Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 2

message: The new lead is heading in the right direction, but I think what's needed is a first paragraph that describes the on going efforts by some to bring about the impeacment of George W. Bush. Calicocat 06:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: This article was put up for deletion with no prior discussion about it and no effort to build a consensus that it should be deleted (or not). This is wrong and I strongly object to this action. Any votes for deletion should be carefully considered and discussed prior to taking such an action. In fact, this section and this comment are the first on the discussion page about deletion. The editor who placed the article up for deletion took the action unilaterally with flagrant disregard to Wikipedia policy and standards.  Calicocat 06:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for deletion, issues with 

message: The article claims that Richard Cohen called for the impeachment of Bush. Read the article - he said no such thing. It also invokes Ralph Nader, but doesn't cite any source - that's probably BS too. What else is wrong? Mirror Vax 01:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didn't read it. Mirror Vax 19:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

text: This seems to be a knee-jerk response based on previous experiences (what does the VFD have to do with anything?) In fact I have refrained from editing the article (other than to properly place a disputed tag) and merely commented on the talk page. You can't get more restrained than that. Mirror Vax 01:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interpretations as to knee-jerk reactions are unexpositive and ad hominem. I notice the sarcastic tone and the specious comments made in the edity summary, but no where do I see you voting in the straw poll, and absent is participation in the sections were I've invited you to justifiy your claims. The tag will be removed, again. Show justification for why it is placed there? Please see 3RR, consensus and civility.  I've opened two sections for a focused dicussion on these two issues and pending your substantiation of carges that the article is Factually Inaccurate and not Neutral in tone, the tag should remain off the article. You claim in the edit summary that I'm not participating, that's totally untrue. The tags should remain off until you can prove they are warranted. You have not even come close to showing that, not here and not in any previous conversations that I find about this article.  Calicocat 02:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You use a lot of words but you say nothing. Nowhere do I see you participating in the discussion. I see you actively ignoring the discussion and creating diversions like a totally unneccessary "straw poll" and creating empty sections with no discussion in them, and then refusing to ackowledge anything outside the empty sections. This is absurd. Mirror Vax 03:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you do anything that does not involve a personal attack? I'm starting to wonder if you're an edit warrior, I can see by your contributions that you are willing to violate the 3RR and that others have found you abrasive and uncivil. I've opened sections to invite a reasonable, clear discussion of your concerns. Show where this article is 1) lacking in neutrality, 2) lacking in factual accuracy? and please refrain from the uncivility. I'm waiting to hear and see where the article is either not neutral and not accurate. Show me. Calicocat 04:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another substance-free comment. Why don't you reply to the points I've made? Why do you pretend that I haven't given detailed criticisms, when I have (see Controversial issue discussion)? This page is supposed to be about discussing the article, but all you want to do is launch personal attacks. You can have the last word, since I'm done talking to you unless you want to discuss the article. Mirror Vax 05:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual problems 

message: What exactlly are the accuracy disputs. Please list?  I see nothing that could be called "inacurate" here. 23:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mirror Vax|Mirror Vax]], substantiate accuracy disputes? 

message: Please list the exact neutrality disputs? In looking over the article I see no major issues with "neutrality." Calicocat 23:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mirror Vax|Mirror Vax]], substantiate Neutrality disputes? 

message: I would suggest the article needs to clearly distinguish (and I realize 'clearly' is not always possible in politics) regular complaints about Bush (which may include the word "impeach" just because it sounds impressive) and genuinely sincere efforts to go through at least some formalities of the process.  The latter should be relatively easy to corroborate with suitable sources. Peter Grey 03:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has been previously discussed in earlier talk sections. However, if you'd like to expand the article in those ways, perhaps it would add positively to it. Calicocat 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's a movement?

message: So I read the article, but I didn't find any evidence that this "movement" actually exists.  All we have is an obscure website where a bunch of people signed some e-petition.  That hardly constitutes a movement.  There hasn't even been a single protest or mention in the media ANYWHERE.  Have they done anything other than get e-signatures?  Yeah, some movement.
:The article mentions a protest at which "1200 supporters... loudly chanted 'Im-peach Bush'".  It should also mention the September 24 march that included many calls for impeachment and investigations leading to impeachment.
:The media have not covered the marches, but the article does cite two public opinion polls conducted by well-known polling organizations.--RichardMathews 02:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is, of course, no significant movement to impeach George Bush. The article is simply a very successful use of Wikipedia by a politically active user, to promote the idea that there is such a movement, as documented in his other web postings. Oddly, one previous discussion seems to have concluded this was an appropriate use of Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the movement? 

message: In the first sentence, what does "public" mean? As in, a non-private movement? As in, a government movement? Stbalbach 05:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The public movement 

message: The following paragraph was blanked:
:Critics of the movement, both on the left and on the right, state that since a sitting chief executive has never been removed by conviction in the Senate, and only one resigned under threat of impeachment, that it is very unlikely that the movement will amount to anything substantive. They also point out that even getting an Congressional investigation while the Republican Party is in control of the House of Representatives is virtually unthinkable. Many critics on the right dispute the allegations made in their entirety, or they deny that the actions of the Bush administration officials currently under investigation constitute anything more than normal handling of politics and national security matters, or are, at worse, "legal technicalities".
On the grounds that it is "conjecture and slander". First this is completely inaccurate - slander is information which is willfully false, spoken and with the intent to defame. This mets exactly none of the criteria. Second it is against wiki rules to make legal threats, and accusing someone of a crime - which is what this amounts to, is a legal threat. Finally, this list of criticisms is precisely what the critics of impeachement of George Bush have said: impeachment won't lead to removal, it won't be pursued by a Republican Congress, that the charges levelled don't reach the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors or that they are "legal technicalities" - the last being the position of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas (R), who, last I checked, isn't in the least supportive of impeachment. 
Personal attacks, hyperbole, POV warrior inaccuracies, legal threats and abusive blanking are all violations of good editing practice and wiki rules. Regardless of ones feelings about the movement in question, there is no question that the statements here attributed to critics of the movement are accurate, citable from notable individuals in notable sources, and are relevant for the context of any consideration of a movement to impeach. Stirling Newberry 21:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph above is not the same paragraph that was edited. "slander" was not used in the legal sense here (I didnt think anyone would ever possibly take an "edit note" on Wikipedia as a personal legal threat, who knows, but reads like a disengenious reaction from someone whos been around long enough to know better). To get to get to the point, if Bush did somthing that was really outrageous, a "smoking gun", to say that the Republicans would never impeach him, despite the wishes of the the American people, strikes me as science fiction wishfull thinking. We live in a representative Democracy, if Bush killed his wife, you can bet he would be impeached. Its an insult to portray Republican Senators as automatrons who would never impeach Bush and stick to party lines no matter what. They represent their constituants and are not under the control of the President. In any case we are not supposed to speculate on future events on Wikipedia, there is a policy about that. Im not even Republican! Stbalbach 23:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not speculation on a future event, its a description about the current state of affairs in the US Congress. We can represent and appropriately attribute both of these views in the article. I'll write it tomorrow if no one does sooner. — goethean ॐ 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a portion of the latest version of this paragraph because it is completely unsubstantiated speculation.  It is the opinion of the author that these are the motives of these alleged critics.  We do not know who these critics are, what they think, or why they think it.--RichardMathews 01:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: The Iraq war investigations the Democrats started in Congress have nothing to do with impeaching George Bush. You, and others, may wish and hope they do eventually go in that direction, but I have not read seen or heard anything connecting these investigations with an impeachment of GWB. To say otherwise is simply a hopeful opinion and doesnt belong in the article. Please stick with the facts surround impeachment and not turn this into slanted original research. Stbalbach 22:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was Valerie Plame outed? Because Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed showing Bush's war intelligence to be incorrect, forged, or non-existent. Oh sure...this doesn't have anything to do with Iraq.  — goethean ॐ 22:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq war investigations