Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 28, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. Remember to always assume good faith.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
  • Archive 1 March 11, 2006 through April 13, 2006
  • Archive 2 April 13, 2006 through April 17, 2006

Contents

[edit] Article is protected

The article is now protected due to the escalation in reverts. Please note that as it is always the case, one side will complain that the wrong version was protected], but please note that Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Once you are ready to resume editing, please place a request at WP:RFPP. Have a nice day. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments move to archive

Based on the length of the page at this date, plus the fact the discussion seems to be starting up fresh after the RfC, I have archived previous comments. Thatcher131 00:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Mind if i dearchive you earlier brilliant solution? EricR 01:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Not at all, although it didn't attract a lot of applause at the time. Thatcher131 01:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, both Nescio and myself thought that solution was fine. It was only the continued noise of merecat that glossed over the fact that your solution was seen as a good one. Prometheuspan 19:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] @ 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) - Merecat is still waiting for Nescio's response

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 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You've made your point. This is not a duel and no one is keeping score, although we are paying attention to both sides. If he chooses not to reply you can't force him; the test will be to see how each individual behaves once the article is unprotected.Thatcher131 19:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The premise of Nescio's complaint is his contention that I refuse to discuss my edits with him. Sufice it to say, I don't agree with that premise and to prove who's telling the truth here, I have overtly declared my intention to make edits in regards to link quality and link quantity, while at the same time, offering multiple times to discuss with Nescio. I am leaving these messages so there will be no grounds for Nescio to complain of lack of dialog with me regarding those points. Frankly, I am surprised that Nescio refuses to respond. After all, the very premise of Nescio's RFC against me is "Despite repeated requests to discuss his edits he keeps asserting things, adding tags, deleting contents". Personally, I am offended that Nescio is skirting discussion here. He demanded more discussion. I am offering him more discussion. Frankly, as far as I am concerned, Nescio's refusal to reply here, proves to me that his RFC was filed in bad faith. Merecat 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, that's as may be. You can infer my position on that from my response to the RfC. At this point I'm suggesting, along with Lord Voldemort apparently, that you cool your jets so you don't dissipate whatever good will has accrued to you by virtue of the RFC attracting so much outside attention to the situation. I suggest you begin proposing some changes here. Or, for a more drastic rewrite, create a subpage at Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/Temp and solicit comments. If he doesn't respond, you can ask for unprotection to implement your uncontested changes. If he does contest them, you'll have your dialog (one would hope). Thatcher131 00:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • At this point, I am intending to delete all citation links which go to an Alternet page as being to an inherently biased source and also not being a reliable source. Beyond that, I'm not going to suggest anything else, until Nescio replies. Merecat 01:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC) That seems to go against the NPOV policy, which says that all sides of an issue are relevant if they are "noteworthy." A legitamate possible way of handling this would be to put qualifiers on information regarding those links, to the effect stating that alternet has a known agenda and thus an alleged bias.

      • First, I object to deleting what in general is a repost site. Second, read this talk page and you will find your discussion on references.Holland Nomen Nescio 01:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Truthout was what I had in mind. Still, can you show why this site is unreliable?Holland Nomen Nescio 01:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Easter

Despite the agonising wait for some of you, I hope you had a good easter. I did. Sun, sea, walk, tea. Great. BTW, having a wikibreak for some days would not hurt other editors IMHO. It might instill some patience.Holland Nomen Nescio 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, no sun, wind and rain, but still enjoyable. EricR 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion regarding references

Responding to the perceived problems with cite quantity and quality:

  • Although I realize there are alot of references, it is counterproductive to have a controversial article as this without sufficient sources to address the inevitable objections. People will delete part of the article on the grounds of OR, as is already the case. The references ensure that nobody can assert that the article is not verifiable.
  • As to the quality, I do not object when people feel they have to counter the allegations and use so-called "right-wing" sources. The point of NPOV is not that every source is NPOV, but that all major points are mentioned. If editors agree to insert the views of proponents and opponents, the end result will be a balanced piece on the subject. If that is not an option please explain what references exactly you find unacceptable and why.
  • More specific I have looked at what kind of sources are used at this point. I did a fast check so I the figures could be slightly off, but the general idea I get is that the allegation that the majority is left wing, or blog, is not correct.
    • Legal analysts/organisations/Human Rights organisations 38
    • Democratic politicians/party 4
    • News agencies 39
    • "Left-wing" oriented 22

Two examples of how it might look

The current method, in which all references that pertain to a sentence are incorporated into one cite:

As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers. [1]
The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.

If I understand correctly this is what Merecat prefers.

As Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror, President Bush has asserted broad war powers to protect the American people. These have been used to justify policies connected with the war. Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean, Elizabeth de la Vega, AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
The Bush administration denies this allegation by explaining that the President is only asserting his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.


The first looks better because we do not have a million cites following a statement. The result is the same, because in both one sentence is covered by several sources.

Example

  1. ^ Abuse of Power
  2. ^ The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
  3. ^ The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, January 13, 2006
  4. ^ The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006
  5. ^ How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006
  6. ^ The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006
  7. ^ Impeaching George W. Bush Alternet, March 6, 2006
  8. ^ If Judges Won't Stand Up to Bush, Who Will? Common Dreams, March 5, 2006
  9. ^ IMPEACH BUSH: NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT IN CHILE, NOT IN THE U.S. The Santiago Times, Dec 21, 2005

Holland Nomen Nescio 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response in general

Aswering the numerous objections voiced, I have several observations:

  • First, I want to say that those editors complaining about my aggressive and stubborn editing are correct. That is the result of me fanatically objecting to rewriting history. I apologize for that, but would also ask these contributors to give an honest answer: would the contents still contain reference to the GC and Katrina (which were redacted out, remember)?
  • Each rationale uses historical facts. To say that mentioning these historical events is "anti-Bush" simply means that these editors think that history is against Bush. Redacting out or altering facts uncomfortable to Bush is not what Wikipedia should be doing. Examples:
    • No WMD, that is the official position of the Bush administration, yet people object to it. They insist upon "allegedly." Clearly "allegedly" contradicts the official position of the Bush administration. I do not object to editors countering it with current conspiracy theories (sources provided), but first of all stick to the facts: the official report.
    • Plame's identity was not known according to a court document. Feel free to say that people think otherwise (cites included!) but to assert that this is untrue (allegedly the first time) is not compatible with the facts. Of course, we can claim Fitzgerald is willingly lying in this official court document but that would be ludicrous. Such a statement is 1 blatantly OR and, 2 try to imagine this thought experiment: if even one thing in this article is true, then the members in the Bush administration have ample reason to lie themselves: indictments for war crimes the most serious legal threat. Which is a very good incentive to lie and obstruct independent investigation as well. And coincidentally, investigation is exactly what has been lacking in these cases (WMD, alleged torture). So, if Fitzgerald can be lying, the Bush administration could be doing it also. Or, are you claiming that everything this administration asserts is ipso facto true? If so you may need to read about the Nixon administration.
    • Saying enemy combatants are not protected by the GC is suggested as impeachable offense, redacted out. Again, deletion of fact.
    • People point out that the use of "torture memos" is POV. For those interested in facts: it is commonly used to describe the memos that are at the heart of current policy in the treatment of detainees. Although POV may be present, to prohibit mentioning what evidently has become a standard description, is even more POV. See the following articles[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]
    • Saying Katrina is part of the rationales was redacted out. Bush shifting the blame of mishandling Katrina, was redacted out. Cite to Der Spiegel saying that Bush shifted the blame, redacted out. Again, without me reverting it (yes in a not so diplomatic way) that would not be in the article. Without doubt historical fact is deleted because it is detrimental to Bush.
    • People object to saying that Bush misrepresents the facts and insist on "allegedly" misrepresenting. Again this contradicts history. Example:
". . . when [Saddam Hussein] chose to deny the [UN] inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did." George Bush, the President of the United States of America, March 21, 2006.[27][28]
What part of this, over the years repeatedly used statement, do you think is compatible with the facts? Is saying that Bush "allegedly" misrepresents the truth not silly? Is this not a blatant misrepresentation of the facts, to all those that saw the inspectors going through Iraq?
Mr. Bush rushed to announce that American forces had found evidence of a biological weapons program in Iraq — trailers that could have been used to make doomsday devices. We now know, from a report in The Washington Post, that a Pentagon team actually on the ground in Iraq inspecting the trailers had concluded two days earlier that they were nothing of the kind. The White House says Mr. Bush was not aware of that report, and was relying on an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. This is hardly the first time we've been told that intelligence reports contradicting administration doctrine somehow did not make it to Mr. Bush's desk. But it does not explain why he and Mr. Cheney went on talking about the trailers for weeks, during which the State Department's intelligence division — about the only agency that got it right about Iraq — debunked the mobile-labs theory. Of course, the inaccurate report saying that the trailers were bioweapons labs was made public, immediately, while the accurate one was kept secret until a reporter found out about it.[29][30] [31]
How shall we explain this "allegedly" misleading statement? Why did he feel the need to declassify that part of the NIE which had already been dismissed as unlikely/untrue, while the part of the NIE contradicting his policies was kept classified? Is this "informing" the public?
    • It has been pointed out that Clinton did the same as Bush and eavesdropped. What these editors fail to mention is that after that 1 this is incorrect, and 2, since then the law has been amended, making these actions illegal today.[32][33][34]
Holland Nomen Nescio 00:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back Nescio. I, too, found Easter to be refreshing. A break always allows things to be put into perspective and one realizes just how silly arguing over this little article is in the proverbial grand scheme of things. In fact, I really hesitate to get involved in this conversation again, but a couple things in you "response" jumped out at me. Firstly, you gave as a reason for your "aggressive and stubborn editing" is that you "object to the rewriting of history". I'm reminded of a couple cliches:WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. There are three versions of history, yours, mine and the truth.
  2. History is written by the victors.WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that with increased knowledge facts may change over time. But to assert we cannot call them facts is unhelpful. At this time we should accept court filings and statements by governments as facts. Of course it may change, we may find WMD, but to suggest that beacuse our knowledge may change we should not debate about facts is fine for a philosophical debate but not in real life. I would think nobody denies Iraq was invaded and can substantiate that claim. Nobody denies inspectors went to Iraq and were forced out by Bush and can substantiate that claim. Nobody denies the Bush administration said no WMD were found and can substantiate that claim. Please, observe that everything in the article is either fact (for now) or presented as assertion. That is why I repeatedly ask to cite a specific sentence you all object to as incorrect or POV.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, let's settle issues one at a time before we go on to the next issue. I believe we are discussing the quality and quantity of sources here. Most of your "response" was dedicated to arguing your political position, not the quality or quantity of the links. A perfect example of how you avoid discussion and delay solution by attempting to reframe the argument.WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC) All that is technically required is that a source be "noteworthy." And i suppose that it reflect a large segment of the populations position on the subject. So if this conversation is really about what references should or should not be used, theres next to nothing to discuss.

Let's start with my position that discussing link style is not what we should be doing. If the article is poorly written we should try and improve the wording, not the reference style. Second, you must have noticed the preceding paragraph, therefore I think your "perfect example of how you avoid discussion and delay solution by attempting to reframe the argument," was an erroneous accusation and you will take that back. But you are correct in noticing that nobody, not even Merecat, has responded to the arguments I presented regarding the references. I would ask editors to go to that paragraph and respond to what I wrote before repeating the silly allegation I am avoiding debate. Last, since when is pointing out what I think is established fact "arguing your political position?"Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thirdly, since you brought it up, we are writing here as encyclopaedic editors, not newspaper journalists or investigative reporters. Simply because "Der Spiegel" writes that a statment is misleading does not mean that we can state that a statement is misleading. That would be judgement or taking a POV or Original Research or attmpting to advancing a cause, or all of the above. All we can write is that "Der Spiegel claims that a statement is misleading". WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Der Spiegel wrote that Bush was shifting the blame, not that he was misleading. As to misleading, this is simple logic, call it OR if you wish. Look at the example and deny it misrepresents the facts. Please say that Bush was correct in advocating he invaded Iraq because SH did not let the inspectors in.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, if the President has abused his office, I'd want him impeached and removed, too. But it is neither for us to advocate nor decide here. Let's concentrate on maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, and keep our political debate confined to the proper forums.--WilliamThweatt 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, our job is only to report the facts of the the different sides and points of view fairly, INCLUDING THOSE WHICH SOME PEOPLE MIGHT LABEL AS BIASED; SO LONG AS THEY ARE "NOTABLE." Since there are in fact THOUSANDS of people who think that these are good reasons for impeachment, the reasoning and the references are "Notable." Prometheuspan 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For some strange reason you think I am suggesting impeachment. What part of the article is my opinion and not based upon sources?Holland Nomen Nescio 13:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My brilliant solution

...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.[citation needed] Syndicated columnist Bill Baker and Democratic party official Chatty Cathy have endorsed this view.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed]
  • 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.[citation needed] Legal analysts including Judge George Gont[citation needed] and former attorneys general Hal Hamburg (Reagan administration) and Ida Inkvist (Clinton administration) concur[citation needed] , although this is disputed by former Justice Department lawyer Jack Jones[citation needed] . 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."[citation needed] Republican columnist Kam Klink points out that Presidents Carter, Reagan and Clinton also authorized warrantless searches[citation needed] , and Clinton supported the controversial CIA Eschelon program.[citation needed]

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) Comments?

Prometheuspan 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC) I totally agree. This document should be about the debate, and frame the issue equally from all sides. However, there is no reason to rewrite the article, it is allready very close to that, and could be edited from the condition it is in very easilly to support such an approach.


  • I support part of this suggestion: "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." Indeed, counter what is POV influenced analysis and insert the opposing view. The presented example however is chaotic at best. What is wrong with adding the other POV to the current article? IMHO at present, each ratioanle is discussed but does need some rewording and balancing. A total rewrite I do not understand.Holland Nomen Nescio 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Nescio regarding Alternet links 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that links to article/"news" hosted by Alternet be deleted because, a) Alternet is too biased and because of that b) it's not a reliable source. Regarding this, I ask Nescio: Yes or no, will you support the removal of links to Alternet articles? Merecat 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See above!Holland Nomen Nescio 01:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am asking for an unequivocal yes or no answer to this particular question. It is the only question I have for you at this time. Please answer yes or no: Regarding this article (Rationales to impeach George W. Bush) will you support the removal of links to Alternet articles? Merecat 01:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternet is a "noteworthy" resource. As long as its agenda and alleged biases are openly explained and propperly qualified, there is no reason to exclude it. Prometheuspan 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nescio gives conditional agreement

If you explain why this site is unreliable. You are right that sources must be reliable, so if you can show that this site is not to be trusted I agree.Holland Nomen Nescio 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliability of Alternet as a source

Quoting Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party.

From the Alternet web site:

The Challenge We Address

  • The right-wing media machine
  • The negative impact of right-wing media
  • Building the progressive echo chamber

According to Alternet fully 1/3 of their mission is to redress what they contend is "The negative impact of right-wing media". Suffice it to say, that can only be done by pushing a particular agenda. Now, without getting into a contest regarding precisely how left-wing Alternet is, we can safely agree that Alternet is an agenda driven organisation. This by their own admission. And when we add in the other 2/3 of what Alternet is driving for, it's clear that they have procalaimed themselves to be so agenda driven, that they are partisan. While I would not say they are as extreme as Socialist Workers Party, they are, in effect, a left wing equivilent of Free Republic or Little Green Footballs and as such are too biased to cite as a reliable source.

Also, because Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, we should use only well regarded sources such as CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN, PBS, NYT, WAPO, Time, Newsweek, etc., for such a highly charged article as Rationales to impeach George W. Bush.

And finally because we are told that partisan websites should be treated with caution, there is simply no reason to use Alternet. If what Alternet publishes is actually notable enough that it's in the mainstream media, then we will have no trouble Googling to find a more acceptable source. On the other hand, if we can only find certain information on Alternet, then more likely than not, the Criteria for web content has not been met.

To sum up, I see no reason why we ought to be injecting potential POV complaints by going with Alternet. If what they are saying is notable, we can find it elsewhere, on a better site.

Merecat 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your assertion is that the information generally put up on places like Alternet is information black listed out of existence by the general media. If this is an article regarding the factual partisan debate, then Alternet is "Noteworthy." Yes, we could come up probably with dozens or hundreds of other sources, but you would probably end up rejecting them on the same grounds. Not really a fair situation seeing as how the media are controlled and owned by republican interests. Again, if this article is a factual account regarding a partisan debate, then Alternet is "Noteworthy" as one group on one side of that debate. "ABC, NBC, Fox, CNN, , , , Time, " I could use formal logic to proove that al lof the above have systemic right leaning bias. So your proposed group of more acceptable information resources is composed by majority of information sources which are biased in the opposite direction that you are complaining of. Prometheuspan 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Merecat's assessment. Morton devonshire 05:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO, if Alternet claims to be building a progressive "echo chamber", that's pretty good evidence they're not unbiased. In journalism, the term means that they specifically want to present and amplify one side of the story. (As a general note, wikipedia should have some mechanism to test news sources and record the consensus. Then we could all check the page and find out that raw story is ok but debkafiles is not, or whatever). TheronJ 10:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not claim the site is unbiased. My question was, can you support the assertion it is "not to be trusted," i.e. is an unreliable source (quoting myself). More to the point, what part of the article is supported by Alterrnet that you object to. It is a minute, microscopic, detail. To have this discussion over that seems superfluous. Secondly, as I said before, please use rightwing sources to comment on their assertions. Balancing information is what NPOV is about, not censoring. As an aside, I won't fight over this but it is clear the article is not based upon leftwing sources, the majority is MSM and legal experts. Regarding the fact that the MSM will mention it if it is notable, you fail to understand that the MSM in the US are highly unreliable to mention certain facts. Why did nobody in the MSM object to the already dubious arguments to invade Iraq? Even today they fail to notice the President claims things as SH did not let inspectors in so I had to invade. The fact this is not on the frontpage of every newspaper, including NYT, WaPo, etc, proves that even if something is notable (misrepresenting history is notable don't you think?) the MSM does not report on it.
    • Regarding wikipedia policy:
      • WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
      • Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
      • Neutral language When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.
      • Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balanceAn article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Secondly, as I said before, please use rightwing sources to comment on their assertions. Balancing information is what NPOV is about, not censoring." Bravisimo!! Here! Here! Ahm-NN Prometheuspan 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, your argument is confusing information with the source for information. What I am objecting to is that Alternet does not meet wiki standards for a source we should cite. At ths juncture, I am not objecting to the assertions that you find there. Rather, what I am asking you to do is find a better source for those allegations. Further, I suggested as a test that information on Alternet ought to also be found elsewhere, or else it's not notable. And in regards to this "When a fact is not common knowledge..."; Alternet is primarily an opinion site - all agenda driven sites are. I am asking you to find dispassionate fact-based sources for the allegations you wish to post about Bush. We are to avoid novel interpretations of information. If Alternet's theories and allegations about Bush are so novel, that they can not also found on some mainstream web sites such as CNN, PBS, etc (see list above), then that's a good indication that Alternet is not a reliable source. Please re-read my above explanation. Also, I am now asking for confirmation: Nescio, yes or no, do you agree to remove the Alternet links from this article? Merecat 14:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think asking for corroboration is legit. Asking for mainstream corroboration when mainstream is a controlled medium is just orwellian thought policing. Prometheuspan 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You must have noticed that Alternet is not used to substantiate the rationales and it is only used 3 times. Strange to object to that. Further, there is an article by Scheer, and I would think that he is notable enough not to be deleted. As to "find dispassionate fact-based sources," how about the 80 references to MSM and legal experts? Are they fact-based? See my paragraph about references, please respond there to what I wrote. Since Alternet is absolutely not used to advance any rationale I will not fight over it. However, I feel you misunderstand the article. impeachment is inherently political, therefore any comment will be opinion-driven. Most articles calling for impeachment will be from "left-wing" sources, and "right-wing" sources will oppose it. Chances are that sources used will be left of center. To ask for facts is impossible since only what the President has done is fact. Whether those actions constitute an impeachable offense is a matter of debate until such proceedings have decided on it. To ask for references based upon fact that he has committed impeachable offense is asking me to deliver the final judgement on it, which you know does not exist. As an aside, what I already asked before, if people demand that opninion should be excluded from Wikipedia, can we then delete everything about religion? The sites used advance the notion that there are impeachable offenses, not that that is a fact. This is made clear in the article if you would read it again.
Another question is, if you object to Alternet, does that mean that I can object to your sources claiming WMD were found, or detainees were not tortured? Holland Nomen Nescio

Nescio, regarding the points you raised just now: While they may be worth discussing, they do not answer my question and they do not bear on my question. Those are separate and distinct questions. I am happy to address 1-2 of your questions after we resolve this one. That said, since we have now fully discussed Alternet links and since you have not answered me (see above) I am asking you again: Nescio, yes or no, do you agree to remove the Alternet links from this article? Merecat 16:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

i'm guessing here, but i think in that case, the answer would be no. nescio responded to your points. now are you going to return the favor and respond to his? maybe if you answered his questions regarding your objections, and continue to have a balanced, 2-sided dialogue, you might be able to reach a comprimise. Kevin Baastalk 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, please do not interject. As you know, I recently literally begged you to discuss this very topic and you declined to accept my invitation. For that reason, I am not currently discussing this with you - at least not until I am done discussing it with Nescio. That said, I am waiting for Nescio's answer, not yours. Nescio, once again, so there is no ambiguity, please tell me yes or no, do you agree to remove the Alternet links from this article? Merecat 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[35]. Kevin Baastalk 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that Alternet should probably not be cited if it is the only source, but that its opinions on subjects sourced elsewhere are of general interest, and can be included because in that case they can be balanced by the opinions of sources with complementary biases. — JEREMY 08:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
May I thank JEREMY for his solution: counter the perceived POV with comments from opponents. Meaning, I still do not see what the problem is with Alternet, but if you feel that POV should be eliminated please insert comments from the other POV to ensure NPOV. See wikipedia policy I cited above. But, to answer your question, no I do not agree, but since this is such a ridiculous minute part of the article I will not start an edit war over it.
Furthermore, it is part of good faith to have a dialogue and not a monologue. So Merecat, kindly answer to the comments I made above in the references and general paragraphs. You probably find it difficult not to be in control, but as I have done my part by addressing your beloved references, contrary to what is really important, you still have not responded to my concerns. If I had not been clear I think discussing references is like building a house by starting with the roof. Let's discuss the article, what part is incorrect, what part needs rewriting to address perceived POV, and you will find that as we are debating the article the used sources will automatically be part of that discussion.
Last, I observe that the honourable contributors can't wait to start editing the article. Based upon their comments and lack of response I am inclined to think that what they are advocating is redacting out information not based on inaccuracy, but on it being potentially harmful to Bush. Which is not the correct motivation. To prevent another dispute please start by showing what part of the article needs amending, and through debate we can reach compromise. Let's all show good faith.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion of Alternet links

Nescio, let me remind you of where we are at:

  1. Merecat asked: "Nescio: Yes or no, will you support the removal of links to Alternet articles?"
  2. Nescio answered: "If you explain why this site is unreliable." (please note that this is an exact quote. Nescio's sentence as posted was a complete sentence, with a period).
  3. Nescio also answered: "You are right that sources must be reliable, so if you can show that this site is not to be trusted I agree."
  4. Nescio confirmed that not to be trusted means unreliable source: "My question was, can you support the assertion it is 'not to be trusted,' i.e. is an unreliable source (quoting myself)."
  5. To prove Alternet fails Wiki standards for sources, Merecat cited those standards and quoted the Alternet web site mission statement. Both Morton devonshire and TheronJ agreed that Merecat made a showing which is persuasive.
  6. No other editors, including Nescio, have commented on the proof Merecat offered about Alternet failing to meet Wiki standards for a reliable source. Most of Nescio's comments were about assessments regarding the POV of content. Nescio did not directly address the proof and Wiki guidelines Merecat offered regarding Alternet.
  7. After Nescio makes many off-point comments which focus substantially on Wiki standards for article content (not the issue at hand, which is validity of sources), Nescio finally says "But, to answer your question, no I do not agree..." (to support the removal of Alternet links) thereby reneging on his promise to agree. Then Nescio goes on to insult Merecat by dismissing his concerns about these links as ridiculous; "...but since this is such a ridiculous minute part of the article I will not start an edit war over it."
  8. After reneging on his promised support to remove the Alternet links, Nescio is now promising merely "I will not start an edit war over it" (the removal of the Alterrnet links).

Suffice it to say, Nescio has demonstrated that it's impossible to reach agreement with him. Beyond this point, I have no positive expectations regarding any further dialog with Nescio. Merecat 16:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll answer you more directly. I find your argument both unconvincing and unsound. It might carry a lot more weight if you were objecting to a personal blog, or to a site that doesn't have so many participants. If we cave to this noise, the next thing you know the thought cops will be running Wikipedia. I think that the call for a coroborating reference or references is legit, and i think that your concern over the credibility of the site warrants use of special qualifers regarding it. I'd be happy to provide half a dozen references to any of these rationales for impeachment. I suspect that if you thought you could get away with it, you'd delete them like you did the last thing i put up. Or, argue against them on similar grounds to what you are arguing now. Since this is Wikipedia and not a leftist or progressive site, our responsibility is to frame the entire issue with references for BOTH sides. If you can find a better information resource for the pro side, by all means, that sounds interesting. If not, Alternet is "noteworthy" and in this case sufficiently relevant. You are free to provide references for the con pov which are equally agenda pushing; and in fact, you won't find information resources on either side of this issue worth a hill of beans that aren't agenda pushing. Prometheuspan 00:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


For sake of decency I will not use the words I am thinking of. My first demand was to show it is unreliable, not that is is unbiased. You have not shown it is unreliable therefore I disagree. You yourself have stated that it is "agenda driven" and because of that unreliable. My point is, bias in itself is not equal to untrue. Second, this is not the issue at hand. I disagree on debating references when there are more important things to consider. Yet as part of good faith I respond to your points and you reward it by not responding to mine. Third, you again are making misleading statements. I did say I would not fight over the removal (my way of trying to find compromise), however, you respond by saying you are unwilling to find compromise. But more importantly, while pressing me to answer your questions you still have NOT responded to mine. Holland Nomen Nescio 16:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let the record show that I used only exact quotes of Nescio and I kept them in context and in order. The entire dialog is available to to anyone who cares to read it (see above). I contend that Alternet does not meet the wiki standard for a reliable source, and I offered a proof for that. Nescio now says that my proof did not show this to be true to his satisfaction, yet he does not point out any flaws in my showing. Perhaps at this point, we are going to need an ArbComm ruling on what sources meet the wiki standard for a reliable source. Further, let the record also show (see above full page of dialog), that I do not have at this time, any objections to any part of this article (including everything Nescio has questioned me about during this "Alternet" dialog) except for the sole issue I have been seeking agreement on, namely the removal of Alternet links from the article. For this reason, any questions from Nescio to me on any other subject other than that, are at this time moot, because there is not dispute. As it stands, the only issue currently under dispute between Nescio and Merecat is that Merecat wants Nescio's support to remove Alternet links from the article and Nescio will not grant that support. Merecat 18:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let the record show that while I try and meet you half way, you still refuse to discuss my concerns, and again are using headers in a very petty way. Please stop your personal vendetta and keep your comments, edit comments, and headers neutral. Leave any reference to my person out of it.
As to Alternet, I already conceded to removing yet you persist in not finding compromise. "If what they are saying is notable, we can find it elsewhere, on a better site." To me this means you accept that what they say is true but state that if it is notable the MSM will report on it. I already commented that the MSM have shown to be reluctant in reporting on issues that are uncomfortable to this administration. You already made clear you did not want to discuss anything else and we now see that while I give in on Alternet you are unwilling to make a gesture on your part: start answering my concerns!Holland Nomen Nescio 18:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I would ask Merecat to refrain from answering by editing previous comments.[36] It breaks the chronology and it now misleadingly looks as if I am asking for answer while you already said you agreed on the current article.
As to your response, does this mean all the tags can be removed from the article? More importantly, if you think the article no longer is POV, do the other editors agree? If not can somebody specifically point out what needs amending?Holland Nomen Nescio 21:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
      • IMHO, the article needs a lot of work, and is currently NPOV because it collects almost exclusively left-wing media and legal analyses without giving fair shrift to the opposing POV. I think its sourcing needs work too, as you and I discussed back in the archive. I'll be happy to work on it with you once the page is unlocked. TheronJ 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Since Merecat said he has no problems aside from the Alternet references, I think that other editors need to help out and show what they think needs improving. Please let's discuss what part you want changed and why, and we surely will find some compromise. As to almost exclusively left-wing media and legal analyses, please look at what I wrote above (Which unfortunately nobody felt inclined to respond to). Roughly siad the different sources account for: Legal analysis ~40%, MSM ~40%, "left-wing" ~20%. I would think that is reasonable, but feel free to add so-called "right-wing" rebuttals. As the record shows I have been suggesting that for years (hyperbole).Holland Nomen Nescio 13:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, as I have made plain to you already, I am only going to discuss one thing at a time with you. Now, since I asked you 1st, you and I were discussing the Alternet links. Suffice it to say, since it's my position that you broke your word on that discussion, until this is resolved between us, it's not possible for us to seek agreement on NPOV (and other tag) removal. However, once we resolve the Alternet links disagreement, I'd be happy to hear your reasons why you want the NPOV tag removed. However, please know in advance that I am only going to discuss one issue at a time with you. This I feel, will give us the best chance of being sure we understand each other. Whenever you are ready to honor your promise to support the removal of the Alternet links, we can proceed to discussing your dissatisfaction with the NPOV notice, not until. Have you changed your mind? Are you going to support the removal of the Alternet links? Merecat 23:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that you have reached an impasse on the issue, perhaps it's time to step back a bit. There are other editors here, and you and Nescio alone will not decide this question. For some, the AlterNet links may not be the most important things to discuss right now. Maybe we could make some progress if other editors were to set the agenda for awhile. Would you agree? EricR 00:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So far, two editors (see above) support me in objecting to Alternet as a source. I do not see any that support Nescio's position that Alternet is acceptable as a source. Merecat 02:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • What is your problem?! I already said I would not object to removing it as part of finding compromise, yet you keep on discussing Alternet. Why? The matter is settled and closed, so move on! Clearly the impasse is again the result of Merecat refusing to discuss if it is not on HIS terms. Compromise is a two way street! Anyway , you already admitted you had no other problems with the article therefore we have no issues left to solve. Now the dispute with Merecat has endede in compromise (me conceding to his demands) this would be a good time for others to state what they think should be changed. Let's make it a team effort.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merecat replies to Nescio 20:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, if your idea of compromise is to agree to disregard wiki guidelines/policies regarding sources, then I will not join you in that. It is my contention I have demonstrated that links to Alternet hosted material do not qualify as acceptable sources under wiki guidelines/policies. At this time, I am not interested in getting off track with you. I am solely interested in either a) you agree that Alternet is not a reliable source and is therefore not to be used or b) you prove per wiki guidelines/policies that this premise is incorrect. My focus on this article has been fully narrowed to this sole issue. I will not entertain any entreaties from you to commingle this issue of Alternet being valid/not with any other issues. Nescio, your offer of "I already said I would not object to removing it as part of finding compromise..." is unacceptable to me as it attempts to commingle issues. My sole interest in talking with you is to be certain that we can reach agreement on the proper application of wiki guidelines and policies to the editing of this article. And, as I see it, if we can not reach agreement on something as simple as which sources pass muster with wiki guidelines/policies, then there is no rational reason for us to attempt more complex, multi-faceted and/or contingent type agreements. As it stands now Nescio, you are either going to have to agree with my premise which is: Links to Alternet hosted material are unacceptable as a source under wiki guidelines/policies or you are going to have to demonstrate that under wiki guidelines/policies they are acceptable. As far as I am concerned, regarding what is and what is not a reliable source, this point is non-negotiable: Wiki guidelines and policies must be determinative. Merecat 20:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Nescio, if your idea of compromise is to agree to disregard wiki guidelines/policies regarding sources, then I will not join you in that." Straw man. Nescio has conceded that if it is that important to you, Alternet references aren't the issue. You continnue to use ad hominem and straw man arguments. You are the one failing to compromise, nescio has in fact compromised more than I would have in his shoes. Nescio in no way is disregarding any policy, and this is totally an out of the blue ad hominem straw man attack against him personally, and is totally irrelevant to a cogent conversation regarding the issues at hand. Prometheuspan 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


For the last time I will repeat my reponse, and again prove that my position is correct.

  • First of all, can somebody explain the meaning of compromise to Merecat? It sure does not stand for me subjugating myself and admitting that I am wrong and he is right.
  • Second, let's talk about wikipedia policy, which Merecat selectively and erroneously cites:
    • The use of biased sources is allowed, Reliable sources: Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. However, that a source has strong views is not necessarily a reason not to use it, although editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the Socialist Workers Party.
    • Partisan sites are not excluded from use, Partisan websites: Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source.
    • The use of legal experts seems to be encouraged, Beware false authority: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions.
    • It suports mentioning proponents and opponents of impeachment, WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
    • Feel free to read about Controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
    • Neutral language: When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.
    • Policy suggest adding other views, not deleting that which you find POV, NPOV tutorial: An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.
  • If we look at the cited policies, it is evident I have shown that although a source may be POV, that is not enough to prohibit its use. Since the guidelines support my stance I feel no need to acknowledge that Merecat is right in denying POV sources. Nevertheless, for sake of civility and hoping that we could find common grounds I conceded to him and allowed him to remove the Alternet cites. Despite all this he sabotages any attempt at compromise and refuses to be a good faith editor. He effectively has sabotaged the discussion with this fruitless monologue.
  • In light of this I will no longer respond to what is turning into trollish behaviour and ask editors if they could have made a mistake in the RFC when they said that Merecat was NOT frustrating any constructive discussion.
  • Last, since Merecat no longer is a serious partner in any discussion, can other editors please start explaining what they think needs to be done? What other sources are needed? What wording needs to be more NPOV, what allegation is incorrect and is not attributed? Let's try and reach compromise so the article can be unprotected.

Holland Nomen Nescio 11:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that nescio has more than put up with this abusive behavior, and that merecat is obviously pursuing something very different than a conversation over how to improve this article. I agree with Nescio that merecats attacks are trollish, and further add that Merecats arguments are not rationally valid. Prometheuspan 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Nescio, since you have finally replied to my call that you list a coherent rebuttal to my previous proof against Alternet links, we can now finally continue. Suffice it to say, your rebuttal is not persuasive and here's why:

  1. Alternet is biased and POV (as you tend to concede)
  2. because of that, it's a suspect source
  3. for this reason, we now apply the notability test
  4. the notability test being that a position advocated by a site, if it's notable, will also be found elsewhere and if it's not found elsewhere, it's likely a novel theory/position which precludes its inclusion on that basis
  5. however, if the theory/position being advocated by Alternet can be found on an agreed-as reliable site such as NYT or WAPO, then the theory/position is not novel and passes the notability test
  6. in these instances we use the reliable source, such as the WAPO or NYT
  7. to sum up, based on a two-pronged test of reliability and notability, there is never any reason to use Alternet as a source.

If Nescio, you agree to this, then we have no disagreement, but if you are still defending Alternet as a source and are only yielding so as to extract a concession from me, then we still disagree. I contend that wiki guidelines/policies compel us to exclude Alternet and for that reason, I further contend that this is not a negotiable point. Because of that, it's not a matter of compromise or concession. Merecat 17:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

To sum up NPOV; BOTH sides of any given argument should be equally referenced. Alternet is a very good site for referencing one side of the debate. It IS notable if for no other reason than the number of participants. And anything you can specifically point out that alternet is used to reference, i would be happy to find a second and third corroborating reference for. YOUR argument is the one that makes no sense, since Nescio was allready willing to compromise; yet you continue to argue. Your INTERPRETATION of the "Notability" clause is only that, and doesn't hold water viewed from the position of logical validity or cogency. Prometheuspan 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And there it is folks; the real reason why this lame discussion continues. Not for any other reason than that merecat not only has to win, but has to extract from nescio a "you were right and I was wrong" clause. Prometheuspan 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When will the protect block be removed

I'm looking forward to the protect removal so that others can start editing this article. Morton devonshire 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • According to Jossi, here, someone needs to place a request at WP:RFPP. Probably the best choice would be Merecat and Nomen agreeing to work together, but I suppose one of us could ask. TheronJ 14:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe the honourable gentlemen can help and solve what is seen as POV issues? As we as a team are working to resolve the dispute one can imagine unprotecting. As long as such a debate is absent (which it is) I fear that lifting the protection is not helping.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it now time to request the article be unprotected? Merecat has above declared his intention to discuss nothing but the AlterNet links. I see no reason the rest of us can not edit the article in the meantime. Maybe we could all agree on the 24 hour waiting period for edits, or maybe a more lax 1 revert per day? This article can't stay protected forever. EricR 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not characterize my position. My comments speak for themselves. My position stated above pertains only to my discussion with Nescio. I am going to go only one step at a time with him, no more. If and only if, Nescio and I can resolve our disagreement regarding the Alternet links, I will happily discuss other things with him. At no time EricR, did I say I would not talk wiht you. What questions do you have for me? Merecat 00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Since merecat has disqualified himself as good faith editor (surprise!) we should continue on finding compromise without him. If all editors work together to address the issues at hand we can get it unprotected.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, please stop trying to boss other people. You are not the arbiter of self-disqualifications and I categorically reject your assertions in that regard. My position is clear: I contend that you refuse to honor your commitment and I will not proceed in dialog with you until either you either honor the commitment that you made (see above) or prove my contention regarding Alternet links to be in error. You have done neither and for that reason, you and I are not conversing. On the other hand I am fully available to converse with others -just not you- until you keep your word. Nescio, your ceaseless efforts to stir the pot of controvery will not make me yield. You are not going to get away with bossing on this article. Merecat 11:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "bossing" a well disguised ad hominem, and a projection. Merecat is the one trying to play boss. Regarding "I am not conversing with" etc. Oh please, and oh bother. Grow up. "Stir tje pot of controversy" - Another well disguised ad hominem, and a straw man. And regarding below. One definition of a TROLL is somebody who uses ad hominems and straw men arguments to bully and control a situation. At this point, a fair assessment of behavior. Merecat IS behaving like a Troll. And nescio has been incredibly patient and tolerant. Prometheuspan 00:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My response directly preceeding this paragraph has disproven your contention regarding Alternet (which you do not respond to, again big surprise) and at the same time shows that you are not interested in resolution: i.e. this disqualifies you as editor to this page.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, my dialog with you regarding Alternet is paused, not discontinued. I am waiting for you to resolve a dialog roadblock. We cannot continue on that topic because you fail to meet your burden to advance the dialog. And as evidenced by my replies here to you explaining this, I am acting in good faith. Suffice it to say, please stop trying to play "gotcha". I am not dis-qualified and you should stop saying that. You are intentionally provoking trouble with that statement. Merecat 11:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no burden here to meet. You raised a stink about alternet, Nescio was willing to compromise, and you couldn't let it go unless he also licked your boots. Sorry, theres nothing noteworthy to discuss here with you. Prometheuspan 00:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Pretty good call Nescio. If you need a conversational logic expert in your corner, please feel free to contact me anytime. Should this escalate further, I'd be glad to do the formal logic write up demonstrating that in fact Merecats behavior has become Trollish. You have done an incredible job of staying level headed while being attacked, and while having your argument impuned via straw men. Thanks for your work, humanity owes you. Prometheuspan 00:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, if, by your attempt to infer Merecat is a troll, you want to reduce yourself the the juvenile antic of name calling, you are free to do that. However, please don't then try to say you are actually doing anything constructive here. Merecat 11:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alteration of talk headers by Nescio is contested

Nescio has begun vandalizing this talk page, so as to try to change my outline of my comments. See these edits:

  1. 16:54, 19 April 2006
  2. 16:55, 19 April 2006

Merecat 18:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody else intervene and change these clearly provocative and incorrect headings into a more neutral form? Again Merecat is making highly unfriendly edits, (totally against the spirit of good faith) and remains silent on his part of our dispute (meeting me halfway).Holland Nomen Nescio 18:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • My two cents: (1) Criminy, Merecat. There's no way for you or Nomen to kill each other, so you're going to have to learn to work together. I supported you on the RFC, and I sympathize with your frustration, but you can work with Nomen if you make it less confrontational. Something like "please stop editing my talk headings" would be a little better. (2) IMHO, Nomen, Merecat is entitled to the talk headings that he chooses. Just respond to his concerns, and the rest of the world will judge you on your arguments. TheronJ 18:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • It takes two to tango. I have responded to his concerns AND he needsa to responds to mine. When will he meet that part of good faith? Furhter I notice you accept the inflammatory remarks he uses as headers. Apparently civility is no longer part of good faith.Holland Nomen Nescio 18:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes made. Merecat: please use descriptive, non-confrontational talk headers. Nescio: please don't further escalate this conflict over relatively petty issues. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.Holland Nomen Nescio 13:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merecat refuses to discuss, again

We have again seen that Merecat is unwilling to resolve the dispute, therefore I would ask everybody else to start discussing what needs to be improved. Now Merecat no longer can be trusted with serious attempts to find consensus, they need to step in and voice their concerns. The sooner we solve the issues at hand, the sooner this page is unprotected!Holland Nomen Nescio 12:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nescio's ad hominem attack against Merecat is baseless

I have replied, replied, replied and replied some more, etc. At this point, Nescio's complaints about dialog and resolving disputes, etc., are baseless. Merecat 05:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merecat answers Nescio's false allegations

Nescio is running around complaining, but he has been fully answered: The onus for advancing the Merecat/Nescio dialog is currently and has been for sometime, on Nescio. If that dialog does not move forward, it's Nescio's fault. Merecat 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • "In light of this I will no longer respond to what is turning into trollish behaviour." But out of curiosity, if I say I will not object to removing Alternet, what exactly do you want to discuss regarding Alternet?Holland Nomen Nescio 13:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We just spent several days discussing this, or did you forget? Merecat 13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sigh, and double sigh! I rest my case, pointless insisting on Alternet (already conceded this point!!!!) without willingness to continue discussion and resolve. This was my last comment to Merecat who evidently believes that mindless repetition of demands, that are already met, constitutes good faith.Holland Nomen Nescio 14:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, if as you say, it's already been "conceded" by you, why do say we still need to "resolve" it? Merecat 14:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Resolve the other issues, which you already admitted you do not have! Don't be a ...!Holland Nomen Nescio 14:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin and Nescio discuss links

Alright, we have:

  1. ↑ a b c d e f g The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff
  2. ↑ Arguments in general.
         * Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment originally Web-posted by House Judiciary Committee member Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
         * The Impeachable Mr. Bush An Aggregation of High Crimes and Misdemeanors By Ralph Nader, CounterPunch, January 28 / 29, 2006
         * The I-Word is Gaining Ground by Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation, December 27, 2005
         * Bush's Last, Best Hope: the Democrats A Popular Groundswell for Impeachment By DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch, March 7, 2006
         * Five Vermont Towns Vote to Impeach Bush Associated Press, March 7, 2006
         * Plenty of opportunities to impeach Bush by Diane E. Dees, Mother Jones, April 05, 2006
         * Raising the Issue of Impeachment by John Nichols, The Nation, December 20, 2005
  3. ↑ The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  4. ↑ Impeaching George W. Bush By Onnesha Roychoudhuri, AlterNet, March 6, 2006.
  5. ↑ Wiretapping possibly illegal
         * 'Specific' info on NSA eavesdropping? A new lawsuit may have what other cases don't: official records about those under surveillance By Brad Knickerbocker, The Christian Science Monitor, March 06, 2006
         * What the President Ordered in This Case Was a Crime" by John Nichols, The Nation, January 23, 2006
         * Watching What You Say Tim Shorrock, The Nation, March 2, 2006
  6. ↑ LEGAL AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY DESCRIBED BY THE PRESIDENT U.S. Department of Justice, January 19, 2006
  7. ↑ Congressional Research Service
         * Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information January 5, 2006
         * Statutory Procedures Under Which Congress Is To Be Informed of U.S. Intelligence Activities, Including Covert Actions January 18, 2006
  8. ↑ American Bar Association
         * AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADOPTED BY THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, February 13, 2006
         * Lawyers Group Criticizes Surveillance Program Washington Post, February 14, 2006
  9. ↑ Former FISA judges
         * Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program By ERIC LICHTBLAU, The New York Times, March 29, 2006
         * It’s Official… By Christy Hardin Smith, March 28th, 2006
 10. ↑ a b c d e f Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush, 108nd Congress H.Res.XX, by Francis A. Boyle, professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law, January 17, 2003
 11. ↑ a b The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
 12. ↑ a b c d Grounds for Impeachment by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive,March 8, 2006
 13. ↑ Wiretapping probably impeachable offense
         * An Impeachable Offense? Bush Admits Authorizing NSA to Eavesdrop on Americans Without Court Approval Democracy Now, December 19th, 2005
         * George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachable; Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, December 30, 2005
         * Is Clinton's history in Bush's future? by Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times, December 30, 2005
         * Time for a Special Prosecutor Bush's NSA Spying Program Violates the Law By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, CounterPunch, March 4 / 5, 2006
         * Why Should Anyone Worry About Whose Communications Bush and Cheney Are Intercepting, If It Helps To Find Terrorists? By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, February 24, 2006
 14. ↑ No official inquiry into wiretapping
         * Senate Panel Blocks Eavesdropping Probe By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, March 8, 2006
         * Senate Republicans Choose Bush Over Country on Domestic Spying
 15. ↑ Constitutional challenge to invasion of Iraq
         * John Doe I v. President Bush
 16. ↑ Weapons of Mass Destruction
         * Iraq's WMD Plans Were Preliminary CBS News, January 07, 2004
         * Kay: No evidence Iraq stockpiled WMDs CNN, January 26, 2004
         * See also Duelfer Report
         * WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications By Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, George Perkovich, with Alexis Orton, Carnegie Endowment Report, January 2004
 17. ↑ Link with Al Qaeda
         * Levin Releases Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship Documents show Administration claims were exaggerated, by Carl Levin, April 15, 2005
         * Another Iraq story gets debunked By Dave Zweifel, The Capital Times
         * Bush Flatly Declares No Connection Between Saddam and al Qaeda The Memory Hole
 18. ↑ a b Blowing Cheney's Cover Ray McGovern, April 10, 2006
 19. ↑ a b c d Selectively disseminating information
         * Why 'leaker in chief' charge harms the president By Linda Feldmann, The Christian Science Monitor, April 10, 2006
 20. ↑ Misrepresenting the facts surrounding Iraq
         * The Impeachment of George W. Bush, by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
         * A Firm Basis for Impeachment By Robert Scheer, AlterNet, July 18, 2003
         * The Case for Impeachment By John Dean, FindLaw.com, June 11, 2003
         * In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat Center for American Progress, January 29, 2004]
         * Millions Protest Possible War with Iraq February 19, 2003
 21. ↑ Downing Street memo
         * Another Iraq Memo Revealed: Colin Powell Opposed War Without Second U.N. Resolution Posted by Think Progress March 28, 2006
         * The secret Downing Street memo SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY DAVID MANNING, The Times, July 23, 2002
 22. ↑ FOIA request
         * Just hearsay, or the new Watergate tapes? By David Paul, Salon, June 06, 2005
         * 52 House members file FOIA request seeking documents related to Downing Street minutes Raw Story, June 30, 2005
 23. ↑ "Biological laboratories"
         * Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War By Joby Warrick, The Washington Post, April 12, 2006
 24. ↑ War of aggression
         * War Crimes: Goose and Gander By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, March 13, 2006
         * Condi, War Crimes & the Press By Robert Parry, Consortiumnews.com, April 3, 2006
 25. ↑ Violating International Law
         * TASK FORCE ON TREATMENT OF ENEMY COMBATANTS CRIMINAL JUSTICE SECTION SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES RECOMMENDATION by AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
         * U.S. Officials Misstate Geneva Convention Requirements by Human Rights Watch, January 28, 2002
         * Findings Report: Enemy Combatants and the Geneva Conventions by the Council on Foreign Relations, December 12, 2002
         * GUANTANAMERA: The Continuing Debate Over The Legal Status Of Guantanamo Detainees By JOANNE MARINER, FindLaw, March 11, 2002
 26. ↑ Impeachment for violating the Geneva Conventions
         * Is There a Case for Impeachment? Harper's Magazine, Edited selections from a forum moderated by Sam Seder and featuring Representative John Conyers Jr., John Dean, Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, Lewis Lapham, and Michael Ratner, held March 2, 2006 at Town Hall in New York City.
         * The Case for Impeachment - Why we can no longer afford George W. Bush by Lewis H. Lapham, Harper's Magazine, February 27, 2006.
         * Rally to Support Rep. John Conyers and AfterDowningStreet.org by Mike Ferner, Veterans For Peace, June 16, 2005
 27. ↑ Torture by proxy
         * Pentagon Memo on Torture-Motivated Transfer Cited By Ken Silverstein, The Los Angeles Times, December 08, 2005]
         * Torture by Proxy The New Yorker, February 14, 2005
 28. ↑ Gonzales Defends Transfer of Detainees By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, March 8, 2005
 29. ↑ Legal position of rendition
         * U.N. Blasts Practice of Outsourcing Torture by Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service
         * No Exceptions to the Ban on Torture By Louise Arbour, The San Diego Union Tribune, December 07, 2005
 30. ↑ The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods the memos written as part of the war on terror
 31. ↑ War crimes warning
         * Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings By Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, May 19, 2004
         * Torture and Accountability by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, June 28, 2005
         * US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes By Grant McCool, Lawyers Against the War, Global Policy Forum, January 28, 2003
 32. ↑ US definition of torture
         * Judge's anger at US torture by Richard Norton-Taylor and Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, February 17, 2006
         * Torture as National Policy By Dahr Jamail, Tomdispatch.com, March 9, 2006
 33. ↑ Torture as policy?
         * Memorandum for Inspector General, Department of the Navy July 07, 2004
         * THE MEMO -How an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted by JANE MAYER, The New Yorker, February 20, 2006
         * How the Pentagon Came to Adopt Criminal Abuse as Official Policy by Marty Lederman, February 20, 2006
 34. ↑ We don't torture
         * The President says "We do not torture." We look at what has surfaced so far FactCheck.org, December 19, 2005
         * The US has used torture for decades. All that's new is the openness about it Naomi Klein, The Guardian, December 10, 2005
         * Fun Bits About American Torture In many ways, the U.S. is now just as inhumane and brutal as any Third World regime. Oh well? By Mark Morford, SF Gate, December 16, 2005
 35. ↑ U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3, 2006
 36. ↑ UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC, Read the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16, 2006
 37. ↑ Accountability
         * Fmr. NY Congresswoman Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu Ghraib Torture Democracy Now, June 30th, 2005
         * The Gonzales Indictment By Marjorie Cohn, Truthout, January 19, 2005
         * The Quaint Mr. Gonzales By Marjorie Cohn, La Prensa San Diego Bilingual Newspaper, November 19, 2004
         * The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
         * Command's Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan Human Rights First
         * Who is accountable for Army's descent into torture? By David R. Irvine and Deborah Pearlstein, Salt Lake Tribune, March 04, 2006
         * Dahr Jamail Follows the Trail of Torture
 38. ↑ Plame's identity not known
         * Office of Special Counsel all the material made public by Fitzgerald
         * October 28, 2005 Indictment: US v Libby
 39. ↑ Libby: 'Superiors' Approved Leak CBS/AP, Feb. 9, 2006
 40. ↑ Bush authorized disclosure
         * White House Declines to Counter Leak Claim By PETE YOST, Forbes, April 07, 2006
         * Libby Says Bush Authorized Leaks By Murray Waas, National Journal, April 6, 2006
         * Bush: Hands Possibly as Dirty as Scooter Libby's Flashback: Bush Impeachment Not Out of the Question April 6th, 2006
         * Bush at Center of Intelligence Leak By Jason Leopold, Truthout, April 06, 2006
         * The deception Bush can't spin Libby's testimony shows that Bush disclosed national secrets for political gain — and makes Bush's statements about finding the leaker ludicrous By Joe Conason, Salon, April 07, 2006
         * Bush authorized leak of Iraq intelligence estimate, indicted ex-Cheney aide says RAW STORY, April 6, 2006
 41. ↑ Disclosure legal?
         * The Truth About Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Statements to the Grand Jury Claiming the President Authorized a Leak of Classified Information The President and Vice President Are Not In the Clear Yet by John Dean, FindLaw, April 7, 2006
         * Poof! Presidential Magic Turns National Secrets Into Judy Miller "Exclusive" by Arianna Huffington, April 06, 2006
 42. ↑ Did Bush ly?
         * Did Bush Lie to Fitzgerald? By Robert Parry, Consortium News, April 07, 2006
         * Memo to Sunday Talkers: Please Get the Answers the American People Cannot by Representative John Conyers, Jr., April 07, 2006
         * Another White House is buying silence By Derrick Z. Jackson, The Boston Globe, April 8, 2006
         * President Bush, 2003: 'Leaks of Classified Information Are a Bad Thing' By E&P Staff, Editor & Publisher April 06, 2006
 43. ↑ a b Uncommon way of declassifying
         * The Latest Plame Smear: Does Fred Hiatt Even Read the Washington Post? by Jane Hamsher, Huffington Post, April 10, 2006
         * 'The Washington Post': At War With Itself The newspaper's editorial page on Sunday declared Scooter Libby's notorious 2003 gift to reporters "The Good Leak." On the same paper's front page two reporters thoroughly debunked the notion by Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher, April 10, 2006
 44. ↑ a b Final Jeopardy By Elizabeth de la Vega, TomDispatch.com, April 09, 2006
 45. ↑ Lying impeachable
         * Leaking, Lying and Burning Covert Agents from the Oval Office - The Impeachment Clock Just Clicked Forward By DAVE LINDORFF, CounterPunch, April 7--9, 2006
         * The Leaker-in-Chief By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout, April 07, 2006
 46. ↑ Hurricane Katrina
         * Ramsey Clark on Hurricane Katrina Ramsey Clarke, September 6, 2005
         * POLITICS AND CULTURE/EAST AND WEST: Impeach George W. Bush by Robert R. Thompson, PopMatters, October 03, 2005
         * Katrina, Bush and Cheney Grounds for Impeachment By FRANCIS BOYLE, September 16, 2005
         * Greens Call for Impeachment of Bush and Accomplices for Crimes Against Humanity Due to the Preventable Deaths of Thousands in New Orleans Green Party of Humboldt County, August 1, 2005
         * Hurricane Katrina Huffed and Puffed and Laid President Bush’s Incompetence Bare Sunday Independent, September 4, 2005
         * Hurricane George
         * The Impeachment of George W. Bush The Nation, January 30, 2006
 47. ↑ Responsibility Katrina
         * THE MISERABLE RESPONSE TO KATRINA - How Emergency Management Failed New Orleans By Farhad Manjoo, Der Spiegel, September 7, 2005
         * Brown puts blame on Louisiana officials CNN, September 28, 2005
         * Former FEMA Director Brown Blames 'Dysfunctional Louisiana' for Katrina Response; Lawmakers Mock Him by LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
         * Reporting on Bush pre-Katrina briefing, NY Times, Wash. Post, USA Today entirely forgot Bush claim that no one anticipated levee breaches Media Matters, March 02, 2006
 48. ↑ Kathleen Babineaux Blanco
         * Just days after Bush aide lied about Blanco in Wash. Post article, the Post noted Democrats' "harsh rhetoric," which "could create a backlash" Media Matters, September 08, 2005
         * Brown blames Gov. Blanco By Stephen Dinan, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, September 28, 2005
 49. ↑ Abuse of Power
         * The Impeachment of George W. Bush by Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation, January 11, 2006
         * The Problem with Presidential Signing Statements: Their Use and Misuse by the Bush Administration By JOHN W. DEAN, FindLaw, January 13, 2006
         * The Unitary Executive: Is The Doctrine Behind the Bush Presidency Consistent with a Democratic State? By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN, Findlaw, January 09, 2006
         * How Much Authority Does the President Possess When He Is Acting as "Commander In Chief"? Evaluating President Bush's Claims Against a Key Supreme Court Executive Power Precedent By EDWARD LAZARUS, FindLaw, January 5, 2006
         * The President Does Not Know Best By Elizabeth de la Vega, Tomdispatch.com. Posted January 19, 2006
         * Impeaching George W. Bush Alternet, March 6, 2006
         * If Judges Won't Stand Up to Bush, Who Will? Common Dreams, March 5, 2006
         * IMPEACH BUSH: NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT IN CHILE, NOT IN THE U.S. The Santiago Times, Dec 21, 2005

Which is kinda long. I would say we should focus on trimming the ones w/more than 4 links. I guess just redact them from above, and append them below. That will also give us a convenient way to discuss them individually, if need be. Kevin Baastalk 13:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] questions as newbie regarding compilation process.

"Articles with unsourced statements"

Since the body of data which sources and proofs the assorted arguments is very large, how should that be handled for pages? It seems to me that the rational answer is to create // discussion pages emanating from this page to cover the main arguments. These i suppose could later be deleted or merged or compressed.

Prometheuspan 17:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your preceeding section was a annotated cut & paste from "truthout". that's a copyright violation and was deleted. Please do not repost that here. Merecat 17:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As it so happens, that information is generated to be distributed, so you are really just making noise. If this was your genuine motivation, why didn't you leave at least the link? Answer; thats not your real motivation. I like to assume good faith as much as the next person, but you are repeatedly demonstrating that is a fallacious assumption.

[edit] valerie plame case

This section moved to: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/copyrviolation Please do not repost this here - it's a copyright violation. Merecat 23:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed it from that page -- please do not violate copyright anywhere on Wikipedia. We are not licensed to reprint that content. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
That's what I said, but Prometheuspan had already reposted it here once after I had deleted it and I did not want an revert war trying got get rid of it again. Thanks for fixing that. Merecat 05:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but you haven't proved it. Prove it, or quit playing god. See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_041006Z.shtml Prometheuspan 00:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC) valerie plame case See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_041006Z.shtml

[edit] mercats other deletions, nevermind the copywright issue merecat didn't just delete the alleged copywright issue information. Also deleted was MY COMMENTARY.


<also deleted by merecat> I have read the discussion with interest. My observation is that this looks to me to be, in my opinion, a nitpickers guide to obstructionism. Rather than bother to show this cogently using logic, I think it is more useful and purposeful to simply begin a proof compilation. Since I belong to several groups, and have been part of the truth movement since the beginning, i could take this to mean dumping hundreds of good proofs. Today, I'd just like to focus on one.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush/copyrviolation"

I don't know what there is to prove. It is recent written material, therefore it is not free unless it is explicitly made free by an appropriate license. Nor does it make sense to put the material here anyway; it is only a link away. In any case, thanks for not reposting it. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem, i understand the spirit of compromise, and, you are what i have to assume is a good faith editor, whereas merecat has demonstrated something else. heres something interesting from most of the truthout pages;

 Print This Story  E-mail This Story

apparently at the very least truthout offers the information to be redistributed in email and tree-pulp. I am in the process of determing and prooving the factual copyright status.

truthout also allows the information to be resistributed via

+  t r u t h o u t news feed

Prometheuspan 00:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the purpose of this page?

This article really has no purpose. There is already the Movement to impeach George W. Bush, and this issue is addressed in several other places, so I see no reason to actually keep it. Additionally, it seems pretty clear that ever finding a 'neutral' version of such a polarizing figure and, in particular, heated political issue is simply not possible. Just looking at the countless templates tells me that. I say this in as neutral a way as possible--please, do not tell me I am being anti- or pro-bush. I think this article should be deleted (not being an administrator, though, I can't add the deletion box). Thanks, Theonlyedge 01:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, you don't have to be an Admin to nominate a page -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion If you do it, I will support the Afd. Cheers. Morton devonshire 06:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
me too. Merecat 06:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
You must have noticed it was recently voted not to delete. Feel free to read why it was not deleted. Of course, we can nominate on a weekly basis but that is hardly a good faith contribution. Since nobody feels the need to explain explicitly what is wrong with the article (what sentence is incorrect or POV, what rebuttal is needed), yet another AFD is blunt, uncooperative and not in the spirit of Wikipedia.Holland Nomen Nescio 14:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
        • FWIW, while it's accurate to say that there was no vote to delete, it's not correct to say that "it was recently voted not to delete." The result of the recent vote was "no concensus." Also, I don't see how telling someone they're not acting in good faith can possibly be consistent with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. (That said, I don't have a personal opinion on whether or when a revote is appropriate on an AfD). TheronJ 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Small correction, I was stating that when people start an AFD on a weekly basis, such would be violating good faith. I never said that any editor in particular was acting in bad faith. It's the nuance of course.Holland Nomen Nescio 15:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 02:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC) an interesting contention, however, the movement to impeach is about a political movement, and this article is about the rationales that that movement might use. This does constitute a reasonable difference, and, more importantly, there is more than sufficient material to fill even another dozen articles. We are in the process of sorting out some issues, and it is simply untrue that those issues cannot be sorted. Thank you for your thoughts.

[edit] Message to Prometheuspan

Regarding your interpolated comments (some many of which, they verge on SPAM): In particular, I see you keep referring to "noteworthy". Please supply a wiki link to where we can see that term in it's proper context as part of a wiki Guideline. Ater all, since "noteworthy" is so "noteworthy" to you, I'm guessing that you think there is a "noteworthy" guideline that talks about ""noteworthy" edits which are "noteworthy", right? PS: Thanks for not again posting the copyright violation material from "truthout" on this page. A smaller-minded person than yourself, might have retaliated with talk page spam after being rebuked like that. I'm glad to see that's not you - very "noteworthy"! Merecat 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 19:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC) "Noteworthy" Since that information can be found by searching Wikipedia, and, by anybody easilly, I see no reason to cater to you.

"talk page Spam' To be very clear; You have lost all credibility with me, and it was somebody elses third opinion which convinced me to compromise on the issue, AND your deletion of my comments in my mind constitutes a rules violation.

[edit] Plea

Again I would ask other editors to step in and discuss improvement to the article. I no longer find Merecat a reliable partner in resolving the issues and will not respond to him, therefore somebody needs to help in pointing out the POV issues and factual inaccuracies. This lack of response to my more than elaborate attempts at finding consensus is unfortunately not increasing the chances of getting the page unprotected. Holland Nomen Nescio 14:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Here are some problems that I see right now in the article:
    • (1) The article's title is still bad.
    • (2) Many sections do not make clear that the issue is being used as a justification for impeachment. For instance the "extraordinary rendition" section does not claim that anyone significant has used this specific issue to argue for impeachment. People pointing out that something is illegal is not in itself a "rationale for impeachment."
    • (3) The worst flaw is that the article does an insufficient job of bringing out the administration viewpoint. In terms of space, practically none is given over to administration claims or justifications that counter points made by pro-impeachment sources. The article should provide similar detail to the administration's responses as it does to the actual reasons for impeachment. Again, one could point to the "extraordinary rendition" section as an example of this but it runs through most of the article.
    • (4) There is a note titled: "Did Bush ly?" =(
  • Problems 2,3,4 cannot really be addressed until the page is unprotected. Perhaps if you and Merecat agreed not to a WP:0RR on this article it would facilitate unprotection. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that list. I would suggest the following:

  • Ad 1 The title: not sure how to proceed, do we vote on this?
    • Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (original)
    • Rationales provided by persons advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush
    • Rationales of movement to impeach George W. Bush
    • Reasons cited for seeking Bush's impeachment
    • Bullet list of pro-impeachment rationales
    • Aggregated arguments for seeking Bush's impeachment
    • Purported impeachable offenses of George W. Bush
    • George W. Bush impeachment rationales of various persons and organizations.
    • Rationales for impeaching George W. Bush
    • Rationales for seeking the impeachment of George W. Bush
    • Reasons for impeaching George W. Bush
    • Reasons for seeking the impeachment of George W. Bush
  • Ad 2 Sources saying these are impeachable offenses
1.1 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy Sources in the article also [37]
1.2 Invasion of Iraq
1.2.1 Consitutionality of Invasion Sources in the article also [38]
1.2.2 Justification for Invasion Sources in the article also [39][40][41][42]
1.3 Geneva Conventions controversy Sources in the article
1.4 Extraordinary rendition [43][44][45][46]
1.5 Treatment of detainees Sources in the article
1.6 Allegedly leaking classified information
1.6.1 Allegedly declassifying for political purposes Sources in the article
1.7 Hurricane Katrina Sources in the article also [47][48]
1.8 Alleged abuse of power Sources in the article also [49][50][51][52][53][54]
  • Ad 3 Insufficient rebuttal is easily corrected by insering opposing views. And I know that is a problem, that's why I keep asking editors to help by providing that information. Which is not the same as deleting well-sourced information.
  • Ad 4: Renaming this is easily done, how about "Statements by Bush?"

Information in general can be found at these sites: [55][56]Holland Nomen Nescio 14:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    • Regarding point two, the article should make clear who is simply saying that something qualifies as an impeachable offense or illegal act, and who is saying that Bush actually ought to be impeached for it. For instance, this article is used as a source for the view that rendition is illegal, but doesn't particularly address impeachment. It should be explicit in the article exactly who has called for impeachment on those grounds. Thanks for your links, I'll take a look at them. I encourage you to clarify these issues in the article.
    • As far as the title goes I prefer "Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush". Regarding the note titles, notes don't need titles; I would suggest just getting rid of them. Sorry not to notice your response for so long, btw. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to work with you and Merecat on this article once the page protection is lifted. It's way too theoretical for me to do much now -- there's no way to actually make any changes, so I have no idea what the final agreement is on anything, or what any of the other sections read. TheronJ 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Wars

Long long ago, in a galaxy far away, I got in a disagreement on a wikipedia talk page (One-hit wonders in the UK, if it matters), over the details of what should have gone in the article. When I felt the bristles start to rise, I simply conceded, removed the page from my watchlist, and started working on some of the 1,092,968 other articles we have to work on instead. How is that article now? Did I get my way? I don't know, I have never looked at it again. As one editor, it didn't matter what I did, as long as I didn't harm the quality of the encyclopaedia. It is clear that the main warriors here, hopefully they know who they are, are harming wikipedia far more with their revert warring, RfCs and general spillover problems than any kind of perceived problems with this article itself. The AfD for this article reads like the climactic scene from a John Wayne film. The only way I can see this article progressing is if the two perpetrators both leave this article and never look at it again. There is plenty of other work to be done here on Wikipedia, and I mean plenty. Forget about this article, there are plenty more people to work on it. Jdcooper 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Another alternative would be that genuine consensus will eventually be reached. Merecat 18:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, in a galaxy far away maybe. The temperature gets too heated, the thermometer breaks, all that ever happens is that there's glass everywhere and no-one has the presence of mind to fetch the dustpan and brush. Are you really saying there are no other articles worth your time, effort, expertise and knowledge? Or that there is no way this article could ever survive without you? Jdcooper 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that my principal foil here Nescio (and a few others), appear as editors at a number of politics-related articles which I contend have excess POV. I further assert that I am making reasonable attempts to bring some of those articles closer to NPOV. Suffice it to say, it's turned out that the line in the sand was drawn at this article and it's at this article that a comunication break-through might occur. I am still hoping for the best. Merecat 18:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, never mind, twas but a suggestion. I knew there was a reason I didn't edit politics articles :) (aside from the fact that other people know more about politics than me, naturally) Jdcooper 19:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It would really help to keep the temperature down if certain contributors stopped using my name to make a point. Clearly, after sabotaging any serious effort at reaching consensus it is hardly civil of said editor to continue with ad hominem attacks. A sincere remark to whoever gets annoyed during debate: Gnothi Seauton.Holland Nomen Nescio 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Sure it doesn't help, but I urge you all to please not be so sensitive? Its not about you or him or me or Jimbo Wales, its about the encyclopaedia right?

Jdcooper 15:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Exactly my point. The coomment was not because I am sensitive, but since the article, and not the editor (provided their conduct is not overly unfriendly), is what should be discussed. Thank you for showing I am not the only one who feels that way.Holland Nomen Nescio 16:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  • If a sigh was a poem i would write it here. Jdcooper 16:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just joking. But I know how you feel, you can find that poem here.Holland Nomen Nescio 16:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat said "No, what I am saying is that my principal foil here Nescio (and a few others), appear as editors at a number of politics-related articles which I contend have excess POV. I further assert that I am making reasonable attempts to bring some of those articles closer to NPOV." - I think it should be pointed out that if this is true, then it is likely that the reverse is also true. We happen to be editing on the same pages, i imagine all three of us take an interest in politics. i imagine all three of us contend that the articles could be made more POV, and are making what we feel to be reasonable attempts in that direction. Yet you make this your principle foil? I don't make it mine - i see nothing objectionable in it. Kevin Baastalk 15:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, Nescio reverts me frequently. That makes him my principal foil. Merecat 17:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

<the below comments (to endnote) were also deleted if memory serves.>

This isn't a fencing game. Prometheuspan 22:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC) More comments deleted illegally by merecat

Reverting deletion of historical facts and insertion of bias ("partisan politics," "allegedly" when speaking of established fact, et cetera) is important to keep this article factual and neutral. Remember you deleted Katrina when it is used as reason to impeach.Holland Nomen Nescio 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

<endnote>

[edit] comments illegally deleted by merecat

[User:Prometheuspan|Prometheuspan]] 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Reverting deletion of historical facts and The difference here is that this is not partisan, because unlike insertion of bias ("partisan politics," "allegedly" the Clinton fiasco, there is rational, totally grounded and factual when speaking of established fact, et cetera) is important proofs for many good grounds to impeach. to keep this article factual and neutral. Prometheuspan 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember you deleted Katrina when it is used as reason to impeach.Holland Nomen Nescio 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

From the SunTimes link: "Leave it to the Democratic-controlled state Legislature to find an obscure way to attempt to oust President Bush." Makes what a current event? That biased, partisan DEMS seek the ouster of Bush? There is no "event", only a partisan agenda. Merecat 17:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from Prometheuspan

<<Note; This was deleted by merecat till endnote>>

  • hi there. well, this is just first pass for the day and i am going to keep it really brief.
  • The notability of the group making this "Rationale" is allready established by the OTHER article.

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

  • IT IS THAT Group, whom for logics sake we shall term "group C" who is making this RATIONALE.
  • This article is thus a neutral exploration of that groups rationale to impeach. This is noteworthy for the following reasons;
  • 1; Literally thousands of people, working on literally hundreds of different issues, believe that there are 101 good reasons to impeach.
  • 2; If that poll is increased to international scope, the numbers rise easilly into the millions and probably tens of millions of people on earth that believe that there are grounds to impeach.
  • 3; A small fraction of those actually have access to the interent.
  • 4; A smaller fraction of those have the spare time and energy to devote to arguing and belaboring the point with the rest of us.
  • 5; That still leaves literally hundreds of people if you only count Blogs, and at least thousands of people if you count only participants of the sited internet communities.
  • This article is a wikipedia report, regarding those people, their rationale, and their thinking and process.
  • This can only be done in the perview of wikipedia if there is a consistant, and lucid "Minority Echo" from the camp of the Republicans and Conservatives, and so those people are freely invited to make good faith edits in the style of a minority Echo.
  • That is not a dialogue, and it is certainly not an argument. One side shall present its case, and the other shall present an equal length or less rebutal.
  • Now, please remove the block, or You will force me to spend the most of my day explaining why this entire conversation is rediculous.

<<Endnote, however, this was also recovered as another thing deleted by merecat. Till endnote>>

=comments illegally removed by merecat=             
*1 Suggested reasons to impeach +
  • Reverting deletion of historical facts and insertion of bias ("partisan politics," "allegedly" when speaking of established fact, et cetera) is important to keep this article factual and neutral. Remember you deleted Katrina when it is used as reason to impeach.Holland Nomen Nescio 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

<Endnote>

    --------------

<This was also deleted by merecat till endnote.>

  • 1.1 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
  • 1.2 Invasion of Iraq
  • 1.2.1 Consitutionality of Invasion
  • 1.2.2 Justification for Invasion
  • 1.3 Geneva Conventions controversy
  • 1.4 Extraordinary rendition
  • 1.5 Treatment of detainees
  • 1.6 Allegedly leaking classified information
  • 1.6.1 Allegedly declassifying for political purposes
  • 1.7 Hurricane Katrina
  • 1.8 Alleged abuse of power
------------------

Additional rationales to impeach include;

  • 1.12 The no child left behind act is actually another example of "Ushering in an ownsership society"

"Usher in an Ownership Era...because a vibrant entrepreneurial spirit will keep our economy strong and provide more opportunities for workers and families." https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=V3T5C7I2X4 Movement to impeach George W. Bush

-----------

ie; Corporatization and privatization. The act is meant to make public schools incapable of living up to the new higher bar, and is enacted while simultaneously cutting funding to education.

  • 1.13 The imigration act passed last year or so is actually who is

by any logical analysis an act authorizing indentured servitude or slavery in the US.

  • 1.14 The USA patriot act mirrored the Natzi enabling act and

was written by some of the same Authors.

  • 1.15 The handling of the Iraq invasion forces demonstrated to the Iraqis that despite the rhetoric, the Bush administration was only interested in oil. Oil resources were protected above civilians, and even above serious military targets, including weapons depots.
  • 1.1 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy + rise easilly into the millions and probably tens of millions of people

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=19593&s2=14 + on earth that believe that there are grounds to impeach.

  • 1.2 Invasion of Iraq
  • 1.2.1 Consitutionality of Invasion
  • 1.2.2 Justification for Invasion + devote to arguing and belaboring the point with the rest of us.

The evidence was cooked up over a period of several months, and anybody paying attention knew even at the time that the WMD was a bald faced lie. This has now been proven as fact. Not only were no WMD found, but there was never any real evidence that there was any WMD, and the CIA report was that those weapons which Saddam had were destroyed or inoperable. The Bush administration lied to justify the war.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67020 + http://smh.com.au/news/World/White-House-knew-there-were-no-WMD-

  • 1.3 Geneva Conventions controversy
  • That is not a dialogue, and it is certainly not an argument.
  • 1.4 Extraordinary rendition + One side shall present its case, and the other shall present an equal

Torture, illegal detention, failure to abide by geneva conventions, no lawyers, no press, murder by means of torture, murder by means of starvation, etc. http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=19580&s2=14

  • 1.6 Allegedly leaking classified information
  • 1.6.1 Allegedly declassifying for political purposes
  • 1.7 Hurricane Katrina

"FEMA" was technically disbanded and its resources given to the Department of homeland security. The agency was slow to respond because domestic emergencies were not in its original mission statement. Evidence suggests that the flooding could have been stopped easilly by sufficient deployment of US resources. Further evidence suggests that the US military actually destroyed the Levees. Detainment and abuse of Katrina victims as if they were prisoners of war. Despicable refusal to allow rescue operations by other parties. Funneling of funds away from the victims.

  • 1.8 Alleged abuse of power

<Endnote, however, this is just one item, items deleted i think continue.>

[edit] other comments illegally deleted by merecat

Another ad hominem. Nobody is harming wikipedia, and in fact, they are working to improve wikipedias treatment of a specific topic. As an aside, there does not seem to be people waiting to pick up the slack to work on this article, and, there is no reason why those involved should leave the article, other than to make things easy for the POV of the right to have its way. Prometheuspan 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The real biggest problem with this is that Merecat is not only not willing to compromise, but has shown a willingness to use ad hominem and straw man arguments. Merecat does not seem to be working for NPOV, but appears as a POV pusher. Prometheuspan 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

<endnote, these two items were deleted by merecat for obvious reasons. They foiled comments made by others to support Merecat, and merecat wanted those supports to not be answered so that his position would appear to be favored and so that it would appear that there was no rational answer to the contentions made by those supporters.>


Prometheuspan, please read the edit summary for this edit. The enormous quantity and loose formatting of your comments from today, would do better at a sub page. I've made one for you here: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/ppan. If you move your material from today to that page, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Merecat 23:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, let me be perfectly clear. You may have had arguable just cause to delete SOME and a VERY FEW of the things that you did. However, it is a rules violation to delete things as you have. You are the one responsible for the mess, because you are the one that deleted information illegally. I will not put my comments in a closet convenient to you, and i will not keep my comments off of the main page at your request. Last and not least, I am not even slightly interested in talking with you, as that is a waste of my time. I hope i have made my position perfectly clear. I have nothing to say to you, and will continue to post information which i am sure you would like to delete or otherwise vanish. Don't. Prometheuspan 00:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comments AGAIN deleted by merecat

<The comments here were deleted by me as accidental duplicates. When you are fighting somebody who is deleting you, thats an easy mistake to make.>

[edit] Compilation process continues

The following is copied from the articles contents.

Contents [hide]

  • 1 Suggested reasons to impeach
  • 1.1 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy
  • 1.2 Invasion of Iraq
  • 1.2.1 Consitutionality of Invasion
  • 1.2.2 Justification for Invasion
  • 1.3 Geneva Conventions controversy
  • 1.4 Extraordinary rendition
  • 1.5 Treatment of detainees
  • 1.6 Allegedly leaking classified information
  • 1.6.1 Allegedly declassifying for political purposes
  • 1.7 Hurricane Katrina
  • 1.8 Alleged abuse of power

Additional rationales to impeach include;

  • 1.12 The no child left behind act is actually another

example of "Ushering in an ownsership society"

"Usher in an Ownership Era...because a vibrant entrepreneurial spirit will keep our economy strong and provide more opportunities for workers and families."https://www.donationreport.com/init/controller/ProcessEntryCmd?key=V3T5C7I2X4


ie; Corporatization and privatization. The act is meant to make public schools incapable of living up to the new higher bar, and is enacted while simultaneously cutting funding to education.

  • 1.13 The imigration act passed last year or so is actually

by any logical analysis an act authorizing indentured servitude or slavery in the US.

  • 1.14 The USA patriot act mirrored the Natzi enabling act and

was written by some of the same Authors.

  • 1.15 The handling of the Iraq invasion forces demonstrated to the Iraqis that despite the rhetoric, the Bush administration was only interested in oil. Oil resources were protected above civilians, and even above serious military targets, including weapons depots.

Contents [hide]

  • 1 Suggested reasons to impeach
  • 1.1 NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=19593&s2=14

  • 1.2 Invasion of Iraq
  • 1.2.1 Consitutionality of Invasion
  • 1.2.2 Justification for Invasion

The evidence was cooked up over a period of several months, and anybody paying attention knew even at the time that the WMD was a bald faced lie. This has now been proven as fact. Not only were no WMD found, but there was never any real evidence that there was any WMD, and the CIA report was that those weapons which Saddam had were destroyed or inoperable. The Bush administration lied to justify the war.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=67020 http://smh.com.au/news/World/White-House-knew-there-were-no-WMD-


  • 1.3 Geneva Conventions controversy
  • 1.4 Extraordinary rendition
  • 1.5 Treatment of detainees

Torture, illegal detention, failure to abide by geneva conventions, no lawyers, no press, murder by means of torture, murder by means of starvation, etc. http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=19580&s2=14

  • 1.6 Allegedly leaking classified information
  • 1.6.1 Allegedly declassifying for political purposes
  • 1.7 Hurricane Katrina

"FEMA" was technically disbanded and its resources given to the Department of homeland security. The agency was slow to respond because domestic emergencies were not in its original mission statement. Evidence suggests that the flooding could have been stopped easilly by sufficient deployment of US resources. Further evidence suggests that the US military actually destroyed the Levees. Detainment and abuse of Katrina victims as if they were prisoners of war. Despicable refusal to allow rescue operations by other parties. Funneling of funds away from the victims.

  • 1.8 Alleged abuse of power

[edit] Message to Prometheuspan 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan, please read the edit summary for this edit. The enormous quantity and loose formatting of your comments from today, would do better at a sub page. I've made one for you here: Talk:Rationales to impeach George W. Bush/ppan. If you move your material from today to that page, I'll be happy to discuss it with you. Merecat 00:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] copyright

I was in fact correct, and not violating cipyright.

Hello prometheuspan,

Thank you for writing truthout about permission to use our articles. You may reprint and use articles by Truthout authors, provided credit is given.

However, many of the articles we post are from other sources. You would need to inquire about use from the original sources, links to which are provided at the top of each such article.

Hope this helps John Button Technology Manager

prometheuspan panprometheus wrote:

   please help. Am using your articles in discussions and arguments and can't find your fair

use/ copyright policy? Is it fair use to reprint on the net for you folks? (my assumption has been that acreditation is the key issue here, that as longas the copyright flags and authors names as well as truthout stays in the document, that truthout wants the truth out and is thus probably willing to allow fiar use.) Thanks for your time and energy on this. sincerely, prometheuspan ps the specific case in question is the discussion page over the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

[edit] Formatting of this talk page

This page is, currently, effectively unusable. I'm not sure who's responsible (and can't be arsed trawling the page history merely to apportion blame), but I would ask that all participants in this discussion pay close attention to the readability and logical coherence of their contributions. Please read about wikipedia formatting, tidy up all material retrieved from edit histories, do not indent using spaces, do not introduce horizontal rules (particularly manual ones) into the page at apparently random locations, and do not copy huge sections of the article into the talk-page unedited. I am currently assuming good faith, but it would be easy to mistake this kind of behaviour for an attempt to deliberately frustrate the editing of this article in perpetuity — which would eventually need to be dealt with as trolling or vandalism. — JEREMY 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The user who made this mess is Prometheuspan. I've tried to talk to him, but he won't listen. As a contrast, take a look at this edit he left at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Prometheuspan can obviously post clear talk page comments, so why he's made such a mess here, I don't know. Merecat 07:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the page is a mess is because merecat illegally deleted information. I had to restore the information from the history. I'd be happy to clean it up some, but its sort of pointless when the deletions continue. Prometheuspan 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan, please stop going beserk with outlandish claims and crazy formatting. I've asked you nicely several times to move your excess details and postings to a sub page, but you ignore me. If this page is a mess, it's because you made it that way and you won't clean up after yourself. Stop trying to shift the blame. Merecat 21:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] responding to merecat

a list of places where merecat deleted my comments. This is only a partial list, I will continue to search the history when i have time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49984262&oldid=49984034 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49982136&oldid=49981936 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49662384&oldid=49643309 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49662499&oldid=49643309 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49471755&oldid=49471520 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=49515967&oldid=49515502

merecat, i have now cleaned up most of the page. My claims are not outlandish, they are factual. You deleted all of these materials, illegally, and you are the one who is responsible for the mess. You did not ask nicely the first few times that you illegally deleted things, and any "ask nicely" claim you may have had is rendered bogus by your actions which demonstrate you to be a liar, a pov pusher, a system gamer, and an illegal deletionist. I will not put anything i have to say on any sub page, nor am i required to by any rules. I will continue to do as i am entitled to do, and post my comments to this page. Prometheuspan 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • So, just so I understand: (1) no one is even going to try the nice cup of tea thing, (2) Merecat and his foes will keep insisting that the other side of the dispute is 100% in the wrong and that this can't go forward until the other side straightens up, and (3) this page will remain protected indefinitely? ;-) TheronJ 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I am ready willing and able to talk. Regarding Nescio; I am not certain, but he seems to have yielded (without agreement) on the Alternet links issue. However, I've heard other comments which make me think there is no consensus on that yet (two support me and 1-2 support Nescio, Re: Alternet links). Regarding Prometheuspan; I am interested that he collect his voluminous recent comments and postings to a sub page where he and I can talk without too much clutter. He's gone on record as saying that he doesn't want to talk to me. I'm not sure where either of these points leaves me. Merecat 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Would you continue to "Assume good faith" if your comments were repeatedly deleted by somebody? Would you continue to have "good faith" if they openly lied that they had done it? Have YOU looked at the history? I'm not going to play nicey nice with somebody who is obviously playing head games and gaming the system. Sorry, no. In any case, prior to that, Merecat showed that his idea of discussions is ad hominem and straw man arguments. Again, I'm not here to waste my time. Should a mediation group want to start and participate in a conversation that is mediated, that might be another matter. Prometheuspan 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Prometheuspan 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC) As far as >>I<< am concerned, Alternet is noteworthy enough as a resource to be listed, possibly with fair qualifiers. I will yield to Nescios judgement should he argue that its better to let it go. As far as talking to you off somewhere in a closet, you have never yet given me any reason to beleive that would be useful or productive, and every reason to believe its just another stalling/ hiding tactic equal to illegal deletions.

If you want to talk to me in any way shape or form that is anything less than combative, you will admit to deleting the materials, and you will admit to gaming the system to sound like you didn't, which is equal in my mind to lying. Until and unless you openly admit that you illegally deleted my comments without due cause, I am certainly not going to follow you around, or play by your rule book.

Where are you left? Facing a mediation which will shortly find that you have not been acting in good faith. I expect the article for this reason to be opened fairly soon. And, if the universe is fair, I expect merecat to be banned from Wikipedia. Prometheuspan 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • There's no reason to believe that anyone is acting in bad faith. There is simply a content dispute over this unsurprisingly controversial article. Certainly, nobody is going to be banned as a result of mediation, and frankly I don't see why Merecat would consider accepting mediation when you appear to see it as a way to prove that he has been acting in bad faith. As for the article, it will of course be unprotected eventually, but if the edit war begins again it will be reprotected in one state or the other. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC) "Theres no reason to beleive that anyone is acting in bad faith." Sorry, I have listed my reasons and they are cogent. I don't know what the process is, but if it takes running rampant on wikipedia till i find it, I will find the means that is used to deal with this kind of abuse. Look at the "History". I don't know what the specific rules are regarding illegal deletions, but my assumption is pretty fair; a community can't function when this kind of abuse takes place. The criminal actions of merecat do warrant banning merecat, in my opinion. I'll settle for Merecat being recused from the article. Prometheuspan 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is an illegal deletion? Reverts? Vandalism? --Tbeatty 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Gee, you tell me. Howzabout i go looking for some conversation you are involved in, and delete the equivalent of two or three paper pages of material? LOOK AT THE PAGE HISTORY.

[edit] Article should be deleted

Proponents of the impeachment of current President of the United States, George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitionally be impeached

On the simple grounds that the authors should be able to spell constitutionally before they are allowed to argue that there is a rational argument for constitutional action. --Tbeatty 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, this is not a neutral statement. Many editors, in many articles, correct spelling mistakes, as they easily occur. To argue for deletion based on that, even as a joke, surely sounds like this suggestion to delete is based upon the need to suppres information uncomfortable to Mr Bush.Holland Nomen Nescio 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that you would like that, but that your reasons aren't the ones you are listing. Prometheuspan 23:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? --Tbeatty 00:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection?????

Why protect this article, its the most biased page on Wikipedia, it needs to be erased

George Bush is a Hero by the way —The preceding unsigned comment was added by swainstonation (talk • contribs).

[edit] User:Prometheuspan/impeachsandbox

I should have been able to do this HERE, but couldn't due to being deleted. As a point, good faith edits which add to the resource are welcome, but it IS MY userpage, so I don't expect Merecat or anybody to go traipsing around and deleting things. Prometheuspan 03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AlterNet revisited

For somebody that is vehemently against the use of politically influenced material, it is shocking to see Merecat use FrontPageMag.com as source.[57] Personally I do not object to this kind of material -which should be evident to those following our discourse- but how does one explain his use of this biased source when AlterNet is apparently uneacceptable? No answer required, is rhetorical: "Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi."Holland Nomen Nescio 02:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

FrontPageMag.com is run by a widely acknowledged and widely read author, David Horowitz. FPM has a proven track record of publishing well researched articles and also interviews with known experts. That said, there are some areas where FPM may be biased and careful treading would be required. One that I can think of right away is DH's long standing animus towards Noam Chomsky. Anything David says about Noam would likely benefit from 2nd sourcing so as to avoid bias allegations or problems. Also, FPM, (unlike Alternet) does not explicitly refer to itself as an agenda driven, partisan site. For a quick case study of which site is too partisan to use, let's look at today's currently running headlines from each site: FrontPageMag.com [58] (Thursday, April 27, 2006)

  1. China's Animal Torture - Spencer Warren and Lawrence Auster [59]
  2. About Those Iraqi WMDs - Daniel Pipes [60]
  3. Shakedown at UC Davis - Lloyd Billingsley [61]
  4. Europe's Suicide? - Jamie Glazov [62]
  5. The State of the Left - Hugh Hewitt [63]
  6. Do As I Say.... - Peter Schweizer [64]
Now for the 1st six (same amount) from Alternet.org [65] (Wednesday, April 26th, 2006)
  1. Bush's Imperial Presidency - Jim Hightower [66]
  2. Israel Lobby Nutjobs on the Loose - Molly Ivins [67]
  3. Impeaching Bush, State by State - Evan Derkacz [68]
  4. Pain at the Pump: Who's Gouging Whom? - Center for American Progress [69]
  5. Gas Prices: We're to Blame - Jan Frel [70]
  6. FDA Plays Politics with Pot - Michelle Chen [71]
As I read the stories, Alternet is simply too much pushing an agenda and a POV. Alternet is like NewsMax.com [72] Take a look at how NewsMax reports this vs. how Fox reports it and then see how FPM reported on it. But a search on Alternet for "Omokunde", the most distinctive name in the case turns up nothing. Likewise, a search of Alternet for "MILWAUKEE trial" turns up 15 articles, but not one of them about the Democrat tire slashers. The simple fact is that Alternet.org is an agenda driven advocacy site, but FrontPagMag.com is not. However, if I were trying to write an article entitled "Rationales to not renominate John Kerry" - which as you know is a current topic in many circles, you would be right to question whether on that particular issue, are we using the right sources. Suffice it to say, while I feel that FPM is on an absolute basis, more NPOV than Alternet, there is also the issue of a source being too close to the issue, on an advocacy basis. Alternet is clearly advocating to remove Bush from office. There is simply no way that a site which does that is neutral enough to accept as a reliable NPOV source on such a highly charged and controversial article as Rationales to impeach George W. Bush.:Merecat 05:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Several observations:

  • FrontPageMag.com has no about page, so we really can't say whether it is "agenda driven." The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. To say otherwise is at best misleading.
  • Using your reference about Horowitz: "American conservative writer and social activist. A prominent member of the New Left in the 1960s, Horowitz later rejected Leftism and now identifies politically with conservatism." Does not sound entirely unbiased. Further, aside from his bias, he is not always reporting correctly.[73][74]
  • FrontPageMag.com clearly is a rightwing source,[75] as Wikipedia itself shows that the site is biased:
"FrontPageMag.com is a neoconservative online blog edited by David Horowitz and published by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, a nonprofit in Los Angeles, California established by Horowitz. Dedicated to conservative advocacy, FrontPageMag.com criticizes the Democratic party, the liberal press, the environmental movement, affirmative action, feminism, human rights organizations, labor unions, anti-war groups, and others who are critical of the George W. Bush administration."
  • You offer an excellent explanation of why biased sources should not be used. Since this is a biased source, which undoubtedly makes good stories, I think you should not introduce a double standard. If leftwing sources are disallowed, you should also say the same thing about rightwing sources! Bias is bias, even if the source is trustworthy (paraphrasing your words).
  • Having said all that, I do not object to your use of it. What I find disingenuous is your blatant objectionism regarding leftwing sources (as evidenced on this talk page) while promoting the use of rightwing material. Or, to quote Lord Northcliffe, "news is something that someone, somewhere wants to suppress, all the rest is advertising."[76][77][78]Holland Nomen Nescio 11:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Mine is a two point objection and defense. You have addressed only one of the points. Also, your citation of the wiki article is pointless. We write that, so it can say whatever we want it to. Simply because this wiki currently calls FPM a "blog" does not make it one. Off-wiki perspective is required to assess FPM. Also, the simple fact that FPM does not assert that it's an advocacy site, does have probative value. Using a "face value" assessment test, if we take every site at face value, then those who themselves say "I am an advocate for X" are asserting they have a dog in that fight. FPM does not do that, but Alternet does. You can argue against this, but you do not persuade me. As for my (2) parts, you addressed only the left/right bias aspect. You did not address that Alternet is actively seeking Bush's removal and for that reason ought to be recused as a source for this article. This is my 2nd point, which you glossed over: What I am saying is that even if Alternet was to be genereally accepted by us as a source, it's certainly disqualified as a source for "rationales" of impeachment of Bush due to its driven desire seeking that. Merecat 17:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Prometheuspan 18:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC) This article is called "rationale to impeach." If we exclude any source that is actively seeking to impeach, there isn't much left. Your logic is frankly fallacious. Alternet is noteworthy enough to warrant being used as a reference. My argument above regarding this was never addressed by you; probably because it ends your argument as silly and frivolous. If we applied your fallacious logic, there would be nothing left to cite. The people and groups that are actively seeking to impeach are the ones that this article IS ABOUT.

Prometheuspan, in this: "The people and groups that are actively seeking to impeach are the ones that this article IS ABOUT.", you are mistaken. This article is titled "Rationales", not "Rationalizers". As it stands, this article is an ad-hoc grab bag of every gripe and complaint that whomever has been able to gin up against Bush. This article is no different that any other absurd "list" article, such as Reasons why Chinese live in China or Conjectures against Vitamin D or Rationales to imprison Bill Clinton for treason or Rationales to prosecute NAMBLA under the RICO act. Even so, this article is here and must be dealt with. Prometheuspan, as for your other statements and points made so far, I'd prefer that you desist from posting talk page invective which refers to me. Please focus on improvements to the article. And please do not keep posting so much material here all at once. Post a small amount at a time and give others a chance to dialog with you. Merecat 21:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC) "Rationales, Rationalizers" A nitpickers point, the fact is, it is about RATIONALES to Impeach. Thats the TITLE of the article. "Ad hoc grab bag" More attacks, but no substance. This is a list of Rationales. If you want a gripe list, I can probably do you one up off the top of my head to a few hundred details. This is not just about "complaints" all of the things listed here, are grounds by themselves individually for impeachment. "Invective which refers to me" Its hard not to talk about the elephant in the living room, or that elephants abusive behavior and irrational arguments. I'd prefer that we get on with writing the article instead of nitpicking and obstructing it. "Dealt with" is a fine freudian slip up here. "Material all at once" If you quit making the channel noisy with your rediculous arguments, I won't have to broadcast over your noise. In any case, I am not here to go at merecats pace, I am here to follow the path of right action to write this article, and I will use MY playbook, not Yours. Dialog is only one aspect of the path of right action. Compilation process and research is by neccesity a long winded affair. Had you been reasonable, I wouldn't have to go looking for alternatives to Alternet, and much of what is below would have been uncalled for.

And your point is? Merecat 23:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly arguments should please stop now.

<<The below is cut and pasted from above, because merecat can't seem to find it.>

  • hi there. well, this is just first pass for the day and i am going to keep it really brief.
  • The notability of the group making this "Rationale" is allready established by the OTHER article.

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

  • IT IS THAT Group, whom for logics sake we shall term "group C" who is making this RATIONALE.
  • This article is thus a neutral exploration of that groups rationale to impeach. This is noteworthy for the following reasons;
  • 1; Literally thousands of people, working on literally hundreds of different issues, believe that there are 101 good reasons to impeach.
  • 2; If that poll is increased to international scope, the numbers rise easilly into the millions and probably tens of millions of people on earth that believe that there are grounds to impeach.
  • 3; A small fraction of those actually have access to the interent.
  • 4; A smaller fraction of those have the spare time and energy to devote to arguing and belaboring the point with the rest of us.
  • 5; That still leaves literally hundreds of people if you only count Blogs, and at least thousands of people if you count only participants of the sited internet communities.
  • This article is a wikipedia report, regarding those people, their rationale, and their thinking and process.
  • This can only be done in the perview of wikipedia if there is a consistant, and lucid "Minority Echo" from the camp of the Republicans and Conservatives, and so those people are freely invited to make good faith edits in the style of a minority Echo.
  • That is not a dialogue, and it is certainly not an argument. One side shall present its case, and the other shall present an equal length or less rebutal.

Prometheuspan 20:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] articles of impeachment (recovered from history after deletion by merecat)

[edit] List of Bush's crimes from the Articles of Impeachment

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&security=1&news_iv_ctrl=1061 (original poster did not leave link for source.)

1) Seizing power to wage wars of aggression in defiance of the U.S. Constitution, the U.N. Charter and the rule of law; carrying out a massive assault on and occupation of Iraq, a country that was not threatening the United States, resulting in the death and maiming of over one hundred thousand Iraqis, and thousands of U.S. G.I.s.

2) Lying to the people of the U.S., to Congress, and to the U.N., providing false and deceptive rationales for war.

3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilian facilities and locations where civilian casualties were unavoidable.

4) Instituting a secret and illegal wiretapping and spying operation against the people of the United States through the National Security Agency.

5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently changing its government by force and assaulting Iraq in a war of aggression.

6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks.

8) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, both a part of the "Supreme Law of the land" under Article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting treaties, committing treaty violations, and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community.

9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant."

10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense.

11) Ordering and authorizing the Attorney General to override judicial orders of release of detainees under INS jurisdiction, even where the judicial officer after full hearing determines a detainee is wrongfully held by the government.

12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief.

13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry.

14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials.

15) Authorizing the monitoring of confidential attorney-client privileged communications by the government, even in the absence of a court order and even where an incarcerated person has not been charged with a crime.

16) Ordering and authorizing the seizure of assets of persons in the United States, prior to hearing or trial, for lawful or innocent association with any entity that at the discretionary designation of the Executive has been deemed "terrorist."

17) Engaging in criminal neglect in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, depriving thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi and other Gulf States of urgently needed support, causing mass suffering and unnecessary loss of life.

18) Institutionalization of racial and religious profiling and authorization of domestic spying by federal law enforcement on persons based on their engagement in noncriminal religious and political activity.

19) Refusal to provide information and records necessary and appropriate for the constitutional right of legislative oversight of executive functions.

20) Rejecting treaties protective of peace and human rights and abrogation of the obligations of the United States under, and withdrawal from, international treaties and obligations without consent of the legislative branch, and including termination of the ABM treaty between the United States and Russia, and rescission of the authorizing signature from the Treaty of Rome which served as the basis for the International Criminal Court. Prometheuspan 20:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] other legal impeachment efforts

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle01172003.html http://pepib.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=homepage

CounterPunch January 17, 2003 Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush by FRANCIS A. BOYLE professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law 108nd Congress H.Res.XX 1st Session Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors. _______________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January __, 2003 Prometheuspan 20:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's Make It a Million! 713708 : the number of people who have already voted in the referendum to Impeach Bush! (figure updated daily)

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/impeachbush.html http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles.html http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/articles_impeach_tally.pdf http://www.alternet.org/story/32977/ http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/12/kerry_links_ret.html http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0307-11.htm http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060311&articleId=2085 http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-enrich030603.asp http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=taxonomy/term/17 http://elandslide.org/display.cfm?id=261 http://www.petitiononline.com/DropBush/petition.html http://www.rise4news.net/Gonzalez.html


about 911 http://www.rise4news.net/9-11.html

link farm miscellany http://www.rise4news.net/Vital_Links.html

Prometheuspan 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • 1) Isn't the Boyle article already in the list of citations on the main article? 2) Doesn't this stuff belong on the Movement to impeach George Bush page? If not, what's the difference between the pages? TheronJ 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Prometheuspan 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC) hmmm. Dunno. See, I am just trying to be helpful to the problem of "nevermind" over "Alternet." If you think anything should be moved, please do so, and just tell me where its going on my talk page or etc. Honestly, I'm just a noob plodding along on the real work of the effort instead of feeding the local troll.

The dif between the pages in theory is that the "movement to impeach" article establishes the legal fact of the movement. Get it? Nescio was brilliant in that aspect of the political strategy he used. The "movement" established by that article is now "noteworthy" enough to be included on wikipedia. THIS article goes one step further and explores the rationales and ideas of that group. All I am doing is compiling potential references here. I should think that even an honest self respecting republican would be sick and tired of merecats silly arguments and obstructionism. So I am moving forward, as best as I know how. If you have a better idea for a course of right action, I am open to suggestions. Thanks for your question. Prometheuspan 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback. My preference (and it's just one person's opinion, so take it for what it's worth) is (1) the political movement to impeach Bush and popular comments regarding that movement should go to the movement to impeach George Bush page, and a discussion of the actual legal arguments regarding impeachment belong here. (Alternately, the pages could be merged, but there's no consensus to do that). Thanks, TheronJ 20:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yellowcake

The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple links per citation is bad

As I said before, using multiple links per citation is bad. And now, I have found proof that the chief advocate of using that system, Nescio, has on another page (for all intents and purposes) conceded that I am right about this. Read Nescio's comment here. Merecat 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • If I understand Nomen correctly, he is willing in principle to reduce the number of links per citation after appropriate discussion. I suspect that it will be a painstaking and painful process (for all concerned) to reach consensus, but I think the most productive thing would be for everyone to (1) assume good faith one more time, (2) take several days off on this page, and then (3) when the page unlocks, start negotiating specific links. TheronJ 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I currently have two concerns with links here:

  1. I am seeking Nescio's agreement to not use Alternet as a source.
  2. I am seeking group consensus that articles such as Killian documents and Rachel Corrie both keep links better organized and easier to manage by avoiding multiple links per citation and therefore, this article can do that too. Please note that both of those articles are also very controversial, but neither have the link problems I assert are inherent here and which Nescio has elsewhere admitted to.

Merecat 20:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate or attack page

This article seems to be much more of an attack page than it is a serious discussion of any attempts to impeach. This is an encyclopedia, we don't need to debate whether or not Bush should be impeached, we need to report on any debate. After a quick glance at the AFD page it looks like almost all of the Keep votes specified that the article needed to be cleaned up. I agree. Having a disorganized attack page doesn't do Wikipedia any good. The people who want to impeach Bush should go out and get started working on that. The people who support Bush should go off and make sure he stays in office. The rest of us will stay here and we'll write an article on your (well-sourced) actions. MilesVorkosigan 21:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Merecat 22:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Most sensible thing anybodies said in a while around here. I'd like to add that even tho i think that he should be impeached, the article as is is the "wrong version" as in, messy, unbalanced, and needing pov balancing >>in general<< towards the defense of Bush. Prometheuspan 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whoah, look at all those links!

Just a a reminder, Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a collection of links. WP:NOT Kyaa the Catlord 10:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that observation. Please remember that sourced material with its references are not considered "a soapbox" or "a collection of links." Second, with such a controversial topic it never hurts to have sufficient cites to counter the inevitable allegetion of OR or V.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Kyaa on this one. Merecat 00:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

I've gotten the page unprotected. Please do not undertake actions whose appropriateness is still being discussed on the talk page, and certainly do not edit war. Any disputes should remain on the talk page; they should not corrupt the history of the main article. Thanks all, Christopher Parham (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the specific issues brough up in the #Plea section would be a good place to start. Kevin Baastalk 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Shall we as sign of good faith discuss limit the edits we do per day?Holland Nomen Nescio 17:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to sit back and see what happens here before I do anything. Perhaps someone will beat me to it and get rid of the Alternet links. Merecat 17:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC) As previously stated, Alternet falls within the perview of reasonable links because it is a member of the community of people who are making the rationales to impeach, because it has sufficient numbers of participants to be "noteworthy", and because regardless of what you may think or imply, it is an essentially sane resource as potentially compared to others. Since this article is ABOUT "Rationales to impeach" the persons who shall be quoted are the persons making the "Rationales", NOT the emsaculated and frankly even MORE biased "Mainstream" News resources, who haven't picked up the story because THEY ARE OWNED AND OPERATED BY REPUBLICANS.

As an aside, I categorically reject the "one link per citation" idea, because the extremely problematic and partisan debate will probably REQUIRE more than one or two good citations in at least SOME circumstances. As an even further aside, "Alternet" DOES have some bias problems, and the way that this is realistically handled is to show that it is NOT ALONE in its assertations, but part of a much wider circle of people making the same or similar accusations.

The attempt to limit citations is in this case an attempt to limit the viability of the argument. By combining the argument regarding bias with the argument regarding only one citation, the ploy here is to essentially impeach ANY citation not coming from a republican bias.

All of that said, its Beltaine! Blessed BE! I'm off to go celibrate! Prometheuspan 20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More for article

Abuse of power section: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ Kevin Baastalk 23:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why does merecat keep deleting this over and over?

Remember you deleted Katrina when it is used as  + Prometheuspan 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

- reason to impeach.Holland

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=50819055

  • ....nothing was deleted in that diff. It's not quite clear what you are talking about. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/t/Talk%7ERationales_to_impeach_George_W._Bush_Archive3_c12a.html"