--RWR8189 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the point of that article if not suggesting the President broke the law? If he did, would that not fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors?" If breaking the law in this situation (we are not talking about jay-walking!) does not, but lying about a private matter is, what could "high crimes and misdemeanors" then stand for?Holland Nomen Nescio 13:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you take anything away from the discussion of "high crimes and misdemeanors?" Now you are making two levels of POV opinions to keep this paragraph in. The article never says the law is broken, you have to make that implication yourself, impeachment is also never offered as a remedy, another implication you have to make yourself. This is originial research. Since impeachment is inherently partisan, you cannot directly compare the situations of 1998 and 2006. "High crimes and misdemeanors" are only what a majority of the House concurs on, nothing more, nothing less, we cannot determine what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" only the House can. We certainly cannot put words in the ABA's mouth either. They have every opportunity to suggest impeachment, yet they do not.--RWR8189 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The ABA article[39]:

There is nothing in either the language of the AUMF or its legislative history to justify the assertion that the general grant of authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against Al Qaeda and those affiliated with or supporting it, was intended to amend, repeal or nullify the very specific and comprehensive terms of FISA. Nor, under our system of checks and balances, is there any serious constitutional issue concerning Congress’ power to regulate electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes where it intercepts the communications of persons within the United States,....

and

FISA is a comprehensive and exclusive procedure for conducting foreign intelligence electronic surveillance in the United States. It anticipates emergencies and the exigencies of war, and it was specifically amended at the Administration’s request to make it more responsive to the need to combat international terrorism following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Nevertheless, the Administration concedes that NSA conducted electronic surveillance for a period of four years without complying with FISA’s procedures.

and

Nothing in the AUMF suggests that Congress intended to unleash the Executive to act without judicial supervision and contrary to standards set by Congress in conformity with the Constitution.

and

The argument that the AUMF implicitly creates an exception to FISA and is therefore consistent with § 2511(2)(f) strains credulity.

and

Thus, warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes would raise very serious and substantial Fourth Amendment questions.

The ABA is evidently discussing the inconsistencies in the argumentation put forward by the Bush administration. They show that several points are possibly violating US law. Which brings us back to "high crimes ..."Holland Nomen Nescio 21:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This just isn't an article about the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, which is discussed exclusively by the ABA. When you start making this refer to impeachment you are putting words in the ABA's mouth. That is originial research no matter how you spin it. You cannot ignore the fact that the ABA is given a perfect opportunity to say "we believe that these violations constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" and that the House should impeach President Bush." Instead they just give their opinion on the validity of arguments. This paragraph does not belong in an article about impeachment, it never discusses impeachment, it never reccomends impeachment, making the leap from this article to impeachment is original research.--RWR8189 22:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
You keep missing the point. This page is about impeachment and spying-gate is one argument for starting the procedure. The ABA discusses the legal details (read the PDF file) and shows that several reasons stated by the government are not compatible with the law. In effect the explain that in spying-gate the President most likely broke the law. That is relevant since a President that violates the law surely is a very could candidate under "high crimes ...."Holland Nomen Nescio 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
And its fine that is an argument in favor of impeachment, however this article already lists the NSA program as a common reason cited for impeachment. It would be a different matter if this was the only place the NSA program was discussed. It doesn't have to be repeated numerous times. At most a link to this ABA article should be placed in Further Reading/See Also/External Links, whichever is appropriate.--RWR8189 10:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph: Many activists charge that Bush committed obstruction of Congress, a felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001, by withholding information and by supplying information Bush should have known to be incorrect in his States of the Union speeches. This law is comparable to perjury, but it does not require that the statements be made under oath. Martha Stewart recently went to prison for violating this law by making false statements to investigators. Caspar Weinberger was indicted under this law in relation to his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, but he escaped prosecution by being pardoned by Bush's father.

is original research and contains no citations, it does not belong in the article as of now, not to mention a large level of POV inherent in the writing.--RWR8189 10:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One nice part of Wikipedia policy is that in stead of deleting information you can ask for the sources. Or better yet, editors themselves are free to look for these cites. By haphazzardly deleting info we might purge things that could be useful.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Have placed a tag, so if nobody provides the sources we can delete it in a few days. Don't forget to check it.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Something needs to be made clear: when a lawyers says that something is against the law - well, usually he says it in court, in which case his statement is deliberately leading to prosecution. That is the role of a lawyer. When he makes statements within this role (that is, as a lawyer), his statements have that inherent import. A lawyer does not say someone is a criminal, they say that the person has commited a crime. And a lawyer never says "this person has commited a crime." That is an arbitrary assertion, and holds no water. They say what the law is, what the persons actions are, and how the two relate. By this act, they prosecute or defend. And that is what the ABA is doing as the ABA. Kevin Baastalk 02:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering why this article regarding the impeachment movement does not include more discussion of 9/11 under "reasons"? A few things to look into and consider: (1) Many New Yorkers (as shown in polls) and others (including MN Senator Mark Dayton) were very dissatisfied with the offical 9/11 commission report, and claimed that it seemed to be "doctored"; (2) Bush claimed that his initial reaction to seeing the hole(s) in the WTC tower(s) was something to the effect of, "Now there's a lousy pilot" - and yet we learned later that as early as August 6, 2001, he had received warnings, in the form of PDB's (Presidential Daily Briefs, or intelligence briefs) claiming that there was soon to be a terrorist attack involving hijackings. The "lousy pilot" remark seemed calculated, in order to cover up forknowledge. (3) The Mindy Klineberg (sp?) testimony to the commission was particularly damning, as was the memo from former FBI lawyer Coleen Rowley. (4) Surveilance video from the roof of the convenience store near the Pentagon was confiscated in the name of national security, and never released, although it might have cleared up the question of whether a plane or a missile struck the Pentagon. (5) To many people who have followed the story, the only wild conspiracy theory seems to be that the terrorists acted alone, without inside help from the Bush administration. (6) Theologian and professor emeritus of Claremont College, David Ray Griffin, has written and lectured about the contradictions and holes in the official report, as well as about evidence that the WTC towers and a third WTC building collapsed because of controlled demolition; the evidence includes both recently released oral history from New Yorkers and firefighters who were leaving the WTC before it collapsed, and the evidence of the videos of the collapse. (6) For Bush to have known but to have allowed 9/11 to unfold seems to be a possibility; knowing and aiding the terrorists seems to be another; both would be impeachable offenses. // - This topic seems to need links to articles on so-called 9-11 conspiracy theories, as much as I know that is a derogatory term, and as much as I'm also aware of psy-ops concepts such as "poisoning the well" - when false conspiracy theories are circulated to discredit true ones, etc. 14:00 17 March 2006 —This unsigned comment was added by 71.214.132.101 (talk • contribs) .

Major changes

In an article like this I would think making numerous and extensive changes without discussing them could be misunderstood. Please make smaller rewrites and discuss here in the future.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Even after I provided sources some editors insist there are no sources. Please read this page and discuss your problems. Redacting out information on the basis of incorrect assertions does not constitute a good faith edit!Holland Nomen Nescio 20:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fit this in

This should go in somewhere: Vermont towns want Bush impeached - five Vermont towns have passed resolutions (at least one in a town hall meeting) directing Bernie Sanders to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush. Sanders says it's impractical at this time. bd2412 T 15:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

title of page

The title of "Movement to impeach George W. Bush" is original research in and of itself. There is no "movement" being referred to by that word in the press or anywhere by any reliable source. The page ought to be renamed to "Partisan calls to impeach President Bush". 70.85.195.225 17:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We just went through a name failed name change debate similar to the one you are proposing.--RWR8189 18:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It would be a mistake to frame this entirely as a partisan debate - at least some impeachment chatter has come from Republicans (or members of more conservative groups). bd2412 T 18:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
One wonders if Criticism of Wikipedia should be renamed Partisan criticism of Wikipedia... I don't see the title as POV. If it was "Right thinking peoples' movement to impeach GWB" then maybe it would be. I'm removing the NPOV template. Rich Farmbrough 22:30 8 March 2006 (UTC).

Major changes part II

This morning this article looked quite different. I changed the major deletions, although there were comments they were incorrect! Example, the reasons sections got crippled because there were no sources, looking higher up this page you will notice I supplied ample sources for that section. That clearly constitutes an incorrect edit comment. You ask of me to go back and restore all these unwarranted edits? That is ridiculuous.

Furthermore the numerous and elaborate edits since this morning were never discussed. Why do I need to discuss something I discussed intensively this morning? Please read this page!Holland Nomen Nescio 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Self Reference in lead-in

Wikipedia:Avoid self-references says to avoid self references. The lead-in to this article currently contains the phrase "for the purpose of this article". From reading this talk page, I gather that this is because some people think that the title of the article is not in common use outside of Wikipedia. I understand that moving the page was suggested, but did not recieve consensus. Never-the-less, failure to reach consensus on a title change does not give us the right to violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. The self-referential phrase adds nothing, and conflicts with the proper tone for an encyclopedia. Whether or not the article is moved makes no difference, that self-referential phrase must be removed. Johntex\talk 21:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is not a policy it is a suggestion. In this particular case, without the self-reference, and with the current title, it would be original research, which is policy. So we have to choose between two evils, either violate the NOR policy, or violate the self-reference guideline. Of course the problem can be solved by renaming the article, but it will take someone to write up a RfC for that to happen. Until then I recommend we keep the "self-reference" to avoid violation of the NOR policy. -- Stbalbach 22:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is more than a suggestion, it is a guideline. True, that does not carry the same weight as policy, but it is close. We should not ignore it without a very solid reason. Let's assume for a moment that you are right about the title violating WP:NOR. Violating a second guideline does nothing to remove the NOR violation, it just says, "look at us, we are Wikipedia, we made up this article name." Therefore, your concerns about the title are not a valid reason to violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Johntex\talk 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the title by its self doesn't violate NOR. Rather how we define the title is where the NOR issue comes in. For example consider "medieval science". This is a perfectly valid encyclopedia article title that you can find not just in Wikipedia but in lots of professional encyclopedias. But there was no science in the middle ages, the term didn't exist, the concept of science did not evolve until after the middle ages. But we name encyclopedia articles that because people understand what it means. We have a concept that we are trying to get across so we need a convenient name. That's all titles are a convienence - the heart of the matter is established in how we define and frame the article in the lead section. I've also seen lots of professional encyclopedias be self-referential to the article.
Reading Wikipedia:Avoid self-references more closely it says:
References which exist in a way which assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia), or the manner of access (online), are acceptable.
so it seems acceptable, the Wikipedia:Avoid self-references appears to be about avoiding referencing Wikipedia specifically, which I totally agree with, and is not the case here. -- Stbalbach 22:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Phraseology we should perhaps try to avoid, but not a breach of ASR. Rich Farmbrough 23:29 8 March 2006 (UTC).
P.S. ASR even says try to use terms such as "this article" as opposed to "this website" R F

Reasons Redux

Please stop re-inserting "reasons" without explicit citations to external sources which make clear that EACH "reason" mentioned is being advanced by a NOTABLE, VALID SOURCE as a "reason" for impeachment. If you fail to do this, then we are commiting original research in making that list. The correct place to list wiki articles like Plame and Yellowcake is in the See also section, NOT the "reasons" section. For the purposes of the narrative of our article here, wiki links to wiki pages are NOT acceptable primary sources. We must have a link to external, not internal sources or these "reasons" cannot rightly be listed as such. Please keep uncited wiki link "reasons" in the See also section only.192.168.232.76 07:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Had you read this page you might have seen this:
Of course I will provide the sources but I would imagine that this has already been done on the original article page. Here they are [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. Should you need more sources let me know.Holland Nomen Nescio 10:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Holland
PS, could you tell us what you consider a "NOTABLE, VALID SOURCE?"Nomen Nescio 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Since some editors fail to find the sources I provided I rewrote (sorry it turned out to be rather extensive) this and inserted the references. To make it readable I added a slight explanation to each argument. At least it is less chaotic. Hope this satifies the objections, feel free to comment.Holland Nomen Nescio 01:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Each and every specific allegation listed under "reasons/rationales" - this includes sub-section titles, MUST be backed up by specific links to external notable sources which specifically call for impeachment FOR THAT PARTICULAR REASON. Any allegation which is not backed up this way is original research and is NOT acceptable. 67.15.76.188 10:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please make a serious comment. You are well aware I provided links which support the assertions. Be so kind as to read them before repeating these erroneous allegations.Holland Nomen Nescio 12:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is getting rather bulky so I started a new page for the reasons. It can be found here.Holland Nomen Nescio 14:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi

I've semi-protected this article to try to get the edit war to cool off William M. Connolley 20:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I found this in CAT:SEMI. It looks like an edit war, I agree. So I changed it to full protection instead. WP:SEMI isn't a tool for getting rid of an anon with whom people disagree, it's for stopping vandalism when nothing else will work. -Splashtalk 17:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Umm.. there is no reason to full-protect the article. The anon user in question is currently under investigation for using sock puppets and other violations. It is one user causing the problem. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa -- Stbalbach 17:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
"Being under investigation" or using socks does not make someone a vandal. Are they violating 3RR and circumventing a block? Are they vandalising the article? If the answer to either is yes, then semi is fine. If they're just making edits that are causing discomfort to other editors, then that has to be worked out without simply excluding one editor from the article. -Splashtalk 17:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yesterday the user violated 3RR with multiple handles, it's in the edit history, see for yourself. The IP's used are being tracked by me at User:Stbalbach/anontexan and by the above investigation. -- Stbalbach 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The user is avoiding a 3RR by using various IPs. -Will Beback 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Splash, how much longer do you plan to keep the full protection on? There is no discussion happening here, because there is nothing to discuss. The anon sock puppet user violated 3RR, it's really that simple. -- Stbalbach 16:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected it. -Splashtalk 18:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Splash. -- Stbalbach 19:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

User:Stbalbach and User:AdamJacobMuller are reverting in close cooperation. I suspect them of sockpuppetry. Please see revert history for this article for proof. [54] 192.168.204.130 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.130.204 (talk • contribs)

I'm not really clear what you're up to, 66.98.130.204, but its clearly No Good William M. Connolley 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the accusations and read the full edit history with all the edit summaries. Many good edits have been made here by anons recently. It's AdamJacobMuller who made trouble, not any of the anons. Adam has been reported for 7RR violation [55]. 70.85.195.225 21:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to that :-). I've just blocked ...225 for removing sock tags [56] William M. Connolley 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of the "current tag"

The "current" tag is used when the information in an article is "changing rapidly" - it is used in events where the fundamentals of the story are changing hourly, like in hurricanes, as a warning to readers that they need to check back often, or that the basic facts may as of yet be incomplete. It is not used in articles about an ongoing issue that is already ongoing for 5 years and is fundamentally up to date, the article is about the same as it was 1 month ago. Will it keep changing? Of course. Lots of articles keep changing. Will the article change daily? No. Is it a current event? Of course lots of articles are "current events". The tag is not needed and is inappropriate to the rates and types of changes happening with this article. -- Stbalbach 15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/news?q=impeach%20Bush&sourceid=mozilla-search&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sa=N&tab=wn and http://www.google.com/search?q=impeach+Bush&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 demonstate that as a matter of fact it is an article that referrs to something in the news about which news is being made daily. As far as recent edits go, the tag "As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or unregistered users is temporarily disabled." indicates many would be edits aren't being made because it is protected. By your standard, any protected page is automaticly not current. This movement is gathering steam and judging it based on edit volumes a month ago is not relevant. "Types of changes" includes reverts, so any article that someone is constantly reverting would also automaticly not qualify for "current". (Whether that's the case here or not, I haven't checked. I just yesterday saw a TV program on it and looked it up here in Wikipedia. It's current to me.) WAS 4.250 15:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This movement is gathering steam - and you want to emphasis that point with a tag. I would suggest the tag is being used for political purposes, suggesting things will be changing in the future. There is no evidence for that. There are no hearings scheduled. Just because there are articles about it on Google doesn't mean this article is changing rapidly, this article is not a blog for every mention of impeachment, only the notable ones. The fundamental facts are in place and have been for a long time. The current tag is when there are major and serious changes happening hourly, it's not meant to be a long-term permanent tag. -- Stbalbach 16:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The tag does not belong William M. Connolley 17:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, some feel the tag is warranted:
  • THE movement to impeach President George W Bush over the war on terror began with a few tatty bumper stickers on the back of battered old Volvos and slogans such as “Bush lied, people died” on far-left websites. But as Democrat hopes rise of gaining control of Congress this autumn, dreams of impeaching Bush are no longer confined to the political fringe.[57]
Holland Nomen Nescio 10:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarity of 2 pages

I just somewhere saw these 2 pages:

Movement to impeach George W. Bush
Rationale to impeach George W. Bush

What is the difference between the two? Is there one or is it just a double? --Jared [T]/[+] 20:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks/sounds like the second page may have been made to substitute for this one. Mhking 22:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

For those reading the two titles (and the pages themselves) it is evident one article describes the movement to impeach and the other is describing in more detail the various reasons to impeach.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Background

This phrase is just plain wrong:

Impeachment in the United States is the proscribed process by which an elected office-holder may be removed from office.

The word "proscribed" is obviously incorrect and should be deleted. Also, it's not only elected officials that may be impeached but "all civil Officers of the United States." –Shoaler (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

I got it this time. Kevin Baastalk 21:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, the page is protected. Kevin Baastalk 21:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed the phrase. Thanks for the encouragement. :) –Shoaler (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

waxman letter - possible willfull violation of the constitution

The relevancy of the content:

Letter from Harry Waxman to Andrew Card asking if Bush knowingly sign into law a bill that didn't pass.[58]

has been disputed.

The waxman letter includes the paragraph:

The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.

which raises the question as to whether the president has commited an impeachable offense. Kevin Baastalk 02:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Has Mr. Waxman raised the possibility of impeachment himself with this development?
If not, jumping to that conclusion yourself is original research.
And after reading the letter it is clear that no endorsement for impeachment is made, as the subject heading requires.--RWR8189 04:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the letter seems to be asking whether Bush was even aware that he was signing a meaningless piece of paper. If the bill did not pass both houses, then it is simply not the law, and Bush can not be troubled for signing it unless the administration were to try to enforce it as though it were the law. bd2412 T 05:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
A yes, though it is relevant to impeachment, it is not an endorsement. BD2412 - I don't know why he would sign a bill that he knew was not passed by congress (if he knew it was not passed) unless he intended to enforce it as though it were the law. Though on the other hand, he doesn't have a real good history of enforcing the law (or obeying it, for that matter). but i digress. Kevin Baastalk 05:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
But he could be troubled for signing it in any case. It is true that he is effectively "placing himself above the Constitution" in theory if not in consequence, and he is certainly not "protect"ing "the Constitution", by risking the possibility that the (witting or unwitting) mistake is not caught. Quite to the contrary, he is jeopardizing it. He can certainly be "troubled" for this. Kevin Baastalk 06:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Say whatever you want about the situation, but Mr. Waxman did not classify this as an impeachable offense, taking the extra step to get their yourself is original research.--RWR8189 09:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see where I'm taking any steps here. The message is pretty clear. It's a warning; a threat; an intimidation. It says "Don't mess with my country or I'll mess back, old-school style (via law)." No literate person could honestly argue that it doesn't say that . Kevin Baastalk 20:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't mention impeachment, it doesn't threaten impeachment, it doesn't belong in this article.---RWR8189 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but I want my debate points for my counter to BD2412, regarding "troubled". Kevin Baastalk 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to clarify: he can't be troubled about this in the "potential impeachment" sense, unless and until he actually tries to enforce such a document as law. bd2412 T 22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove the link.--RWR8189 09:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I concur with the removal. The article should be reporting on clear movements to impeach and not worry about documents that might lead to such, unless a reliable source (not us) provides an explicit connection. (Besides, there's plenty ground to cover with explicit statements from reliable sources, and will likely be more to come.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The event has also been discussed at Talk:George_W._Bush#Bush_signs_bill_into_law_that_wasn.27t_passed_by_Congress, for whoever's interested. Kevin Baastalk 22:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Averting an edit war

Several editors and I have removed the website [59] Another editor continues to add it back. This website adds no value to this article, and is only a store, and maybe a blog. None the less, we are writing an encylopedia here, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links--Adam (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a note on the editor's talk page to ask that he (A) consider altering this material to change the focus from the commercial site to the relevant columns, and (B) discuss this material here before simply re-adding it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Several more reversions, and a request to another editor to discuss why they are trying to add commercial links instead of casting the text toward sourced factual information. Could ITMFA supporters please read the article talk page and talk to us before adding reversion bait? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I never saw this talk page beforehand and never knew it was previously deleted. It seemed to me a natural place to put that information.
Dan Savage is a notable, nationally syndicated press columnist who makes radio and tv appearances to national audiences. The ITMFA site isn't "commercial", Savage is losing money on every pin and button he sends out, I linked to the site, rather than the columns, because the site is a more concentrated place for Savage's role in the impeachment movement. I'd planned on linking some of the columns in later - I have a seperate browser window open looking through Savage's archives for weekly columns that focus on this issue. The idea that the ITMFA site makes this article into a "indiscriminate collection of links" is laughable - the link from the site through the columnist, and adding that to this article in the very section detailing people in the media who advocate for impeachment - removing that smacks of biased removal of information. SchmuckyTheCat 16:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
A-ha! I was sure an ITMFA supporter would play the partisan card. But you're wrong, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'm fervently hoping we (the American people, that is, not Wikipedia editors) can muster enough support to rid us of who I suspect is the most foolish President in a century (and perhaps ever). That is why it's even more important, from my point of view, to ensure that any text and links that discuss such movements are scrupulously non-commercial; i.e., are not primarily for raising money. If Savage is a notable media figure (and I gather he is), his media work is what should be discussed in the article, not his fund-raising site. We can even include quotes and citations to back this up (as I've started with the new References section, and as we should with all Wikipedia material). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
biased doesn't mean partisan. As with Santorum people remove Savage related contributions to Wikipedia because they don't like Savage, his words, and his methods. Linking to the ITMFA site probably is the most relevant site for linking Savage to this movement. The rest of his writing on it is mixed in with sex-advice, editorial notices on the Stranger slog, etc. Anyways, now that I see that there has been a revert war about this before, I'll make sure the next edit is fully sourced. SchmuckyTheCat 17:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I also see that someone made an article, ITMFA, and now it's a redirect to this article. Generally, articles with re-directs need to explain re-directed terms. SchmuckyTheCat 16:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, someone improperly (IMHO) pointed ITMFA to this article, Rickpike incompletely attempted to convert it to a proper stub, and Mmx1 reverted Rickpile's attempt without explanation. I'm not sure what should be done with this, but I have a real problem with redirects that point to articles whose only inclusion of the redirect title subject is buried deep in the full article. If ITMFA is sufficiently notable, perhaps it should have its own article (which would be mentioned and linked to here). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a proper redirect. ITMFA isn't notable by itself anymore than any writing or media piece by anyone else cited here. If independent content existed at ITMFA, it'd probably be a stub which I'd suggest be merged here anyways. SchmuckyTheCat 17:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out here why a link to an online store is included in this article.
I'm not familiar with this author, and perhaps a link to one of his columns may be appropriate, but I see no reason to link to his online store and personal blog.--RWR8189 03:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Mr. Savage is playing a significant role in the social movement to impeach a sitting U.S. president. If Wikipedia is to accurately represent the subject for posterity, his site should be part of that entry. The effort is distinguishable in that he is a nationally syndicated columnist attempting to rally support over a period of time, not a hack writing a single op-ed piece.

If Rosa Parks had run a blog against racism & segregation, would you have removed the link? - 20-June-2006

I just put a search into Wikipedia for ITMFA after coming across the term elsewhere (which is my usual cultural-referent mode these days), got redirected here, and knew nothing more than I did when I started. Is it so much to ask to put a link/list/explanation of what the acronym stands for in the article? Most readers won't even think to go to the Talk page, or check the redirect's history. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush/Archive_3&oldid=1149973951"