Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 4

message: You do realize that Dick Cheney would then be President, (not that he's not effectively now)? And he cant kill a guy (his lawyer) with a shotgun from 10 meters away.. the guy was shot in his torso - his FRONT. Maybe it would bring someone with morals, or stands for American interests up in the order of succession - but I really wonder how far down that would be. Someone feel like doing research? -jbk
:Presidential_line_of_succession.  Looks to me like 11 or 12. (Alphonso or Norman) Kevin Baastalk 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IF IMPEACHED 

message: *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/
Prometheuspan 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Links

message: this article lacks information regarding the key players in the impeachment effort, who are in fact ordinary citizens, who mostly
are making their voices heard via the internet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prometheuspan  (talk • contribs) .
:Who are these people you believe to be the "key players?"  If they are just ordinary people sitting at their keyboard ranting, they may not be notable, and they may not warrant a mention in the article.--RWR8189 01:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet impeach momvent 

message: I recently removed this statement from the end of the section concerning polling:
"We must not forget that there are 11 million illegal aliens in this country, so 250,000 random people are a drop in a bucket.  We don't even know if the people responding to the poll are actually American Citizens or people in other countries."
I removed it for its POV nature (first person language, assumption of a nationality, speculation from uncited/uncitable source), its informal language, and its lack of specificity as to which poll it is referring (several are mentioned in the article). Turly-burly 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polling Section 

message: i added 
    { {current}}
because the latest event was in Illinois on April 20th, 2006.
Slasher600 02:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  current event 

message: I'm concerned with the lack of mention of groups opposing the impeachment. There has got to be some notable groups protesting FOR Bush, or some notable people writing columns in support of Bush. There needs to be a section titled something like "Those Against Impeachment" or something similar. You cannot talk about a movement without talking about its opposition. Just take a look at the articles concerning the 1960s movements. Copysan 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think many of President Bush's supporters take the pro-impeachment movement seriously enough to expressly advocate against it. If it appears that impeachment is a real possibility, I'm sure opponents of impeachment will be quite outspoken about that. --Metropolitan90 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that counter-impeachment movements would merit space in the article as much as impeachment movements.  I also agree w/Metropolitan90.  anti-protest protests tend to be very small in comparison, though.  When i've read about them in the newspapers, there will usually of the ratio of 1 to 100 if not moreso.  Nonetheless, I would be interested to learn about any substantial anti-movements that develop on this subject, if they do, and I'm sure any given reader would be equally interested. Kevin Baastalk 06:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV (or incompleteness, if you want to be nice) 

message: Will you join me in nominating this one for deletion as well?  Morton devonshire 05:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article provides reliable sources (including magazines and articles), meets notability requirements since the topic has been in various publications before and even acknowledged by the White House, provides a third party view of the topic by acknowledging the contributions of the various actors (ie. The page does not make an assertion that was not made elsewhere in reliable sources), is not complete bollocks since there is growing grumbling among the populace (nor is WP:BALLS even a rule or guideline), and is hardly original research because of the mass of sources. Copysan 23:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You wouldn't find my support in a VfD.--RWR8189 23:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So, by your logic, if someone were to put a great deal of work into a real nice POV piece, say, The Rise of College Campus Islamofacism, and one had lots of contributors, does that still justify the existence of an article that contravenes all of Wikipedia's guidelines? Me thinks this is yet another case of liberal bias supporting rule bending and breaking for only one side. How sad that the VfD's were populated by users who supported maintaining the page because of the "costly war in Iraq" or because it was "an important piece" (one that supports their viewpoint, but let's ignore that). Nope, doesn't sound like an opinion there, right? So the grand lesson to be learned is that rules are rules, unless you're a liberal and feel like perverting them for your own benefit. How touching. --Michaelk 10:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Article Violates [[WP:RS]], [[WP:WEB]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:BALLS]], and [[WP:OR]]

message: Once again this article has been AfD'd and if you read the delete comments, they almost all say the same thing: the title of the article is confusing. Someone has suggested renaming to "Moves to impeach GWB" -- I like that - more neutral, there is no suggestion of a singular "movement". Thoughts?  -- Stbalbach 16:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I, but if you read the earlier messages, the consensus seems to be on how it is now. However, I would support you. Copysan 19:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Stbalbach, I like your idea.  The "Movement" thing has always confused me, as it seems to imply that there is some sort of body which speaks with one voice, and to which all of its "members" adhere to, as if there is some 501(c)(3) out there called "Movement to . . ."  Morton devonshire 18:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's the implication. A single central orchestrating body is not a necessary, or even common, element of a Social movement. --Sneftel 23:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "Moves", not "movements". The word "movement" (or "movements") has problems. There are people making moves to impeach that don't consider themselves part of a "movement". -- Stbalbach 05:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rename "Moves to impeach George W. Bush" 

message: All of the other movements combined have not been as influential or as viral as the internet movement.
(or movements.) I think that this warrants mention in the list of groups listed at the top, and, more specifically, I can show that thousands of persons are involved in the internet movement to impeach.
Prometheuspan 21:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing info

message: The intro paragraph of this article doesn't need to introduce it as if we made up the phrase. It's common English usage, for example, . We never do this in any well-written article. Ashibaka tock 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure who "we" is, but saying "for the purposes of this article" is commonly done in professional encyclopedias. And it is also done on Wikipedia. Article titles are simply placeholders. If you want to point to those sources as "the movement", than the article should be about those sources only -- there are many sources in this article that never call themselves a movement, nor consider themselves a movement -- attributing them as part of a movement is original research. -- Stbalbach 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not Wikipedia style, though. WP:ASR and . Ashibaka tock 23:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See previous discussion on this page Talk:Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Self_Reference_in_lead-in. -- Stbalbach 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: :The movement to impeach George W. Bush is the sum of all actions..
This just doesn't make sense. There is no "movement" that is the "sum of all actions". It is saying that anyone who takes any action that supports impeaching GWB is part of a singular movement.  That is pure original research. As for "dictionary definition".. we don't appeal to dictionaries as a higher authority. Wikipedia was not beholden to dictionaries, rather is based on the sound principals of no original research and NPOV. The ultimate problem is the article title, because the article title is problematic, the lead section has to clarify exactly what is meant, to avoid problems of original research.-- Stbalbach 03:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The sum of all actions

message: I think this article needs more of an explanation of how (or whether) impeachment could actually occur. I'm in Australia and not up with US politics, but I've heard that when the House of Representatives elections come around later this year, if the Democrats gain a majority, it's likely that formal proceedings toward impeachment could begin. If that's true, surely it should be mentioned in the introduction! The article does look rather partisan without more discussion of the actual real-world implications of this movement. --The Famous Movie Director 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a Democratic House necessarily means a move for impeachment, or even that it is likely.  (I think it should, but that is my own personal opinion).67.35.126.14 04:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculations about what would happen if the Democrates gain a majority would be interesting, but Wikipedia avoids such discussions about the future.  Read Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. –Shoaler (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: I think this article should be named Calls to impeach George W. Bush. That is a more neutral name and more accurately describes the article contents. Neutral arbiter 10:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a reasonable suggestion. The name is discussed before so feel free to join in. However, you might want to read this page before making such drastic edits as you are doing. It is a controversial topic. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are correct that this aricle is too long. But, although the entire part you deleted is notable and more than adequately referenced, it seems a subpage is not allowed. Do suggest what you think needs amending. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Any other article would create a subpage, but that is impossible with this controversial topic. The problem is that when making a succinct version, which it used to be, it inevitably results in people claiming inaccuracy or POV. To satisfy those who think there should be some sort of rebuttal this is what resulted. Trimming it down will probably result in renewed discussion. However, I do not object if you can rephrase things without starting claims of verifiability, bias, et cetera. Please make your suggestions here.  Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New name for article 

message: I have just found this article, and am impressed with it.  You all have done the hard work, but I have only made a few minor edits - in grammar, style, etc.  I am so glad that the vote was to keep, and not delete, it.  Whether you like Bush or not, this is major and important news that warrants inclusion in Wikopedia.   jgwlaw 00:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those kinds of edits are very helpful to all articles. Check the help pages on signing your comments and do enjoy editing Wikipedia. Calicocat 05:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Here

message: Indeed, that's what make then "allegations". For an allegation to be a fact, there has to be a finding of fact after an evidentiary hearing where both sides says their case. I am pretty sure that no such hearing has taken place at the UN. If so, I'd like to see a citation for it. Neutral arbiter 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary says "the UN says they are violations" 

message: * WikiThePresidency Kevin Baastalk 15:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  good info resource 

message: All the remaining dates (e.g. May 23 2006) need to be linked as I have in this example.  Many (if not most or all) of the remaining links needed are in reference marks, so they're indeed scattered.  You don't need a comma, just put the date in a format like Month D YYYY, where D is the day without a leading zero.  -Matt 04:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup! 

message: Zer0faults stated in an edit summary: "Political views and actions - readded total # in House of Representatives to adequatly reflect Conyers support. Readers have a right to know he has less then 10% support considerin he gets section".  I had removed it for the sake of trimming the article, because I think it's not interesting and important enough.  I know of no other instance where the number of representativs/senators in congress have been listed along w/the cosponsers of a bill, on wikipedia, and that info certainly isn't stated in the bill itself.  if readers don't know enough about the U.S. government to be able to put this in proportion, they can easily find out, though I would expect we can assume this much from the reader. Furthermore, the average number of co-sponsers of a bill certainly is far less than the number of representatives in the House, so to juxtapose the two is misleading.  Kevin Baastalk 00:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing the cosponsers is inappropriate in the first place as the article isnt about the bill in question. Stating what it is and what it states should be efficient, considering however the need to list them, there should be a total of how many there is in total. You are creating a talley that has no percentage associated with it. The list is of over 20 officials serving the purpose of seeming like a large group, however in relation to the number of total people its actually a rather small group. I am not sure why you would feel the names and districts of every cosponsor would be more appropriate then the total number of members. Also I do not see what you are trimming, its an important fact, and you would only be removing 20 so odd letters. Perhaps the better idea is to not list the cosponsors as its not appropriate in this section and bloats the article by an entire paragraph. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 02:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "I am not sure why you would feel the names and districts of every cosponsor would be more appropriate then the total number of members."  appropriate=relevant.  if this were an article about congress, the number of members in it might be relevant.  If this were an article about a bill or a law, the number of members in congress would be quite a tangent.  if it's a bill, however (that is, it has not been passed into law by congress), what congress-people support it becomes relevant.  20 co-sponsers?!  that's above the average, zer0faults. Though I agree that we certainly don't need to list the name and district of every cosponsor.  I never suggested doing so, or endorsed it. Kevin Baastalk 20:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful, I will remove the names of the co-sponsors and their districts as well as the total number of members, I will however keep the total number of them as a fair middleground? satisfactory? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds great! Sorry for the late reply. I'm distracted by other matters right now, so I missed your comment. Kevin Baastalk 22:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  should number of representatives be listed? 

message: just this most recent saturday.  (see if you can find the sentence) Kevin Baastalk 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an article actually about it:  .  found via google newsing "maine impeachment" Kevin Baastalk 20:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maine passes a resolution urging impeachment 

message: :Added a link to the U.S. House "Jeffersons Manual," and quoted the part about memorials to impeach.  Also added the source for the Hinds precedent from the U.S. House showing the impeachment of the Federal Judge Peck.Jodin 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added citations to 'Individual Citizens' section 

message: Ten of this article's sources are The Nation.  Is this NPOV? Dubc0724 15:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable.  And after I wrote that I went back - the sources appear reasonable given the context of the article.  Thanks, Dubc0724 16:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV / The Nation 

message: I made a substantial change in a fairly recent Conyers quote from a Washington Post story because I thought it was incomplete.  The quote with ellipses makes it sound as though Conyers has switched tacks, given up his bill for creating a committee with subpoena power to investigate impeachable offenses, and has switched, is now merely calling for extensive oversight on particular abuses of power, which sounds like something much softer, like he has been defanged.
When you go and read the Post story, you discover that what Conyers means by oversight *IS* the select committee, the very same thing.  He is differentiating that from an immediate call for impeachment because his committee would be set up to gather information and would be equally pleased to report evidence of impeachable offenses or not, depending upon their findings after being able to get witnesses under oath.  That's my paraphrase of why he is saying it's two different things.  I added a couple of sentences to put this quote in context.  I don't know the status of Conyers' bill but I think it is unfair to give the impression that he has given it up when he hasn't.  I hope you consider this a fair edit.  Thanks.  67.124.90.27 06:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conyers' Select Committee Bill 

message: Since this article has attracted many hard-working editors from across the political spectrum, I thought it would be a good place to ask for help with the rather jumbled content of Culture of corruption, which is a very difficult topic to present without various contributors wishing to lean it towards one political bias or another (including my own bias against the whole corrupt system!). Cheers! bd2412 T 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Culture of corruption]] 

message: The method of impeachment allowed by Individual Citizens was removed.  Not sure why.  Added it back in.Jodin 23:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Individual Citizens]] 

message: The subject matter of this article has been controversial for some in the past, but the article has been stable of late and gone through a lot of vetting. More importantly it seems to fit most of the qualifications for FAC - good intro, extensive coverage, pictures, excellent footnotes (both coverage and formating), references. Could this reasonably be a FAC?  --Stbalbach 04:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Candidate? 

message: I feel that this section is pure speculation, and should be removed.
There are no articles of impeachment introduced in Congress.
The term "likely charges" also implies that these supposed charges are likely to occur.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--RWR8189 09:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Likely Charges 

message: No real explanations were made for the reverts you made.
*Joe Wilson is not a current ambassador, there is no reason to bequeath that title upon him in this article.
*Whether or not Karl Rove can be impeached is not relevant to a discussion about the a supposed "Movement to impeach George W. Bush"
*Also in the Boston Globe article there is no mention by the ABA of impeachment whatsoever. This is listed in a section titled "Advocates of impeachment" in the source nobody advocates impeachment, so this does not warrant a mention.--RWR8189 08:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions of my edits by Kevin Baas 

message: First of all, I see no reason for this article, I watch the news, and I've heard and read very, very little on impeachment, saying that, if it's relevant to the majority(hopefully neutral) Administrators, then fine. However, I think it should list some in the article as notable left leaning groups or individuals like Salon.com and Moveon.org who'd be in favor of impeachment even if Bush (speaking with exaggeration) sneezed the wrong way from those who would be considered legitimately for it(even if they are left).
In other words Bush haters no matter what and people who honestly think it’s justified.
SRodgers--65.24.77.104 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and nominate it for Afd, it's due.  Morton devonshire 06:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guffaw.  Good thing one of Wikipedia's article standards isn't "Articles should be something SRodgers has seen on the news." Turly-burly 06:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that the length of this article is disproportionate to the actual serious (read: Congressional) support of impeachment.  The foaming-at-the-mouth loony bloggers are well-represented, of course. Dubc0724 17:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left and everybody else 

message: Should one specify if the group that conducted a poll is generally considered "liberal," "conservative," "independent," etc.? Or if the majority of the readers/viewers can be put in these categories? --TheSun
:Regarding the Fox News Channel's poll being described as "conservative":
:While the content of the Fox News Channel is regularly alleged of having a conservative bias, their polling is conducted by the independent firm Opinion Dynamics
:I suppose their conservative bias would be exemplified most by their being one of only two major independent pollsters to predict a Kerry victory in 2004 in their final round of polling.
:Their list of clients includes among others the Boston Globe, Reader's Digest, and the Washington Post.--RWR8189 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious as to whether the poll was conducted via telephone interviews or whether it was an internet survey.  More generally, I'm curious as to how scientific the poll was.Kevin Baastalk 15:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you followed the link given in the article you could find the answer: Source: Opinion Dynamics / Fox News Methodology: Telephone interviews with 900 registered American voters, conducted from May 16 to May 18, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.--RWR8189 11:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specifying