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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chronolgy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Howard Fineman]] piece from [[MSNBC]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: How about History of events leading to the impeachment of George W. Bush ?68.183.79.103 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't write the history for an event that has and probably will not happen.--RWR8189 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Media editorials? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Web Polls 

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

message: 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."  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". 
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.”  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." 
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed sections as original research 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  reasons for recent revert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Inappropriate tone" tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  9/11 in quotes - NPOV? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Anons comments

message: In this Boston Globe article , 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)
thread_title:  Kerry Impeachment 

message: 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)
replies: text: In the absence of any objections, I've made this change. --Brian Brondel 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move reasons section down 

message: 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.   
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)
thread_title:  Zogby Internation poll Jan 17 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Where are the neutrality problems? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: "Movement" is more accurate, and has precedence in society - in real life, unlike "calls". Kevin Baastalk 03:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  I object to the title of this article 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Harper's magazine cover 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Means of impeachment by a state 

message: 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. Nomen Nescio 10:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fit this in 

message: 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! Nomen Nescio 20:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes part II

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The user is avoiding a 3RR by using various IPs. -Will Beback 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: User:Stbalbach and User:AdamJacobMuller are reverting in close cooperation. I suspect them of sockpuppetry. Please see revert history for this article for proof.  192.168.204.130 20:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Nomen Nescio 11:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity of 2 pages 

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