Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush/Archive 2

message: The statement from the article:
:The administration, and its supporters, contend that the principal responsibility lies with the local authorities.[47] Therefore any accusation of inadequate handling of the disaster should be addressed at the Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco.[48]
I think Merecat is right, on this point. Neither source works for the second sentence. The Media Matters one is close, but not really correct. It states that NEWSWEEK accused Blanco (A further link from that source). At the time of the first source, Brown was no longer part of the Administration, and therefore can't speak on the behalf of it. Is there perhaps a better source for these statements? If not, I support removal. Thoughts? --LV (Dark Mark) 21:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The administration, and its supporters, does not preclude the possibility of statements made by people that are not part of the administration. Nomen Nescio 02:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what I'm asking is for examples of the Administration saying these things about Blanco. Or else, shouldn't the sentence read, "Supporters of the administration contend..."? Also, Brown has been highly, highly critical of Michael Chertoff, and his role in the Katrina response, so I don't know for sure I would consider him a "supporter" per se. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanco statement in article 

message: as long as we are at it, the rigged election scandal is rediculously easy to prove.
Prometheuspan 23:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rigged elections 

message: Please see Killian documents for what would appear to be a compromise method of "Reference links". In that article, each number at the bottom of the page, has one link/citation correlating to it. In contrast, with this article (as has been a bone of contention here), some of the Reference numbers at the bottom of the page have 3, 4, 6 or more links aggregated under them. Thatcher131 has done excellent work at Killian documents. I feel we should follow the lead of that article and limit each Reference number to one link/citation. This compromise would give Nescio the "<ref>" system of links he prefers and myself the simplicity and clarity which I want for this article.
Merecat 03:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference between having five cites at the end of a sentence, or one cite with five references? Nomen Nescio 03:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with multiple Reference links per cited fact 

message: My disagreement with Nescio regarding links is not a homogenized disagreement. I am fully able to make the distinction between quality and quantity of links. I do not agree that we should agree on "3" links to corroborate each point. Rather, what I think we should each do as editors is cite each assertion to a reliable source, stopping with the best link we find. If and only if that link becomes a bone of contention as not being valid or acceptable for some reason, then we can get a replacement link. For Nescio to say we have disagreed about this is not correct. That's because Nescio has not yet yielded on the quantity issue, so he and I have not yet spent any dialog on the quality issue. I ask that Nescio please address both aspects individually and talk with me about that. Also, my concerns about the links issue is one of my major concerns with this article. I want to discuss it now. Nescio, are you refusing to discuss the links issue? Merecat 04:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting the record straight is allowed. Beyond that, I still feel reference style is not what we should be discussing at this point. If you show what sentence you feel needs improving, the used cites are part of that discussion. What sentence needs rewriting and why? Nomen Nescio 04:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merecat requests that Nescio discuss the "links issue" with him 

message: Let the record show that Nescio has this evening declined my offer to discuss with me the "links issue" as outlined by my edits: 
#here, 
#here, 
#here, 
#here, 
#and here 
Merecat 04:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nescio has refused Merecat's offer to discuss the "links issue" 

message: (formatting on postings below modified for clarity of attribution - text is verbatim Merecat 19:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from RFC to here 

message: (this section copied from RFC page - it's a the results of a thread from a question I asked Nescio, but to which, Kevin Baas replied. You can see the entire dialog on the RFC talke page. I am copying this here, as this is now a dialog with Kevin, because Nescio did not respond)
-------------------
:Nescio believes, as do I, that provided all the information in there has at least one good citation, things like POV wording, information that should be in but isn't, misrepresentation, or just poor wording, are more pressing issues than the style of the links.  Inaccuracies in the text is more important than whether it has too many citations or not.  Nescio is more concerned with the body of the text and would like to discuss the body.  I believe this is appropriate because that is what people are going to read. I beleive that your focus is petty and so is your insistence, and that it is impeding progress on the article; i.e., it is obstructive.  You know how much better the article would be by now if we would have all been working together on improving the content, piece by piece? I also feel that reference style is not what we should be discussing at this point.  I hope I have stated the case clearly.  Comprimise does not mean always giving in to, even when you strongly disagree, one user who's trying obstinately to direct the article development as well as the discussion.  Kevin Baastalk 20:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he has told me.  He has also told you.  I am reiterating and clarifying because I understood him. Kevin Baastalk 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from RFC page 2 

message: the most obvious missing rationale for impeachment is that Bush isn't the legal president of the USA in the first place. He isn't
and never was. The elections were rigged, and are thus legally invalid.
----------------
*http://www.votescam.com/
*http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/voting.html
*http://www.jfkmontreal.com/bush_votescam.htm
*http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1060
*http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=182&row=2
*http://www.votefraud.org/
*http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue8/Diane_Perlman.cfm
*http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KEE412A.html
*http://revspork.blogs.com/revspork/2004/10/more_fun_with_e.html
*http://www.oilempire.us/stolenelection2004.html
*http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
*http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/04votefraud.html
*http://voteraction.org/
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheuspan (talk • contribs) 
Oh good grief. Thatcher131 22:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were two motions to address the irregularities, Moss v. Bush, and the congressional challenge. The congressional challenge was not intended to overturn the election, and Moss v. Bush was delayed by the judge beyond the deadline.  So although there are serious questions about how the majority of voters in ohio who got out to vote on nov. 2 intended to vote for on nov. 2, there is no precedent in america for an impeaching a president for not being elected (though prior presidential elections have been rigged), and there are otherwise no actionable remedies. Kevin Baastalk 01:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing obvious rationale 

message: ...he said modestly.  I think the problem, boiled down to its simplest, is that it is very hard to write a verifiable neutral article on a controversial topic when all the sources are partisan.  I'm sure a Clinton impeachment article would be much easier to write today than in the middle of events, too.  You're arguing over whether a particular group is partisan and how to interpret the Geneva Convention and complicated court rulings.  That's not what WP editors should be doing -- we should be reporting things that have already been decided.
I propose rewriting the article not as a neutral account of a topic (impeachment), but as a balanced account of a partisan debate.  Acknowledge that there are two sides and present both sides fairly.  Here is an example of what I mean.
NSA warrantless surveillance
*US Representative Adam Ant said in speech on the floor of the House that President Bush should be investigated for possible impeachment for authorizing the interception of US citizens' electronic communication without warrants. Syndicated columnist Bill Baker and Democratic party official Chatty Cathy have endorsed this view.  An analysis produced by the American Liberal Caucus show blah blah blah etc etc etc...therefore the warrantless searches violate the 5th amendment of the Constitution, and by authorizing the searches President Bush has violated the Constitution and committed an impeachable offense.
*Administration representatives including Diane Dale, Earl Egglund and Frank Fosdeck counter that the power to conduct foreign surveillance is granted to the President by the Constitution and can not be revoked or limited by an act of the legislative branch.  Legal analysts including Judge George Gont and former attorneys general Hal Hamburg (Reagan administration) and Ida Inkvist (Clinton administration) concur, although this is disputed by former Justice Department lawyer Jack Jones.  President Bush said in a press conference, "If you're talking to your grandmother, we aren't interested. If you're talking to Al Queda, we should probably be listening."  Republican columnist Kam Klink points out that Presidents Carter, Reagan and Clinton also authorized warrantless searches, and Clinton supported the controversial CIA Eschelon program.
*For further information see NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
The point here is to present a fair and balanced account of a highly partisan debate.  Don't get too caught up in the underlying "truth" of the situation (regarding WMD or the NSA or who was responsible for the Katrina response); just report what other people said.  Don't try to analyse "the truth" yourself.  Don't get bogged down in nitpicking sources.  If Mother Jones publishes an editorial about impeachment, don't worry that it's a partisan source, just balance it with an editorial from National Review.  Also, don't get too in depth on any one issue; the chances are the specific wikipedia article will be more comprehensive and up to date.  Summarize the main points with special attention to how it is relevant to impeachment (as opposed to a general recitation of Bush controversies) and link to the main article.  I also agree with Theron that a brief introduction to how impeachment works would be of benefit.
It will be necessary to come up with some agreement on whose arguments may be quoted.  Elected officials, current and retired government officials yes, bloggers probably no, prominent public gadflies maybe, for example.  You don't want to turn wikipedia into the DU or Free Republic. Some discrimination and discretion will be needed.  Also, don't get too caught up in analyzing the "truth" of people's arguments.  If someone has made an argument based on bad facts, don't fight about it, just find someone who made a better argument.
Thatcher131 22:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My brilliant solution

message: Nescio, I am interested to debate and/or discuss with you the quality and quantity of the links at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. I would like to do this sooner rather than later. When will you be available to do that? We can have our dialog here at Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Please let me know when you are ready. Merecat 19:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Patience. No need to have the appearance of trolling. I'm sure he'll get to responding on his own time. It's not uncommon for someone to not respond for several days, and to keep saying "huh, what, no answer?" gives the appearance of you goading egging (in honor of Easter ;-)) him on into a fight. Give him some time. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That doesn't matter... sometimes people will work on other stuff before getting back to a particular topic. No need to repeat the same thing over, and over, and over...  You've now posted this like 12 times. I'm sure he'll see it eventually and respond when he feels ready. Until then, I recommend just sitting tight and doing other things as well. If after a few days, you still don't have an answer, then gently nudge him with a "hey, have you seen this?" type statement. No need to post "Hey look at me. I offered a compromise but that dude still hasn't answered" on a couple of general talk pages. Take it to him directly. No need to lengthen your phylacteries for all to see. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  @ 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC) - Merecat is still waiting for Nescio's response