Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush/Archive 1

message: The reality, beyond any spin, is that the President has acted in ways that have caused people to say he should be impeached. Among these realities are the questionable wiretappings inside the United States, the invasion of Iraq based on lies, his refuting the Geneva Conventions and federal law relating to torture (a federal crime with no time limit), his extraordinary rendition of prisoners (torture by proxy), his illegal treatment of prisoners (detainees), his gross negligence in the Hurricane Katrina disaster, his participation in the leaking of classified information to cover up his invasion of Iraq lies, and all manner of accusations of abuse of power. WAS 4.250 03:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reality or not, in this case, is immaterial. Opinion-driven pieces do not belong on Wikipedia. Mhking 03:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, are the accusations incorrect. Did the administration misrepresent the cause for war? Have detainees been tortured? Was Katrina horribly mishandeld? Does this administration assert broad war powers? In other words, are these allegations not based upon fact? Nomen Nescio 03:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "Opinion-driven pieces do not belong on Wikipedia" mean? Shall we delete God? WAS 4.250 14:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia description: "An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, in which very often there is an abundance of differing views and criticisms on the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts." The assertations here are presented as defacto fact, and not represented as the opinion of the writer. As I mentioned, my problem is that opinion is being presented as fact. Mhking 16:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are saying that the contents itself is correct but it should be better shown that it is not fact but opinion, feel free to show here what sentences you refer to. Furthermore, if you make suggestions how to improve these sentences to NPOV standard progress and have a constructive debate. Thank you. Nomen Nescio 17:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reality

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: Good question - I note that a number of text-items have been moved to this page from that one. Is there any logical reason for that, other than to move this part of the discussion away from the original page? Mhking 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is wikipedia policy to start a subpage when an article is getting too long. One might debate whether including this in the original makes it too long. But I felt that this page, with the numerous sources which are necessary to address the invalid criticism by some editors, would make the original beyond acceptable. Furthermore, it is evident that discussing the movement is entirely different from discussing the reasons to impeach. Nomen Nescio 11:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I see. Thanks --J@red [T]/[+] 14:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarity of 2 pages 

message: I put that at the top in order to make certain that there are not wholesale pages (blanking of entire sections or otherwise) without conversation here. As on the other page, however, the inclusion of blog-material is definitely suspect. While some of the opinion-driven sections have been identified as such, others have not. Mhking 22:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show what sentence is solely based upon blogs. As I asked earlier, if you feel a sentence is POV discuss it here and suggest improvement. To simply state the article is POV without substantiating your assertion is not constructive. Nomen Nescio 11:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Case-in-point -- your reference #6 (Wiretapping probably impeachable offense): Each of the references cited are from opinion-based articles, yet the paragraph where that citation is presented is not presented as an "opinion." Please keep in mind that I understand and appreciate that this is a subset of the other article (Movement to impeach George W. Bush), but an encyclopedic article would not contain references of that sort without indicating that they are someone's opinion as opposed to presenting those items as empirical fact. Your personal jibe regarding Fox News the other day implies that a conservative point of view that is also presented as opinion in this same context (in your estimation) is invalid. Please do not misunderstand me -- my point is that this is not a soapbox, and should not be used as a bully pulpit to only present one side of the equation. I -- admittedly -- am not as well-versed or well-researched as you are in terms of specific articles (one problem is that time is at an extreme premium for me present), but that is no reason not to indicate opinions as just that: opinions, not facts. Mhking 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The NFSA is a law that was passed by Congress, not an opinion.  Let's keep that straight, alright? Kevin Baastalk 16:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine. I have no problem with that. There must be some articles that are not opinion-based that cite that, yes? Mhking 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Such critics therefore believe that since the claimed legal authority is invalid, FISA has been violated, constituting a felony and as such an impeachable offense. (emphasis added)
To me the sentence starts with mentioning this is what critics believe. What part of this do you refer to when saying: "references of that sort without indicating that they are someone's opinion as opposed to presenting those items as empirical fact?" Nomen Nescio 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Slightly altered the sentence. Nomen Nescio 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: (re your most recent edit) Thank you. Yes, I'm being almost dense about it (admittedly). And yes, I'm probably more sensitive than most about it as someone who is admittedly libertarian (little "l"; though Bush has pissed me off royally of late), and more supportive of the Bush Administration than most. I've just been asking for some even-handedness and fairness overall - nothing more. Mhking 23:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If the current version is acceptable can you show another example? As you see, I am willing to discuss if you explain what the exact problem is. This is more constructive don't you think? Sincerely  Nomen Nescio 00:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not a problem - it will take me a bit of time (as I said earlier, time for me is at a premium these days), but I'll be happy to point others out. (case in point -- with the severe weather here in the southeast, my time tonight is about shot to hell) And yes, I agree that this is far more constructive. I've had less luck with that approach elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mhking 00:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial tag 

message: I removed a section on Hurricane Katrina, see this diff. The source cited did not mention Katrina once; indeed it is an article solely about Iraq and related disputes. If a credible source can be provided describing Bush's Katrina response as grounds for impeachment, feel free to re-add the section. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Katrina 

message: I noticed this entry was changed:
:These have been used to justify the aforementioned policies. In effect, this is about assertions of inherent power in the executive to override constitutional, international, congressional limitations, and judicial limitations.
I am confused. What part of the sentence is incorrect or not substantiated by sources? Nomen Nescio 16:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse of powers

message: As per this message left for Jimbo, I am deeply troubled by the "end notes" style of links in this article. I am convinced that this style of external links is degrading the quality of the wiki. Merecat 08:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this is rather harsh, you might have suggested improvemnent on the talkpage before making this statement, Second, every reference the article points you to (when more than one is available) supports the same information, there are multiple sources for one statement to address the assertions of POV-NOR-RS-et cetera, which have now even resulted in the AfD tag without even discussing the alleged POV.  Nomen Nescio 11:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "I am deeply troubled," to me does have a different connotation than,"could you redo the notes for the following reasons?" Beyond that, placing a comment on Jimbo's page is also a rather "enthousiastic" move. Nomen Nescio 11:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "End Notes" style of links reduces readability 

message: Have explicitly identified who says what. Hope this satisfies those editors fearing the possible ambiguity. Nomen Nescio 16:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am stating that accessing sources for verification is more clumsy with the style of end-note links used in this article, in my opinion. Also, Nescio, please remove the Netherlands flag from your signature - it slows down page loads. Sometimes the .svg file for that does not load promptly and the whole page slows down. Please consider this. Merecat 16:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: end notes is standard policy. if you dont like it, discuss it on the policy page (admittedly i don't know where it is)  that svg is tiny, you've got to be kidding! Kevin Baastalk 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Brainstorm! (add suggestions):
*Rational to impeach George W. Bush (original)
*Rationales provided by persons advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush (Chris' suggestion)
*Rationales of movement to impeach George W. Bush Kevin Baastalk 20:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed into Rationales to impeach George W. Bush. Still not good but at least better than what it was. Now we can continue debating renaming the article. Nomen Nescio 19:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not fixed, since the history is now in the wrong place. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, oops, didn't think of that. Nomen Nescio 20:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming article

message: I have made some edits to correct what I saw as POV section titles. Any questions on this, let's talk here. Merecat 08:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bush asserts that GC does not apply to unlawful enemy combatants. This is not the same as "refuting"  In fact, if you looked into it better, you'd see that Bush is correct. The Geneva Convention is only binding on signatory countries as they interact with each other. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners are not prisoners of war under GC, because they are irregular fighters, fighting against USA without the authority of their home countries. For them to be POWs, the would have to be a) from a country that has declared war on USA, b) lawfully authorized by that country to fight USA and c) each country must be a signatory to the GC. If all three conditions are not met, then these men are unlawful enemy combatants and have no rights under the GC. On the other hand, if you want to say that they are legitimate soldiers, then the fact that none of them were in their home country's military uniform when they were caught, makes them spies - and subject to being shot without trial. Think about that. Merecat 17:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. 1 Many detainees were not captured on the battlefield or even engeaged in combat. 2 Although this is the rationale advanced by the Bush administration many legal exp[erts (among which HRW) dispute the claim. So at best your assertion is open to disscussion, not fact. 3 The memo itself say refuting, but a header saying refuting the GC for Al Qaeda and Taliban is not an option. Nomen Nescio 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV section titles 

message: I have re-directed  this article to Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush
Merecat 08:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have fixed your cut-and-paste mvoe, please use the "move" button in the future. NSLE (T+C) at 09:00 UTC (2006-04-04)
Does that mean editors are in agreement about this name? Can the POV tag go? Nomen Nescio 12:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Since no WMD have been found they6 do not exist. To claim that their non-existence has to be proven is not only a logical fallacy, it is the principal reason Iraq was invaded. It is impossible to prove a negative, and since the allegation is there are WMD the burden of proof is on the proponents of this claim. Until evidence says otherwise WMD do not exist. For comparison see alien lifeforms. Nomen Nescio 16:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got 3 problems with your statement: a) Bush never said we would find them, only that USA thought Iraq had them, b) USA has found proof that a program for WMD was under way and c) you presume that USA has released all WMD related finds to press. Since when does it become mandatory for such an assumption? Allegedly is the right word. Merecat 17:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Fact is no WMD have been found so this can only mean that their existence is alleged. No evidence of WMD in 2003 exists.~~
Do you even know the meaning of the word "fact"? A fact is a a datum which is asserted to be accurate as presented. In a good faith discussion, offered facts are presumed to be accurate, unless challenged and/or rebutted. What I am telling you is that you are only offering logical arguments, not facts. You have not presented a fact set which asserts that no WMD have been found. If and/or when you do, I'll be happy to challenge and rebut that in greater detail. For now though, the burden is on you to address the 3 points I raised here, which you have not. Merecat 23:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There are those who beg to differ on what the primary obstacles are to progress.  But our progress (or lack thereof) in this discussion will not alter the progress of events.  However, I hope that the progress of events will not fall upon deaf ears, as words so often do.  I also hope that more progress will be made on the article. Kevin Baastalk 23:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I will only agree to answer that, if you 1st answer this: If I show you some links - more recent links than those you shown here now - and these links tend to show some evidence of WMD/WMD programs, will you agree to "allegedly"? If yes, I will proceed, if no, then your mind is closed and this is not a discussion. Merecat 23:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This is clearly not proven.  If the Bush administration view that the AUMF in affect modifies FISA holds up to legal scrutiny, then Bush did not violate FISA.  Until this is proven, it is alleged.--RWR8189 00:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If an ambulances is caught speeding it violates the speeding linit. However, if it at that time is using signals that show there is anemergency the law authorizes this ambulance to do so. It still violates the law but it is given special status in which that law no longer applies. That is what I try to explain. This would mean that FISA was violated but if the arguments used are correct an the President was authorized it is not illegal. Nomen Nescio 00:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still miss the point.  The FISA statute states that such and such must be done <I>except as authorized by statute</I>  This carves out a special exception in the law, and if the AUMF qualifies as such an exception FISA is never violated, the law just works the way it was intended to.--RWR8189 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we are saying the same but are caught in a debate about semantics. Nomen Nescio 00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preventing edit war

message: Please stop messing with the move/redirect to this new title: Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush. If you have questions, discuss them here. It's becoming chaos, trying to get that straightened out. Merecat 23:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly this title is a misnomer. No rationale is seeking impeachment. Nomen Nescio 23:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Since many believe impeachment should happen I fail to see why mentioning their arguments should be disallowed. As you have noticed I am the only editor that seriously tries to make improvements. The discrepancy between criticism and tring to help better the article in other editors is unfortunate. Nomen Nescio 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush]] 

message: We now have two talk pages. You are doing great! Please do not hide behind a IP-adress, just sign in as you keep claiming that rationales are seeking impeachment.-- Nomen Nescio 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brillant

message: I have moved the article back to Rationales to impeach George W. Bush because:
* Rationales seeking to impeach George W. Bush is a silly title - in my understanding of English, you may have a rationale for doing something but a rationale by itself cannot seek anything
* adding seeking to the title added nothing
* user:Merecat failed to fix double redirects created by the move
* while an article is on AfD, it is better not to move it about.
-- RHaworth 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: title

message: In my opinion this section is original research. It should let the reader know specifically who has used this argument as a rationale for impeachment. The word "impeach" does not appear in any of the cited sources.
What are the criteria for such a section being included in the article? My thought is that some notable person/organization must actually use the rationale. A news article saying "person X has called for impeachment based on Y" seems like enough to include Y,but without such a connection how could we justify keeping the section?
I realize other editors may have complaints based on other issues or other sections, but maybe we could use this particular section to help decide what should be in the article. Or should we just wait until the AfD is over? EricR 16:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD is over, with no consensus - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationale to impeach George W. Bush. As for the GCC section, I agree that it is an WP:OR violation and should be deleted. Merecat 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims in this section look to be well verified. My argument is that there needs to be at least one more, that someone notable has used this as a rationale for impeachment. Maybe we could wait a bit to see if anyone else has an opinion? EricR 18:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Our investigation has found that while the allegations set forth in this Report rise to the level of impeachable misconduct by the President, the Vice President, and other high ranking officials within the Administration, more information and investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made concerning specific Articles of Impeachment. Nomen Nescio 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A statement which clearly calls for more investigation and does not commit Conyers to any "specific Articles of Impeachment." Much different from Ferner: "VFP is calling for Bush's impeachment because..." EricR 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Disregard, i commented before seeing you change. EricR 21:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geneva Convention controversy 

message: Please let's not insert and delete information on the basis of personal bias.
*1 Removing the reference the the Center for Constitutional Rights explicitly discussing several arguments for impeachment is odd and seems like a POV contribution
*2 Adding "a list of suggested rationales to impeach Bush, which have been offered as of recently, by various partisans" sounds even less NPOV to me.
*3 "After Ambassador Wilson wrote an article denouncing this assertion, the identity of his wife as CIA employee was made public, allegedly for the 1st time." Is incorrect. Fitzgerald explicitly states that according to his investigation her identity was not known. We must stick to facts and this legal document trumps the rumours on right-wing gossip radio.
*4 Hurrican Katrina is used as reason to impeach because of criminal neglect, incompetence, et cetera, you name it. Please read the sources before asserting no explanation has been offered.
::For President Bush, his failure to act appropriately should be considered as grounds for impeachment.  <............>  we usually think about impeachment in terms of acts of commission, not omission, a President's not acting to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States" might indeed be grounds for impeachment.
*5 The WH did explain that Katrina falls under the responsibility of local authorities.
*6 Why do you delete sourced material?
Nomen Nescio 16:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Try and maintain NPOV

message: I will observe your 3RR breach, however this belongs in the intro since it is a major legal institute and it has made assertions on the subject. This is not open for your POV version of events. Deleting sourced material is very bad form indeed. Nomen Nescio 01:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you contend I breached 3rr on this article today, please post the diffs here. If not, please retract your allegation. Merecat 01:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Nomen Nescio 02:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Center for Constitutional Rights

message: Please stop with editing in a overtly biased way.
*The use of "including some political partisans" is hardly a NPOV contribution. (emphasis added)
*Deleting a description as "a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York," is hard to understand for those who think it is important to know what this [[Center for Constitutional Rights] is.
*Deleting sourced and adequately identified comments like:
::In addition, it has been noted by Elizabeth de la Vega and Greg Mitchell that the assertion this declassification was needed to counter misinformation spread by opponents of the Bush administration's casus belli is odd. Since only an obscure part of the NIE, which supports the claims advanced by the US government, has been released, while the rest of the report, in which the CIA in 2002 allegedly dismissed that claim as unlikely, is still classified.
:does not help in maintaining NPOV. You are well aware that the leaked info was already discredited at the time. Which is important to note, in light of the explanation this administration offered.
Could you at least first explain what part of the above is incorrect and POV in your opinion? As always I ask you to engage in discussion showing what and why you think something should change. Once again you censor information and insert POV terms without even trying to avoid dispute. Seeing this I think your recent improvement in behaviour is already over.  Nomen Nescio 13:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio, please confine your commentary to the merits of my edits. And please stop ignoring my edit summaries. Each of my edits are well supported by my summaries. Please read them. Thank you. Merecat 13:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting sourced material and adding POV

message: It's very challening to delete or modify a POV or other sentence with so many imbedded "<.refs>". I urge the editors here to desist from that link method. Merecat 13:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have already been answered at the following locations: User talk:Merecat, Talk:Killian documents, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), Wikipedia:Village pump (all), Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive35 Nomen Nescio 14:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "References" style of links is impeding edits 

message: Today, I made this edit. What followed was 4 reverts by  Nescio:
# 13:27, 11 April 2006 
# 13:39, 11 April 2006 
# 13:55, 11 April 2006 
# 14:04, 11 April 2006 
I am trying my best with Nescio, to give him the benefit of every doubt. In fact, yesterday, I restored the text he wanted, because I had accidentally excised it four times. Now today, Nescio will not even allow modifications of his sacred introduction. He has completely hijacked this article and turned it into his own personal anti-Bush screed. At this point, I am quitting this article for now. It's just a complete waste, getting enmeshed in a brouhaha with Nescio. Merecat 14:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any editor refusing to discuss but willing to violate the 3RR () will not be allowed to make highly controversial contributions. Nomen Nescio 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nescio is hijacking this article 

message: I blocked four users for edit warring on this article: , , , and .  If reverts rather than discussion commence again once the blocks expire, I will consider more blocks and full page protection. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks 

message: Can the editor explain why this tag is added? What part is incorrect and needs clean-up and why? Specifics!!! Nomen Nescio 03:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply being composed right now, please wait a few minutes. Merecat 03:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up tag

message: To editors of this article: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nescio, the onus is on you at the point. You filed an RFC, then you delisted it in favor of the mediation (finally) which I suggested to you 4 days prior. By all means, go right ahead and round up a mediator - I await your action in that regard. Or, if you prefer, go right ahead and restore the RFC - it matters not to me as I am fully prepared to counter-complain against you vigorously if need be. Suffice it to say, if you don't stop reverting me en masse, the likelyhood that we'll be able to get along warmly, is low, in my view. And frankly, I don't see how you offer that Alternet is a reliable source. You do know that Alternet is a left-wing blog, yes? It's no more reliable a source than FreeRepublic or any of the right-wing crank sites. Merecat 17:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By not awaiting that mediation you are being uncivil, disruptive and bullying me into accepting your edits which we were trying to get to through mediation. Thank you for cooperating. Nomen Nescio 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Merecat, please see Status_quo_ante_bellum.  And yes, you are being uncivil.  RFC is not heavy-handed or a threat. Kevin Baastalk 17:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would venture to say that RFC is mature at this point. Kevin Baastalk 18:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR]] Warning