Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Lead Section

According to Wikipedia's lead section guideline, the first paragraph of the article "needs to establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it", and the first sentence "should be a concise definition of the topic". The perfect article guideline recommends that a lead "begins with a clear description of the subject at hand."

Our opening paragraph may benefit from being improved with these concerns in mind. The current first sentence is a mushy "The phrase movement to impeach George W. Bush for the purpose of this article refers to actions and commentary within the public and private spheres tending towards support for the impeachment of United States President George W. Bush." Let's turn it into a concise definition of the topic instead. This will not only be an improvement for the readers, but also help editors by clarifying the scope of the article.

Furthermore, the lead section guideline on providing an accessible overivew states that the lead section should "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question)." I suggest we clean up the subsequent paragraphs of the lead accordingly. -- Terjen 23:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed "for the purpose of this article" from the opening sentence as it is gibberish, despite another editor arguing that "it is necessary because otherwise the fundamental basis of this article starts to go away" where "this underscores the problem with the pov of the article". I don't see a reason to maintain an introduction that underscores a POV. If the fundamental basis of the article is POV, as some seem to argue, then it may not be such a bad thing that the fundamental basis for the article starts to go away... Terjen 00:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you remove "for the purposes of this article" then you must find a Verifiable, Reliable Source that describes or defines "The movement to impeach George W. Bush. Otherwise, what you have is original research. If the basis of the article is original research the whole article is trash. (Which it is, but assume otherwise for the moment).--Blue Tie 01:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Stating "for the purposes of this article" is essentially the same as admitting the article subject is original research, so I can't see a reason to include it unless that's one's POV. It would be better to use the first paragraph to concisely define the topic. I presume the concern is whether or not there really is a social movement to impeach Bush. I can certainly understand both sides of that issue. Although there appears to be quite a bit of activities and people working towards an impeachment of Bush, it is open for discussion whether or not these in total is a "social movement" of people "with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals" or alternatively is just a number of individuals doing their own thing. A Google search for "movement to impeach" indicates that many see a movement, and a google search for "movement to impeach" in recent news" provides a few examples such as [1][2][3][4]. Terjen 07:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do any define what the term means? --Blue Tie 10:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The quote above is from the Wordnet dictionary defintion of the term movement.Terjen 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am looking for a definition or description of the phrase that is now the title of an article. --Blue Tie 18:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too. I also agree with your comment that there could be several different things that could apply to "movement". What different meanings do you find in the various uses of the term movement to impeach, particularly as applied to Bush? Terjen 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Here is a sample:

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Terjen 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Here are a few more from a search for the related phrase impeachment movement: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Terjen 05:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Here is a sample of news mentioning "Impeachment Movement": [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] ----Terjen 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As applied to Bush, and based upon your cites, I would say that a "Movement to Impeach Bush" is like movements to impeach other presidents in its general character and in its specific character it is a grassroots effort, chiefly in Vermont that is rejected by National Leaders of both Republican and Democratic parties, decision makers responsible for any fulfillment of the issue. There may be other meanings but that is what I see from the cites you gave, particularly after applying WP:RS and WP:NOTE. It is possible that the movement is actually some sort of organization spearheaded by an individual. --Blue Tie 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept that there is a "grassroots movement?" If so, does that constitute a "movement" as you interpret the word in this article?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would accept that an organization in Vermont has developed a process that is called a "Grass Roots" effort in that state. It may not be only in Vermont and it does not appear to be national. It is also irrelevant to any actual effort to impeach Bush. --Blue Tie 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you accept a local movement as movement. And, being aware that impeachment may also be started by states, not only Congress, it is entirely possible that if a local movement can sway a staee that might result in impeachment proceedings.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You gave two conditions upon which it is "entirely possible". One of those two conditions does not exist. The states cannot initiate impeachment proceedings. Much less local communities. Consequently, I do not accept it as "entirely possible". Indeed, it is impossible because the people who control this are not considering at all, for good as well as political reasons. --Blue Tie 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blue Tie. What difference does it make who does or doesn't support it, in terms of leaders? If it does have genuine popular support, that makes it a genuine "movement", regardless of what various officials may say. --Sm8900 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty important that it cannot happen. If there was a "movement to repeal the law of gravity", it would be similar. How can you have a movement to do the impossible? --Blue Tie 00:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are talking about improbable. Unless you suggest that if tommorrow all members of Congress would start impeachment it still will not happen it is not impossible but at this time not likely. If you do mean impossible the Constitution needs to be rewritten because it mentions it while clearly it can mever be implemented. Removing that redundant clause would be the next step.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am talking about impossible. But this will not be established until after Bush is no longer President. Then it will be clear, by the fact that it never happened and never even came close, that it was never possible. I have said before that this article should be deleted but it is too exciting to biased editors right now. Why is it impossible? Because no one who matters wants it to happen. They specifically do NOT want it to happen and will studiously ignore any such desires. And with that in place, there is simply not enough time for it to happen. It is impossible. It is just as impossible as the US landing another person on the moon by 2010. Not that it is a theoretical impossibility but that it is impossible because there is no movement to make it happen. It is impossible not simply improbable. It cannot happen. --Blue Tie 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that all of you who want this article removed are gripping at straws; Especially you blue. I agree with barnstormer that the arguments being used are quite bizarre. If we can agree that the article itself is of a factual nature, then it's evidence enough that a movement exists. If anything within the article is false, then it should be promptly removed; If the entire article is false, the entire article should be removed. But once we agree that the facts are in line; that is, that the events in the article did in fact take place, we establish that "a movement" or "movements" exist. We can attack the definition of the word "Movement," nitpick about whether or not it should have its own article, etc., but the article is informative and obviously people are interested in it. It seems as though certain members are not part of the movement, or do not approve of the movement, therefore are attempting to suppress the very fact that a movement, or movements, exist.

Incidentally I am pro-impeachment, and although it does seem unlikely, I am far from alone in that opinion... From available evidence, I think it's far more probable then undoing the laws of gravity. Brotherchristian 22:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. But there is no movement to impeach Bush. There are pretenders. But nothing real. This is like the movement to reseat royalty on thrones in Europe. Sure there are some people who want that. But its bogus.. never gonna happen. And, when Bush is out of office for a year or so, the irrelevance of this article will be evident. --Blue Tie 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So the improbability of success is evidence that no movement exists? Brotherchristian 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I am formally starting, right here, right now, the Movement to Impeach All Liberals. We've got slogans, signs, bumper stickers and press releases. Our mission to impeach and prosecute for treason, all democrats, liberals and socialists for giving aid and comfort to the enemy: both in the invaders from the south, and the terrorists in the middle east. Where's my page? Ymous 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Two words, Ymous: Be Bold.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, so create a page then if it'll make you feel better. Brotherchristian 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such movement even if Ymous declares it. Impeachment is only conducted by Congress. --Blue Tie 01:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I DEEPLY AGREE

I 100% AGREE WITH THIS PAGE BEING BIAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Politics rule 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond writing something with all caps and lots of exclamation marks, could you elaborate? Your emotion is felt by all, but nobody knows what you're referring to. scotteaux 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you see bias in this article, or in the movement for impeachment? Your user page (not to get to personal) clearly touts your support of this president and his party, so I can understand your disagreement with the subject of the article. But the article itself is merely relaying this information - not creating it. So my question would be: what, exactly, is this bias and/or POV everybody is so heated about? This is a legitimate and broad political movement, and it deserves documentation. The opposing view that would be represented in a criticism/controversy section would merely be the POV of die-hard Bushites. Unless there is a major cohesive movement rallying to prevent any potential impeachment of this president, the article is, IMHO, not in violation of any wiki policy, nor is it in any way biased.--Jackbirdsong 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem? This is a very scientifically accurate and fair article. It's an uneasy topic, but it's fair none the less. Turn your caps lock off, you know that button to the left of "A"? Chenzo23 01:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What is fair about this article? There's nothing at all fair about this article. A survey, by a polling organization no one has ever heard of before now, has been mentioned in the lead of the article as if it had credibility. If one knew nothing at all about American politics and read this article, one would get the impression that NO ONE opposes impeachment. Only those who support impeachment are mentioned. One would also get the impression that the impeachment movement has never been criticized by anyone. Conservative writers have frequently heaped well-deserved ridicule (as well as thoughtful, well-researched examinations of the profound flaws in the impeachment argument) on those who suggest impeachment, but it is nowhere to be found in this article.

The deleted May 2007 survey showing 39% of Americans favoring impeachment of Bush was listed by Angus Reid Strategies and commented on by former Republican Congressman Bob Barr in the cited article from conservative Human Events. In its place is now a cherry-picked stat from a Washington Times article saying that less than 1% per January 2007 thought impeachment should be a "top priority" for Congress.[52] This is not an improvement but a step backwards. -- Terjen 03:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is some information about the pollster for the May 2007 survey showing 39% support for impeachment: "Mr. Towery served as the chairman of former Speaker Newt Gingrich's political organization from 1992 until Gingrich left Congress. He is a former Georgia state representative, the author of several books and currently heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage."[[53] -- Terjen 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

About References to Polls

I would like to see a better reference for the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll conducted in January 2007, which purportedly showed less than 1 percent thought a Bush impeachment should be a "top priority" for Congress. The reference cited is hearsay from a source, The Washington Times, whose neutrality is doubtful. In any case, such prominent mention of a poll that is radically out of line with most other polls, including many more recent, seems inappropriate. See for example the results of a Google search on "impeachment poll 2007".

Rather than cite individual polls in the article introduction, it might be better simply to note any significant trends and refer the reader to further details about polls in a later section. A summary table of poll results would certainly be helpful to the discovery of any patterns or trends. Also there should be external links to notable sites where there are ongoing impeachment petitions, so people can cast their vote one way or the other. For example, both MoveOn and Democrats.com have active petitions, and these should be listed conspicuously. JCLately 03:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's an ongoing poll on MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/), of nearly a half million votes 88% approve impeachment. Is this worth mentioning? Brotherchristian 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No that poll isn't worth mentioning. It's not scientific and has been advertised by liberal websites to beef up its numbers (which is why the 88% number is there but nowhere else). Knightw 03:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Barnstormer contributions

Terjen, I get the impresion that Barnstormer is trying to own this article. The account has made a total of ten edits since joining Wikipedia: eight to this article, and two to this discussion page. I'm trying to improve the article and make it more balanced; Barnstormer is trying to own it.

It seemed at first like Barnstormer was trying to make a point - I took the extensively verbose edit as commentary that the paragraph in the intro about who supports impeachment is a little too detailed (which I think it was before you added to it, so it isn't meant personally). But now it looks more like Barnstormere is a freshly minted editor, possibly in need of some guidance. -- Terjen 06:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked by AuburnPilot for 3RR, vandalism and refusal to discuss his proposed edits. I think you and I will be able to work out our differences. FreedomAintFree 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the Introduction

Let's discuss the changes you want to make to this article on the Talk page. After we reach consensus, we'll make the changes. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? For example, for about a month there was a poll conducted by Matt Towery on this subject that you found appropriate to include in the article lead. But Mr. Towery's commentary that accompanied those poll results has been deleted ... not just moved to a different part of the article, but deleted. Why? Is it because that commentary is the only criticism of the movement to impeach (which I will abbreviate as "MTI") that has ever appeared in this article? I'm assuming good faith and just asking a question.

I'd appreciate an answer. Before I made my most recent edit (restoring last night's version), it was a hagiography of MTI. And before I started working on this article in the first place, it was a hagiography of MTI. The purpose of Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken, is not to publish hagiographies for anti-Bush movements, politicians and organizations. It is to publish balanced and neutral articles about all subjects. Looking forward to working constructively with you all on this article and many more. FreedomAintFree 00:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the introduction back to the reasonably stable June 2 version as a starting point. Please argue the case for your proposed changes to the introduction.

Regarding the Matt Towery poll[54] and commentary[55], note that I was the editor that added the commentary and poll to the article in the first place. In addition, the commentary is still cited and quoted in the Public Opinion : Polling results : 2007 subsection. Hence your suggestive question that I removed the commentary because it criticizes the movement to impeach is unreasonable.

Besides, you were the editor to repeatedly delete the poll cited in the intro by this apparently conservative pollster: "Mr. Towery served as the chairman of former Speaker Newt Gingrich's political organization from 1992 until Gingrich left Congress. He is a former Georgia state representative, the author of several books and currently heads the polling and political information firm InsiderAdvantage."[56]

-- Terjen 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You said, "In addition, the commentary is still cited and quoted in the Public Opinion : Polling results : 2007 subsection." That's Bob Barr's commentary. I'm talking about Matt Towery's commentary. Towery is the "apparently conservative pollster" himself, isn't he? He said that the rationale for impeachment was "specious," that the politicians pushing for impeachment were "on the fringe of political thought," and engaging in "silly political grandstanding." Why are Towery's poll results worth including, but Towery's commentary must be deleted? Bob Barr's commentary doesn't criticize MTI and you put it in. Towery's commentary does criticize MTI and you deleted it. I hope you understand, as a result of those events and the hagiographic result, why I'm asking these questions. They're not unreasonable under these circumstances. It's a hagiography of MTI, not a balanced encyclopedic article.

I would like to invite you to write a "Criticism and controversy" section for this article that's similar to the sections by the same name I've seen on so many other Wikipedia articles. FreedomAintFree 02:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We seem to use different terminology. I use the term commentary in reference to the cited article, not in reference to comments like the quote by Bob Barr. I don't think neither the Barr nor Towery comments belong in the introduction but is better kept elsewhere in the entry. Barr's comment is relevant for the poll results reported in the section, while Towery's comment is not. I am not against having a "Criticism and controversy" section, which would be a proper location for his comments. Perhaps you should give it a shot? Terjen 02:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Forget Wikipedia!

This BS is just entertainment, like watching a futile excersize in info control inside a bubble...

You want real, accurate, complete and up to date info on where resolutions were introduced (State and local), go here:

http://impeachpac.org/resolutions-list

Hint: On May 29, 2007, Maine becme the ELEVENTH State to introduce a Bill in its legislature

Wonder why you won't read that here!

Perhaps because you haven't added it yet? Terjen 02:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Impeachment beyond the left

There are two distinct, largely unrelated, bodies of opinion in America favoring impeachment. The larger of the two is represented here by contributors favoring the offences defined by Democrats, and others on the left. There is, however, a vocal grassroots movement on the right, a large part of his base, who likewise, favor impeachment of the President. The Republican issues relate to his failing to enforce existing immigration laws, and possible illegal acts related to his "Immigration Amnesty" policy, and the creation of a "de facto" North American Union with Mexico and Canada, without review or consent of Congress. Both groups can potentially bring pressure to bear against Bush in a collective impeachment effort.(Wikipedia is drawing serious criticism for not allowing the Republican pro-impeachment faction to mention their additional issues in this lengthy article.)

It is reported in the national press that the RNC donations, from individuals is down 40%, from last election. More than half of the 2008 Republican candidates repudiate the substance of the Senate Immigration Bill, as offered.

The opinion above was posted by Nativeborncal in the article and moved here by me. I think the editor calls attention to important issues, even if they were posted in the wrong place. Terjen 15:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is far too long

When I called this article a hagiography, I wasn't being accurate. It's a hagiographic novella. This article is 138 kilobytes in length and it contains not even one word of criticism against MTI. Compare it to articles about other subjects that are much more notable:

• George W. Bush: 91 kilobytes. Contains abundant criticism.

• Tony Blair: 63 kilobytes. Also contains plenty of criticism.

• Osama bin Laden: 62 kilobytes. Since it inventories his crimes, there's plenty of criticism.

• Bill Clinton: 86 kilobytes. Has a significant section called "Controversies."

• Iraq War: 117 kilobytes. Loads and loads of criticism.

I've asked you to draft a "criticism and controversy" section and you've declined, asking me to do it instead. Fair enough. While I'm researching and drafting it, why don't you cut this bloated whale down to about 50 kilobytes? After that, when I add the criticism section, it won't be any longer than the article about Tony Blair, who is more notable. FreedomAintFree 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I waited two days with no response. I'll go ahead and edit for length. I'll be careful about preserving all the links and references. If readers want more information they can click on the links. Let's be agreeable about any disagreements that arise and work it out constructively and amicably. Looking forward to working with you. -- FreedomAintFree, 16:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is too big. There is no movement to impeach him. And in a few years this article will look like a leisure suit from the 70's -- silly. --Blue Tie 14:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Blue tie, you live in bubble with the other Bushies if you really believe there is no movement. Again, is the factual content in this article not evidence of a movement? 68.81.144.106 22:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone presents factual evidence that schizophrenics sometimes go hungry and homeless, and if someone else presents evidence that water is powerful wet stuff, its truthfulness and factuality will not mean that the Moon is made of Green Cheese. The "evidence" here is evidence of nothing. Inconsequential whiners and crybabies make noise but its not encyclopedic. --Blue Tie 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is no movement, but this article seems to be incredibly long and therefore indigestible when Nancy Pelosi, arguably the most powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill, says that Bush will not be impeached, is it really necessary to document a wave of thought that is at the very least totally futile? I think not. Zookman12 02:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been lurking

I just want to say that the 'redo' that 'freedomaintfree is doing has been excellent. I don't add to this article because of my feeling again our president. Keep up the good work. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Crohnie. I appreciate it. I'm just trying to make it a better article. There are two sides to every story and one side was completely MIA. Also it was much too long. If the authors want to write a book they can call Random House. I'm being extremely careful to preserve all the original meaning and save all the links. There was a lot of duplication and one really ginormous fact error. -- FreedomAintFree, 00:00 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the real reason for deleting the Towery criticism?

Terjen, you've said it "belongs elsewhere." But even though you've found a substantial amount of time to invest in editing this article tonight, you just deleted it rather than investing a few minutes in creating the "elsewhere." This isn't the first time you've deleted it.

I've put a lot of effort into making this a better article. If you really don't believe it belongs in the article at all -- and your actions, which speak louder than your words, indicate that this is the case -- then say so, and give me a good reason grounded in policy. Otherwise, construct the "elsewhere." -- FreedomAintFree, 05:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A few sections back in this talk page, in Changes to the Introduction, I argued that the Towery comments doesn't belong in the 2007 Polls section as they aren't relevant for the reported poll results. Despite this, you added the quotes without further discussion. As I said, I am not against having a "Criticism and controversy" section, which, as I said, would be a proper location for the Towery comments. I don't have any particular interest in creating such a section though. You have previously offered to research and draft it, and I wish you all the best. Terjen 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

References

In what was apparently an attempt to "save all the links", the reference section has been completely screwed over. Unless a link is specifically provided to support a specific statement, there is no need to preserve the links in their current location. My suggestion would be to removed them from the article, and place them within a section on this page for future use. - auburnpilot talk 05:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

They've been put into "Archive 5." FreedomAintFree 21:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

BryanFromPalatine, AKA FreedomAintFree, we're on to you. 64.145.158.163 21:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FreedomAintFree has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I haven't examined this user's edits to the article, but they should all be scrutinized; WP:AGF no longer applies. JamesMLane t c 09:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything negative that I've ever read about Wikipedia has been confirmed. The left-wing partisans are in control. All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Sockpuppet." Xboxwarrior 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's not paraphrase "off the table"

(In response to Terjen's undoing my edit): I'm referring to the last sentence of the introductory section, which reads: "The Democratic Party leadership has indicated that they have no intention of impeaching Bush." This is a weasel-worded reference, I presume, to Nancy Pelosi's statements, which are more clearly set forth in the subsequent section on Political views and actions, Democrats in Congress. To take something "off the table" means it has been removed, for the time being, as a subject of open discussion. The phrase "Democratic party leadership" renders the attribution of this statement needlessly fuzzy. If the statement is to be made, it should be made properly, as done under the section about Nancy Pelosi, but there's no point in repeating it in the introduction, so the place where it logically belongs is not the intro. I regard the insertion of this weasely paraphrase as a blemish on the introduction, the rest of which is factual and notable.

Let us not forget that this is about politics: shades of meaning are important, and considering that Nancy Pelosi is next in line after Bush and Cheney, it is to be expected that she chose her words very carefully, with political considerations in mind. Since the door has not been closed to a revision of her stance based on further developments and public opinion, the statement in question simply is not especially noteworthy. More to the point, and more indisputably factual, is the preceding sentence, "The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee has not considered the impeachment of President Bush and the House of Representatives has taken no action to do so." I think that is a better way to end the introduction. I leave it to someone else to remove the offending sentence, if you agree, as I have no intention of starting an edit war. JCLately 05:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

Can we get semi protection for this article? There appears to be alot of IP vandalism on the article Momusufan 18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already requested here: WP:RFP. Hopefully, protection will come soon. Gdo01 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

FreedomAintFree has been blocked as a sock-puppet. But he did a massive rewrite of the article around 2 June. Did he damage the article or improve it? Ace Frahm 21:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Today's recent kafluffle over the words 'previously used'...

Hello, I've checked what all of the edit warring was about today that caused both the article and the talk page to be semi-protected, and it all seems to come down to just these two words: 'previously used' appearing or not appearing within the following sentence:

"Furthermore, the arguments put forward for the invasion of Iraq — the continued possession and development of [previously used] weapons of mass destruction and active links to al Qaeda — have been found to be false, according to all official reports."

I must say I do not understand how this could be so much of a fuss, but surely it is not a case of actual vandalism...? Surely it would be reasonable to discuss the relative merits, or lack of same, of this particular locution, right here on the discussion page...? I mean we always tell people to use the discussion page to discuss such changes and wording differences, right? Isn't the "block-and-blank" approach a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, in this case? So what are the arguments for or against stating that the weapons of mass destruction were previously used by Saddam (which everyone knows they were anyway, even as recently as March 1991)? Does anyone know exactly when, or indeed if he abandoned the program? And if they were indeed "previously used", why would it be irrelevant, or worse, vanadlism, to state this? This deserves to be honestly discussed, not blanked, IMO. Regards, Blake3522 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent. I think page protection was necessary considering the way that the anonymous editor was behaving. However, I regret using the word "vandalism" in the edit summary when I protected the article. Clearly, there is a content dispute (which likely has plenty of history that I'm not aware of). But I suggest that the anonymous editor and others here discuss things rationally rather than resorting to the constant reverting. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is more one of form than of content, and it might have been better to characterize the offense as stubborn refusal to observe the rules of orderly discourse rather than vandalism, but I do agree, in light of the history of this article, that it would be best to retain some measure of page protection to prevent an unreasonable degree of further disruption. Multiple editors (including myself) voiced their disapproval of the insertion of the words "previously used" in the manner that was done, and the comments accompanying those reversions seemed sufficient to make this clear. OK, if that wasn't clear enough, let me elaborate: weapons of mass destruction were not found, previously used or not, so the addition of those words in the context of this sentence is entirely superfluous. Furthermore, it alters the meaning of the sentence, adding the incorrect implication that what was sought was previously used WMDs. No, what was sought was any WMDs. Nor is it true that the fact that Saddam had previously used WMDs in and of itself justified the invasion, absent any evidence that he continued to possess and/or develop WMDs. It would appear that the author of the "previously used" amendment was crudely attempting to inject a separate statement into the original sentence in such a way as to diminish its impact, without regard for the obvious awkwardness of wording and distortion of meaning caused by such a revision. A more appropriate way to make the point that appears to have been intended would be to construct a separate sentence, something like "It had been noted that Saddam had previously used WMDs, and concerns were expressed that he would do this again.", with appropriate cites. I would not object to some such statement, if it hasn't already been made somewhere in the article. My objection was to the persistent, stubborn manner in which this clumsy effort was made, despite repeated objections. Having seen the underhanded tactics employed by people who seem bent on subverting this article, I sympathize with those who have lost patience with such behavior. Some degree of protection from such disruption seems warranted, as I doubt that this subject will become any less controversial. - JCLately 03:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As has been noted under the laws of war the use of anything years ago is not a casus belli. As such inserting this statement is an attempt to muddy the waters.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you just making stuff up as you go along, for the purposes of constructing a lame argument that isn't really fooling anyone? Wherever did you find such a "law of war", and how is it relevant? If Saddam Hussein had used WMD in the past, it is entirely logical to suspect that he was continuing to stockpile and/or develop such weapons. Just ask Bill Clinton.

If the weapons WERE previously used by Saddam Hussein againt KURDS, why is it so against your agenda to admit this FACT, and why is it so much in your personal political interest that we DISGUISE this FACT???

LET THE TRUTH SPEAK, THE DEAD WILL NOT BE SILENT - NOT NOW, NOT EVER!!!! YOU CAN ERASE AND PROTECT THIS TALK PAGE OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BUT THE KURDS WHO WERE BRUTALLY MURDERED BY SADDAMS AND YOUR CHEMICALS WIL NEVER BE SILENT, WE WILL JUST WAIT FOR YOU TO UNPROTECT THIS HEAVILY CENSORSHIP DISCUSSION AGAIN, A THOUSAND YEARS WE WILL WAIT IF NECESSARY, THEN WE WILL BE BACK HERE AGAIN TO TELL PEOIPLE THE TRUTH ABOUT YOUR HERO SADDAM BECAUSE THE TRUTH WILL DEFEAT THE LIES AND "PIG-HEADED" NAME-CALLINGS OF THE EVIL FORCES HERE EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!!!! 70.105.50.115 11:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

1. BLATANT LIE: YOU ARGUED THAT PREVIOUS USAGE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WAS "ANCIENT HISTORY" BECAUSE IT TOOK PLACE IN WORLD WAR ONE, TWO, AND VIETNAM.

1. RESPONSE: THAT IS A BLATANT DISTORTION OF THE ARGUMENT. TO DATE, YOU HAVE NOT COME UP WITH ANYTHING COHENRENT IN WAY OF AN ARGUMENT, BECAUSE YOU YOURSELF KNOW PERFECTLY WELL THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT WORLD WAR ONE, TWO OR VIETNAM. STOP KIDDING YOURSELF. THIS IS ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN, HIS WMD PROGRAM, AND THE SUSPICIONS OF PRESIDENTS CLINTON AND BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS THAT IT WAS CONTINUING. DON'T TELL HALF A TRUTH AND EXPECT IT NOT TO BE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, TELLING ONLY A HALF TRUTH AND IGNORING THE OTHER HALF THAT DOIES NOT SUIT YOU!!! Til Eulenspiegel 12:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

When were these WMD's used?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And which type of WMDs were used, i.e., nucular? — goethean ॐ 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The previously used WMD's were chemicals against the Kurd's. But that being said, previously used does not belong in this sentence. If wanted it should be put in another section about the chemicals which was just one of the causes for the first invasion by the first Bush to go in. The anononymous editor has made about 6 reverts about this just today. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To noise-maker: I'm deeply offended by your characterization of me as "evil" and "liar", unquestionably a hypocritical personal attack. If you have something to contribute, why don't you try to figure out a way of expressing yourself more thoughtfully than by persistently banging your head on a wall. - JCLately 16:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

When the level of opposition to mentioning the plain facts extends to reverting me, blocking me, protecting the page, erasing everything I ever wrote on the talk page, AND protecting the talk page, just to muzzle a voice speaking the truth, you bet I'm going to make as much noise as possible, as often as possible, and continue to do so. These tactics only reveal what I am truly up against. If you guys were not afraid of telling the whole truth, you would quote the public statements showing the Clinton administration, in between the two Bushes, never once stopped suspecting Saddam of developing and storing every kind of weapon, especially as he had previously used them many times. Calling all this 'World War One' or 'Ancient History' is crediting your reader with having the same "selective amnesia" that you do, and avoiding discussing the issue head on. 70.105.50.115 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

When the level of your argument reduces to mindless repetition, and you express your intention to continue this tactic, what do you expect? Talk about "selective amnesia", you seem to have forgotten to respond to my specific objections, despite having read them. I didn't make the argument that Saddam's previous use of WMDs was ancient history. My objection was a more basic one as to the specific form your edit, which doesn't even rise to the level of being meaningful. You are attempting to argue by insinuation, without clearly expressing the point you apparently wish to make. Even if you were to express this point clearly, such an argument would meet with considerable resistance, but not because people contest the truth of Saddam's prior use of WMDs or any effort to suppress the truth. Consider an argument of the form "If A and B, then C", where A = "Saddam previously used WMDs", B = "Saddam continues to possess and/or develop WMDs", and C = "we should invade Iraq and take out Saddam". That was the justification Bush presented. The problem is that B was false, hence A is irrelevant. I agree that Saddam was a bad guy, and I sympathize with the plight of the Kurds, but that is not the central point here. As I said before, I don't object to a separate statement mentioning point A, but such a statement needs to be made properly, not misrepresented as relevant to the conclusion that the entire justification is bogus. If you want to take a stab at making your point properly, be my guest, but if you disregard everything I've said and pull the same stunt again, you will have proven yourself beyond any reasonable doubt to be a troll whose disruptions should no longer be tolerated. - JCLately 16:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have protected this article for two days. Please discuss the issue here during these two days and try to come to a consensus about inclusion of the words. If there is no consensus after two days, we will go from there.--Chaser - T 23:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious sourcing

I am seeing quite a few improper sources in this article, like DailyKos, and other bloggish websites. These sources are not allowed per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. This article needs some cleaning up. - Crockspot 19:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is not a biography. — goethean ॐ 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. What it is is a POV fork that's intended to avoid WP:BLP. But the main subject is a living person, so it must abide by WP:BLP. Pretend the title was Movement to impeach Bill Clinton, and you'll see what I mean. Crockspot 12:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC) further - I opened a section on WP:BLPN. - Crockspot 12:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This article does fall under BLP though, it isn't "just" for biographies. Any potentially libelous material can and should be policed with BLP in mind when it deals with living persons. Kyaa the Catlord 05:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, per the above, blogs are not reliable sources per WP:SPS. Videmus Omnia 14:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sources appear to be viable, since they are sources for a claim made by a blog owner or contributor, which should be permissible. See the second point of WP:SPS: most of the blogs are written by the subject for which they are used as a citation, and so permissible under official WP policy. The dailykos citation is one among several supporting references for a particular statement, and the article would suffer minimally from removing it. So, rather than saying that the sources in general are improper, could you be a little more specific? Which sources do you find improper? Here is one that I find a little dubious: [57] since it is the only citation supporting one of the facts listed. Any others? Silly rabbit 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When examining WP:SPS, don't ignore the section that follows it, WP:SELFPUB. Blogs are only usable to source information about the blogger, and normally only in their own article. These blog sources violate several criteria of WP:SELFPUB. - Crockspot 17:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are seriously discouraged. Any blog source needs to be examined very closely and if it does not pass the highest degree of inspection, it should be removed. There is a reason for this rule. It is so that articles do not rely upon blogs to present self published opinions.--Blue Tie 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Clinton figures

Since the page is protected, I can't correct the poll numbers for Americans favoring the impeachment of Bill Clinton. According to this CNN/Gallup poll, the number is 34% favoring impeachment (even higher 41% for likely voters). I know that there are various poll numbers available, but the one referenced is from a dubious blog, and it seems to emphasize a cherry-picked low percentage. I would be in favor of eliminating the numerical comparison with Clinton altogether. Silly rabbit 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheney

I read a commentary somewhere that impeaching Bush will only result in a worse situation if Bush is removed from office. Guess who is gonna replace him? 24.113.177.5 01:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That Dick Cheney will take over the presidency if Bush is impeached is one reason some have argued for impeaching Cheney first, an argument making Cheney more relevant for our entry.Terjen

Nice job

WP:POINT[58]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)