Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 1

message: I read this article and could not find a single reason to tag it.  There are hardly any opinions; most of the sentences are statements of fact.  It could certainly use more cited sources, but there are other tags for that purpose. -Acjelen 04:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, again, and again, this article has been subjected to "tag attacks." The movement to keep the POV tag on this article is representative of the movmentment to challenge anything critical of Bush.  Seriously, we've been over and over this, as previous sections show.  POV or Neutrality tagging are so obviously used to create the impression that something is "wrong" with an article. I've reviewed this article again and it's not at all lacking in neutrality. If it were calling for Bush to be impeached, that would be lack of neutrality, but in discussing the issues and facts of a Bush impeachment, the article does not lack in neutrality at all -- not even a little bit. I would like to see 1) the tag removed, 2) an effort to not let this kind of time-wasting dispute continue to bog down the development of the article. Calicocat 05:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been reasons in the past for the tag. When a tag is placed, the person placeing the tag is obligated to provide actionable reasons on why the tag is being placed, so as to allow others the opportunity to fix the problem, otherwise as you say tags can be abused. With this article, in all the confusion, its hard to tell who placed the tag and why. But if you remove it, and someone puts it back, whoever puts it back is obligated to provide specific and actionable reasons why. Partly the problem is folks are not challenging the tag as the article is edited and updated. --Stbalbach 06:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Redux

message: I removed the last sentence, because it was blatantly POV. Edit: Addtionally, that whole last paragraph was out of place, so I removed it. Here is the text, in case it relates to one of the above sections:
The Executive Order 13233, drafted by Alberto R. Gonzales and issued by Bush on November 1, 2001, is used to restrict access to the records of former presidents.
--DNicholls 04:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More NPOV 

message: I have issues with the behaviour of Mirror Vax. He has contually replaced the Totallydisputed tag on this article, yet has made no substantive points as to why and has not contributed one word of editing to improve the article. I opened up two specific talk sections calling for him, by name, to contibute his exact examples of where the article is lacking in factual accuracy and neutrality. Rather than making use of those sections, he put them down as "empty" sections and then also put down a simple staw poll section I put in the talk section to get a reading from the other editors here. Mirror Vax's objections are nothing more than a few minor issues more in the area of clean-ups. Again, Mirror Vax, has done no editing at all on this article, other than to continually challenge its neutrality and accuracy. He has done no research or writing to help improve this article.  His only contribution is to snipe and make uncivil remarks to other editors and I feel he is acting as a kind of agent provocateur. He has been highly uncivil to me and to other editors of this article. (He left a message with a highly insulting personal comment on my user talk page, which he weakly attempted to veil by phrasing it in the negative, "it's not like I'm saying X." I will not repeat what he said here, but it was completely inappropriate).  Finding no substantive points in the article with regard to neutrality or factual accuracy, I have again removed the totallydisputed tag. Calicocat 21:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of NPOV

message: *1 "there are practically no criticisms of the movement mentioned" (Quoting NJyoder 12/26/05 )
::"The article factually presents the points of view of named individuals. If there were an organized anti-impeachment movement, it would be appropriate to include their point of view here. I have looked for and have not found such a movement." (Quoting RichardMathews 9/1/05)
:::That wasn't in response to anything I said and it was made a while before I ever edited this talk page.  He is wrong and that is a blatant violation of NPOV policy.  NPOV policy requires represnting any significant viewpoints and he is denying that.  His reasoning is false, there only needs to be criticism of the so-called movement for it to be included.  Why would you deliberately exclude reasons for defending him against impeachment?  Not including those is a blatant NPOV violation and a whitewash.  Nevermind that many reasons and support for impeachment were given in this article from people who weren't even part of the movement.  That's a nice double standard.  That's like saying that in order for criticism to be included in the George W. Bush article, the criticism must need to come from another president.  Criticism is criticism regardless of the source.  You seem to acknowledge that this is an important issue in itself, so how can you possibly justify leaving it out and NOT NPOV tagging it?  Nathan J. Yoder 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of POV objections as of 12/24/05