Talk:Efforts to impeach Dick Cheney

message: Hello, fellow Wikipedian!
As you can see, this article has been nominated for deletion. It is not in immediate danger of being dropped, and you are free to continue editing while the matter is decided.
If you wish to comment on the matter (and I encourage you to do so), I urge you to direct those comments away from this article's talk page and towards the associated "debate" page set up for the decision-makers. It's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US House Resolution 333. The wikilinks included in the big tag at the top of the article page will direct you to some further information about the process that might be helpful.--OtisTDog 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for Deletion 

message: Thanks to everyone for contributing to this stub! It's already more informative than related descriptions on other pages. I do have to contest the "not expected to receive consideration" line as POV, unless some citations can be found. I will remove it for now. Please respond here on talk page if you want to re-include it. Thanks!--OtisTDog 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "not expected to receive consideration" / other POV about likelihood of passage 

message: JasonCNJ pointed out in an edit summary that HR 333 is a resolution, not a bill, as I had previously labeled it. I may be the only one that made this mistake, but for the reference of future editors, I wanted to post the clarification here.--OtisTDog 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper abbreviation to use is H. Res. ###. HR ### is the abbreviation for a bill. JasonCNJ 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Resolution, Not a Bill 

message: Hello, again. I see that the statement is supported by Raw Story article, but does anyone have an appropriate link to a CNN source? A direct reference would prevent charges of hearsay reporting. --OtisTDog 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Not promoting it"

message: It still seems a little thin to me, but what does everyone else think?--OtisTDog 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Past the "stub" stage?

message: JasonCNJ, I reverted out some of the changes you made with formatting and such. I think it's important to leave out anything that could be considered editorializing for or against. On such a touchy political subject as this, neutrality is paramount. I'd rather have a backwards-looking "History" section than a forward-looking "Likelihood of Success" section.
I did add a right-now-looking section, titled "Current Status" to keep the background you provided re: what would be required to move the resolution out of committee, as it seems relevant to the level of impact the article subject has/might have. It would be best if you could find some citations to the relevant procedural rules to use as references for them.--OtisTDog 13:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Likelihood of Success section

message: JasonCNJ, it looks like we might disagree frequently over article content. May I respectfully suggest that you post any anticipated non-minor changes here before making them? We've seen that we can find many points of agreement as well, and it will help prevent contentious edit wars.--OtisTDog 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Helpful Formality

message: Most articles have a quick explanation for what the issue/topic is at the top of the article, and then have the contents/subheadings. This provides for a quick, one-sentence explanation of the issue and allows the reader to decide if he would like to continue.
: Incorporated this idea. Thank you for the suggestion!--OtisTDog 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phrase at the top

message: Very sorry to write here - I'm new and did not know where to make this comment: There is a very well know reference regarding this story: Nanci Pelosi saying that impeachment is "off the table". But I have looked everywhere for this quote so I can read it in its entirety,  and I cannot find it. Any ideas? Axcelis555
:Scott, I put this comment in its own section for you.--OtisTDog 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference for "not on table" quote by Pelosi?

message: I'm thinking of deleting the following topics, which seem to have been settled and do not seem likely to be useful to newcomers.
*Nomination for Deletion
*Past the "stub" stage?
*Current Event Tag
Are there any objections to just outright deleting them? Is there a preferred archiving method for talk topics?--OtisTDog 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We archive discussions, once a talk page gets "too full" - we've probably got a ways to go with this one yet, before we need to start pruning out the resolved discussions - but I'll keep an eye on it, thanks for asking! Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete old talk topics?

message: (JasonCNJ, your attention is particularly wanted on this topic.)
I've noted in a couple of instances of reporting that H Res 333 has had some new legislative activity, specifically referral to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. Bearing in mind the desire to avoid prognostication on the outcome, I would like to make note of this significant activity in the "History" section. Since JasonCNJ is usually the first to come forth with technical information on legislative process, I'd like to ask him to suggest a wording that would pass NPOV muster in his book. Oddly, THOMAS says the subcommittee referral happened in early May, but I don't recall seeing this information on THOMAS in the past, and the first news reports of it are this week.--OtisTDog 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would avoid use of the word "significant." Allow the reader to determine the significance of the facts. I would advise an edit that states simply the Resolution has been referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties where it awaits further action. What would you like to say about it? JasonCNJ 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the initial suggestion, JasonCNJ. The article up until now has made it clear that the referral to committee was automatic and not particularly interesting. The referral to subcommittee is not quite the same thing... it's the first indication that the resolution might ever be voted on. I'd like to convey that significance without blowing it out of proportion, since the resolution clearly has a long way to go before reaching that stage. Maybe a brief description of what further steps would need to happen before consideration at the committee level? The existing note that it would require favorable action no longer seems sufficient.--OtisTDog 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that referral to subcommittee is "the first indication that the resolution might ever be voted on." I don't think there's any evidence to support that leap. I suppose, in theory, I wouldn't mind a listing of the further steps for consideration...but the problem is that there is not any defined path. The subcommittee could put it on the agenda for consideration but not vote on it. They could vote on it unfavorably and the full committee could still consider it. They could vote favorably and have it die in full committee. They could not hear it at all and the Committee could take it and consider it. I mean, there's no way to write "further steps" without engaging in speculation that Wikipedia policies forbid. I think we just have to report the facts as they happen; that it was automatically referred to committee and has been referred to a subcommittee. And that's it. JasonCNJ 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referral to Subcommittee, Phrasing Suggestion?

message: Just a heads-up about these remarks. As part of NPOV considerations, the working agreement for this article has been that only the commentary of those immediately involved in whether the resolution moves forward or not will be included in the article. So far, that has meant Kucinich (the author), Pelosi (the Speaker), or the various co-signers, not all of whom have issued statements. I'm leaving the new comments from McDermott and Jackson up for the moment because Congress is on vacation and no official actions are being reflected in THOMAS. However, if these two do NOT end up as co-signers of H Res 333 -- and quickly -- then their comments will most likely be removed from this article. No offense is intended, just trying to avoid edit wars here; if you want to make sure that a non-co-signer's comments are included in Wikipedia, I recommend you work with the article on the person who made the comment.--OtisTDog 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI -- McDermott is now officially a co-sponsor, so his remark should stay. It looks like another user has already removed Jackson's remark on the grounds that it does not specifically address the impeachment of Cheney, who is the subject of H Res 333.--OtisTDog 11:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remarks in History Section by McDermott and Jackson

message: I think it is important to note that the sponsor of this Resolution is running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Inclusion of this fact is standard whenever Members of Congress who are also presidential candidates appear in the news...I think it should also appear here.JasonCNJ 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not immediately opposed to a brief mention, but why do you think it's important? And why is this relevant to H Res 333? The only resistance I have is to anything that characterizes H Res 333 as a "publicity stunt" (or the like) for the Kucinich campaign.--OtisTDog 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is that it is impossible to separate the actions of a candidate running for President from his legislative acts. I think it is important to mention that the author of the resolution is running for President since it gives a proper context to his sponsorship of the resolution. I would not say it is a "publicity stunt" but the general rule for publications is to address at the outset any potential conflicts and a statement that Kucinich is running for President is important. JasonCNJ 19:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "proper context"? And why is this a "potential conflict"? I put in a mention of this in the first sentence that mentions Kucinich. Is that sufficient to address your concern?--OtisTDog 19:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean by context that his proposals, just like those offered by other Members of Congress who are running for President,  should be analyzed with that knowledge in mind. Yes, the additional sentence is sufficient to address my concern. JasonCNJ 20:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running for President 

message: ChildoftheMoon83, welcome to the article and thank you for your contributions. I am writing this to alert you about possible contention regarding the new section on Representative Shea-Porter.
If you look at the history of the article, you'll see that it's a politically "hot" one, and by mutual agreement, the article has kept a narrow focus on H Res 333 (the topic). As a result, quotes mentioned in this article have been restricted to "key players" in the H Res 333 (and now H Res 799) story. The following groups of people have qualified as being "key" in this manner: co-sponsors of H Res 333, members of the House Judiciary Committee, Kucinich (the author), and Pelosi (the Speaker). I would also imagine that quotes from Senators could qualify, but this has not been tested. 
I will not remove this material until I see what other editors have to say, but Shea-Porter is not currently a co-sponsor, so her comment would not be considered significant to this article specifically under those "rules".
If the consensus is to remove this content from this article, I encourage you to repost it in another, broader topic, such as the one about the movement to impeach George Bush.--OtisTDog 02:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Shea-Porter Section

message: It's about time to create this article. The movement used to consist mostly of HR333, so it made sense for that address to redirect here. But now, with HR 799, and with Wexler's initiative, the larger issue is way too big for this article.
I'd suggest the following:
# move this article to that address
# trim all the stuff out of this article that doesn't refer to HR 333
# summarize the HR 333 stuff in the "Movement" article, and make a  link to this article.
Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I cautiously approve of this idea, since this is definitely getting to be a large article. This might offer a way to break the ongoing conflict between JasonCNJ and me concerning the article's organization. If the timeline/history section can be preserved intact as part of the new article, I would no longer object to a non-chronological organization in this one. Does that organizational concept work for you with respect to a new article, Pete?--OtisTDog (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Movement to impeach Dick Cheney]] 

message: I have moved the page to 'Attempted impeachment of Dick Cheney'. Judging by the comments above, there was some dissatisfaction with the previous title (Impeachment of Dick Cheney); I would argue that it was both non-NPOV and inaccurate, given that Cheney wasn't actually impeached. (And the chances that he will be between now and leaving office in January are effectively zero, so we can safely say this failed.) Adding 'attempted' to the title makes it clear that these efforts were not successful. (By comparison, I looked at Impeachment of Bill Clinton: in that case that article is at the correct title, as Clinton was in fact impeached by the House of Representatives, only to be acquitted by the Senate. The same cannot be said of this case.) Terraxos (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moved 

message: Obviously a variety of changes need to be made to update this article (if it continues to survive AfD) for the expiration of the 110th Congress. I have already changed the "Current Status" section but I'm writing to inquire about the opinions of others on the "Co-sponsors" section. First, a listing of those Congressmen who co-sponsored a resolution that is expired is hardly notable. Second, I have long opposed the "co-sponsorship by co-sponsorship" listing in the "History" section. Given the end of Congress, I would drastically cut most (almost all) of this well-sourced section. Are there alternate thoughts on what to do with these sections given the imminent expiration of the 110th? JasonCNJ (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of 110th Congress 

message: Seeing as the House of Representatives never seriously considered Impeachment, this article should be deleted. IMHO, it's more an article of recentism & emotionalism. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Issue gained significant news coverage from reliable sources, even if it was for a brief time period, firmly establishing notability. Because notability is not temporary, this article is well within notability policy.--Abusing (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD this article 

message: This article is very long for what amounts to a single house bill that never passed or had any real chance of passing.  How about we summarize what is being said here? Bonewah (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow summarize please 

message: I cleaned up the article. Basically I condensed the 'Historical timeline', 'Status', and 'Summary' sections into one 'Overview' section. I don't think there's enough information so that it needs to be divided into three sections. The 'Overview' section presents the information in a smooth way, compared to the choppiness of three sections with a huge table in the middle. The each section still presents the same information, but they are simply divided into paragraphs instead of multiple sections. I did add some information, specifically about the Republicans' move to vote against tabling the resolution. All of the information is sourced from reliable news organizations. I don't believe I deleted any information. The article was significantly cut down recently for some reason, and I feel it was better that way. But for now, I feel the current format is the best way to keep the remaining information until we can find out why the rest of it was deleted.--Abusing (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Efforts to impeach Dick Cheney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504183902/http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm to http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121023227/http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/house-tables-re.html to http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/house-tables-re.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425232545/http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf to http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430143014/http://kucinich.house.gov/ to http://kucinich.house.gov/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504183902/http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm to http://kucinich.house.gov/SpotlightIssues/documents.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517122749/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hr333/show to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-hr333/show
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified