Talk:Impeachment of Dick Cheney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 4, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] Nomination for Deletion

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

As you can see, this article has been nominated for deletion. It is not in immediate danger of being dropped, and you are free to continue editing while the matter is decided.

If you wish to comment on the matter (and I encourage you to do so), I urge you to direct those comments away from this article's talk page and towards the associated "debate" page set up for the decision-makers. It's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US House Resolution 333. The wikilinks included in the big tag at the top of the article page will direct you to some further information about the process that might be helpful.--OtisTDog 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "not expected to receive consideration" / other POV about likelihood of passage

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

[edit] A Resolution, Not a Bill

JasonCNJ pointed out in an edit summary that HR 333 is a resolution, not a bill, as I had previously labeled it. I may be the only one that made this mistake, but for the reference of future editors, I wanted to post the clarification here.--OtisTDog 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The proper abbreviation to use is H. Res. ###. HR ### is the abbreviation for a bill. JasonCNJ 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further Consideration

Hi. I would like to [re-]include [the statement on "not expected to receive further consideration."] I'll work on citations for now, but I think it is incumbent upon the article to accurately state the chances this Resolution has for consideration. And the fact of the matter is that this resolution has no chance either in Committee or on the floor.

Additionally, I think it is only fair to inform you that I am considering an AfD for this article. I have not yet had the time to go through the guidelines so I am not sure that it would qualify...but there are thousands of resolutions introduced in Congress every session and they are hardly notable. This one is a unique issue, I'll admit, but I somewhat question the usefulness of a wikipedia entry on something as insignificant as this resolution introduced by a gadfly Congressman.

JasonCNJ 19:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JasonCNJ -- All I can say is that I appreciate your contributions so far. You're welcome to take what actions you see fit with respect to AfD, but I will definitely contest on notability given the context of the 2008 Democratic nomination process. You're in no better position than I to predict the "facts of the matter" for things that haven't happened yet! :) Maybe when it stops being a current event, I will agree with you.
Please do feel free to cite as many prominent opinions about its chances as you can find; that's definitely good context for the article. I would suggest that you attempt a more NPOV phrasing for the citations, however. Might I offer: "Many prominent political analysts believe that the bill has little chance of success." At least, that's a phrasing I wouldn't contest.
Thanks again for your contributions so far. Happy Wiki-ing!--OtisTDog 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Not promoting it"

Hello, again. I see that the statement is supported by Raw Story article, but does anyone have an appropriate link to a CNN source? A direct reference would prevent charges of hearsay reporting. --OtisTDog 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Past the "stub" stage?

It still seems a little thin to me, but what does everyone else think?--OtisTDog 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Likelihood of Success section

JasonCNJ, I reverted out some of the changes you made with formatting and such. I think it's important to leave out anything that could be considered editorializing for or against. On such a touchy political subject as this, neutrality is paramount. I'd rather have a backwards-looking "History" section than a forward-looking "Likelihood of Success" section.

I did add a right-now-looking section, titled "Current Status" to keep the background you provided re: what would be required to move the resolution out of committee, as it seems relevant to the level of impact the article subject has/might have. It would be best if you could find some citations to the relevant procedural rules to use as references for them.--OtisTDog 13:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Helpful Formality

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

[edit] Major Formatting Changes

It appears that many of the formatting changes I have made were reverted. I assume this was in error; many of my edits brought the article into standard wikipedia formatting and were not in any way POV. I will go through those changes again now.


[edit] Phrase at the top

Most articles have a quick explanation for what the issue/topic is at the top of the article, and then have the contents/subheadings. This provides for a quick, one-sentence explanation of the issue and allows the reader to decide if he would like to continue.

Incorporated this idea. Thank you for the suggestion!--OtisTDog 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legislative History & Current Status

I included both the historical process and the current outlook in one section at the end. I am not trying to speculate on the future, but relying only on the actions that have already occurred.

I think a generic "history" section is best at present, combining legislative action and commentary of key players. If it grows too big and becomes unwieldy, I like the idea of a special section concerning legislative history and staus only.--OtisTDog 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
JasonCNJ, reverting to previous "History" formatting. I just don't think the article's size is so large that it warrants breaking it up into so many sections. As stated before, if it gets too large, I agree your new proposed format would be an improvement. Let's wait and see what happens, OK?--OtisTDog 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the Sponsors section should be separate. How about you create the "History" section as you so desire and just then add in a subheading within that section discussing the co-sponsors, putting that content within the "history" section but still as its own heading? JasonCNJ 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the main reason I prefer the current format is that I actually tried to go with your suggestion. I found myself wanting to put a note about the addition of co-sponsors in the legislative history section, but didn't want to add their names again, so I tried adding "(see above)". At that point, it seemed like the flow of the article as a whole was kind of disorganized, so I reverted instead.
Should the history get long enough to make the two stories distinct enough to be of separate interest, I will definitely endorse the plan. At that point, a "(see above)" won't seem silly, since we can assume a reader may have skipped straight to the proposed legislative history section.
Please note that I do think the idea is a good one, just not applicable yet due to the limited size of the article right now.--OtisTDog 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not think the lack of text in this article means the organization should suffer...and I think it does under the current scheme. But I do not intend to engage in a protracted edit fight over this issue. I will let some time go by and solicit other editors to join the article and talk page. I just want the talk page to reflect continued disagreement on this issue. JasonCNJ 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
JasonCNJ -- I understand, and appreciate your cooperation on this matter. With a little luck, the article will grow big enough to warrant my agreement (as described elsewhere), and this issue will disappear.--OtisTDog 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sponsors & Co-sponsors

It makes no sense to have two paragraphs about the co-sponsors in a "History" section despite having a section which mentions the sponsor of the resolution and his co-sponsors. I have combined these paragraphs into one section.

I do not think any of these formatting changes should be reverted. If you disagree, I would appreciate if we could discuss it here so as not to engage in an edit war.

Sorry, Jason, I saw that you made the changes and had already reverted them by the time you got this talk entry up. I, too, am interested in avoiding edit wars, see "A Helpful Formality" section here.
Re: two paragraphs -- not sure I agree. Each co-sponsorship is legislatively significant, and each is part of the history of the resolution. It seemed prudent to assume Schakowsky will come out with a statement soon, which is why I set up a placeholder paragraph for it. If she doesn't, we can definitely merge with previous paragraph about Clay's co-sponsorship.--OtisTDog 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I question the "legislative significance" of the co-sponsorships but that's beside the point. I think the existence of them merits entry in the article (although I reserve judgment on whether or not the article itself should exist.) I think they should be contained in one section detailing the sponsors and co-sponsors. Surely everything relates to "history" but keeping information on the sponsors & co-sponsors allows a person to see the heading and know exactly what is in that section. To leave comments and co-sponsorships in a generic "history" section means that the heading is less descriptive than it otherwise could be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JasonCNJ (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
I do see your point, but I don't feel the article is big enough to warrant such nuances yet. The history is so short that laying it out in one half-page, uninterrupted, makes the most sense. As stated elsewhere, if it grows too long, I will definitely endorse this change.--OtisTDog 14:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


I think it is now time to reorganize this article. I propose the following sections:
  • Summary
  • History
  • Sponsor & Co-sponsors
  • Current Status
  • See also
  • References/External links
I will not change content in the edit that reorganizes it...I will make my content changes in a different edit so that the formatting changes can be preserved.
I assume there is no objection?
JasonCNJ 16:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I am properly envisioning your proposal... Why would you want to put the longer "History" section above "Sponsor & Co-sponsors"? Why should the references and external links be in the same section? How would you break the "sponsor" part out of the existing first section in a way that preserves readability? I still very much like the existing format, and I don't think it has grown unwieldy yet. Still, I am interested in hearing more details about your proposal.--OtisTDog 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


I think I'm just going to be bold and make the change. That will be easier.

[edit] Current Event Tag

I have removed the current event tag from this article; you seem to have placed it back. I can't tell if that was just because you reverted the entire page or if you meant to place it back.

Assuming you placed it back for a reason, I ask why?

I do not believe this article documents a current event. The resolution is sitting in a committee, where there are no plans to put it on the agenda for a vote or debate. The resolution is not currently in the news and has not received any press other than at its introduction and one mention at a Democratic debate.

If you did not mean to place it on this article, please let me know. If you did, can you explain why you feel the current event tag is proper? JasonCNJ 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I did replace it and want to keep it. Significant changes in the resolution's history occurred in just the past few days. More may be forthcoming. There are actually a number of news and opinion pieces online and in print regarding impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.
I would consider it to be a current event until the resolution officially expires -- at the very least for 60 days after the most recent significant change, given the pace of Congress. Admittedly, this would not be typically treatment for a House resolution, but the topic is of tremendous political significance.
Your thoughts?--OtisTDog 14:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There have been no changes to the resolution, let alone "significant" changes since its introduction. Nothing has happened to the resolution after its referral to Committee, which is automatic anyway. If you are referring to the mention in one democratic presidential debate, I think those developments should be reflected on the article involving that debate, not here. Certain press mentions of the resolution in the context of coverage of presidential candidates does not make the resolution itself a "current event."
Your current event definition -- "until the resolution officially expires" -- would leave it as a "current event" until January 3, 2009. I sincerely doubt the "current event" tag was meant to apply to that timeframe. I think the "current event" tag should be limited to actually ongoing events. This Resolution -- which is and for the foreseeable future will be sitting in Committee -- is not undergoing any consideration or debate and is not an actually ongoing event.
If the Committee puts it on the agenda or schedules debate/markup/a vote on it, I would consider restoring the tag since it would become an actual event. But the mere introduction and referral of this resolution - combined with the prospect for no further action - does not a "current event" make. JasonCNJ 14:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
JasonCNJ, I've solicited the opinion of another active editor of this article. I'm willing to go with her vote (or that of other editors) on this issue if she agrees, but would appreciate it if you wait until they weigh in before removing it.--OtisTDog 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I will leave it in place for now; I am eager to hear the opinions of other editors to this question. JasonCNJ 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I consider it a current tag, the news is recent and still coming out with new updates (may 1) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the thoughts of all editors. But simply asserting there are "new updates" does not make it so. There has been no legislative development since its automatic referral to committee. It has been mentioned once in a Democratic debate. That's it. It is not an ongoing news story.JasonCNJ 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
JasonCNJ, it's certainly not on the six o'clock news, I'll give you that, but not everything is, and, as the recent addition of co-sponsors shows, HR 333 is not a static subject. Right now, registered opinion is two-to-one in favor of keeping the tag. All other editors are encouraged to register their thoughts on the matter.--OtisTDog 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, registered opinion is currently 2-1...but wikipedia is not a democracy. Simply asserting it is news does not make it news. And I somewhat question one vote in favor as it was cast by an editor who supports the sponsor's presidential bid. It most certainly is not a "current event" in my opinion, but I am looking forward to other editors' opinions.JasonCNJ 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I added the current event tagg back on because 4 new congressmen added their support to this bill withen the past week meanoing that it is current. Also a congressman said "With the president's decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis Scooter' Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings" and that was only a few days ago
I am removing this tag. The current event tag policy is pretty clear on this; this resolution is not an ongoing, current event. An additional co-sponsor (or even four) does not make it "news" within the context of wikipedia. Although the President commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby and a Congressman mentioned "impeachment" in his reaction, this article relates to H Res 333 -- an impeachment of the Vice President; comments regarding the impeachment of the President have no relevance to this article. JasonCNJ 03:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Official" Summary Wording

This is a minor change, so I'll let it sit for a while while we discuss here, but I disagree. It is from the THOMAS summary page (see supporting reference), and THOMAS is the official public source for legislation, isn't it? If I don't hear back within a reasonable timeframe (12 hours, since you seem to visit frequently?), I'll put it back in.--OtisTDog 15:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

THOMAS is a service provided to the public by the Library of Congress. THOMAS has no official relationship to the House of Representatives. Its work is not drafted, read, or approved by Congress. THOMAS provides up-to-date bill status, bill text, and summaries. But a THOMAS summary is not "official." It has no official standing. The only "official" summary of the bill is its title, "Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors."
I love THOMAS; it's a great service that does wonders to open government to the people. But it cannot make an "official" summary of anything.
Well-put! I agree to this change and will leave it out.--OtisTDog 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The resolution has three articles. I thought I'd organize the charges accordingly --Axcelis555

[edit] Use of "impeaches" in intro sentence

JasonCNJ, I notice that you not only reverted the tweak I made, which was based on the language of the US subsection of Impeachment, not the US-specific page that is the one cited. In that article, it states "The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been 'impeached.'"

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but do you by any chance have a reference to back up your interpretation of proper usage? I have not found one yet.--OtisTDog 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: My understanding is that to say "Congress impeached X" means that the articles of impeachment against X have been endorsed by an appropriate vote and referred to the Senate for a decision. Prior to that, an impeachment has not occurred, only articles have been filed. I do realize that the dictionary definition implies it's the accusation itself that impeaches, but I thought the legal sense is more specific to articles that have passed the House. I would welcome being corrected on this by an authoritative outside reference.--OtisTDog 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how I wrote the sentence in the impeachment article you cited, I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. The distinction on this is relatively minor; I doubt I'm going to engage much further in it.
Your understanding is correct: "Congress impeached X" or "X was impeached today" require the House of Representatives to approve, by majority vote, article of impeachment against X. Prior to passage of that resolution, it is improper to say "X has been impeached" or "X is impeached" or "Congress impeached X." But the articles of impeachment that have been filed are not formal allegations until they are passed by the full House.
I do not believe the sentence including the phrase "brings articles of impeachment" is proper. I also find it to be wordy and passive-voice. Additionally, the legal distinction you are attempting to make is a distinction without a difference. "The Resolution brings articles of impeachment against the Vice President" is not different than "The Resolution impeaches the Vice President." JasonCNJ 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a particular problem with the wording. In the interests of NPOV, I do want to make sure readers understand that the introduction of HR 333 is not to be considered a successful, legal impeachment of the Vice President at this time. (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL) For example, after reading, if a reader were asked: "Has Vice President Cheney been successfully impeached?", the proper legally-oriented answer would be "No." I see a distinction with a difference, but do not consider it critical.
We have disagreed on many things in this article, but I nonetheless think we can be proud of its progress, and I thank you again for your contributions. In the spirit of continued cooperation, I don't want to push this. We can leave it there if you feel strongly about it.--OtisTDog 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
We have disagreed on many things (and I am eager to hear the debate on the deletion page about this article.) In the spirit of civility and good faith, I reiterate my comments made earlier in this thread that "the distinction on this is relatively minor." I do not feel strongly about it; I prefer to reserve my strong feelings for edits of consequence. As we have seen earlier, I am more than willing to leave the content as-is until more editors arrive and consensus emerges. I trust we'll be able to keep working on this article and discussing on our differences in a healthy and productive wikipedia tradition.JasonCNJ 04:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the mistaken italics. thanks for the edit.

[edit] "Significance" of Maxine Waters' Co-Sponsorship

JasonCNJ, nice to see you're still taking an interest in this article. I saw you reverted some edits I'd made concerning the particular relevance of Ms. Waters' co-sponsorship, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee. The reference I'd added for that sentence indicated she has the ability to bring up the resolution for a Judiciary subcommittee hearing, an essential next step if the resolution is to proceed. I don't think that's POV -- that's fact about the nature of the legislative process. Do you dispute this source? If so, on what grounds? In the meantime, I'll just add in a note that Ms. Waters is a member of the House Judiciary Committee.--OtisTDog 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned in your comment, "The reference I'd added for that sentence indicated she has the ability to bring up the resolution for a Judiciary subcommittee hearing, an essential next step if the resolution is to proceed."
However, your comment went further than the source actually did. The source reported on an interview with an anonymous person "familiar with House Commitee procedure." This person indicated that Waters, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, had the right to ask that a bill be heard in Subcommittee. But, the source continues, "However, the Subcommittee Chair would have to agree to have it heard." and adds "If the bill is not consistent with the overall agenda of the Full Committee, it is unlikely a bill would get on a Subcommittee agenda due to the collegial relations typically seen among Committee Members..."
So, the source you cited does NOT say that Waters "has the ability to bring up the resolution." Far from it. Trusting the anonymous person familiar with procedure, Waters has the ability to ask the Subcommittee hear the bill -- but the Subcommittee Chair would have to agree to have it be heard and if its inconsistent with the overall agenda of the full Committee, it is unlikely the bill would be heard in Subcommittee.
As a review of the Committee roster makes clear, Rep. Waters is not a Subcommittee Chairman. Waters cannot "bring up the resolution for a Judiciary subcommittee hearing" as you wrote. (Incidentially, Waters is not even a member of the subcommittee to which impeachment would likely be referred.)
Lastly, you asked if I dispute your source. Indeed, I do. The source you quoted was Political Affairs Magazine. According to their "About Us" page, the mission of Political Affairs "is to go beyond simple giving an account of events to providing analysis and investigating what is new and changing in our world -- from a working-class point of view." Furthermore, they announce clearly: "Political Affairs is a publication of the Communist Party, USA." Thus, I believe the source runs afoul of Wikipedia policy which requires "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I submit that Political Affairs Magainze, the publicaiton of the Communist Party, USA, fails these basic tests.
JasonCNJ 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree with your implicit logic that anything published by Communists must be a lie, the thrust of your argument re: Judiciary Committee procedures makes sense. If Ms. Waters is not able to move the resolution forward as I had believed, then her membership in the Judiciary Committee is the most significant part of her co-sponsorship. I can live with the current wording.--68.54.18.57 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC) / oops -- got logged out but this was me. --OtisTDog 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I write to correct your assertion that I implied "anything published by Communists must be a lie." I implied nothing of the sort. I limited my comments on the source of the article to the tests established in relevant Wikipedia policies. On this very-political of questions, I do not believe the "official publication" of any political party -- Communist, Republican, Democratic, or otherwise - would meet the required Wikipedia standards. My comments have nothing to do with the underlying veracity of the published works of Communists. JasonCNJ 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for "not on table" quote by Pelosi?

Very sorry to write here - I'm new and did not know where to make this comment: There is a very well know reference regarding this story: Nanci Pelosi saying that impeachment is "off the table". But I have looked everywhere for this quote so I can read it in its entirety, and I cannot find it. Any ideas? Axcelis555

Scott, I put this comment in its own section for you.--OtisTDog 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete old talk topics?

I'm thinking of deleting the following topics, which seem to have been settled and do not seem likely to be useful to newcomers.

  • Nomination for Deletion
  • Past the "stub" stage?
  • Current Event Tag

Are there any objections to just outright deleting them? Is there a preferred archiving method for talk topics?--OtisTDog 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We archive discussions, once a talk page gets "too full" - we've probably got a ways to go with this one yet, before we need to start pruning out the resolved discussions - but I'll keep an eye on it, thanks for asking! Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referral to Subcommittee, Phrasing Suggestion?

(JasonCNJ, your attention is particularly wanted on this topic.) I've noted in a couple of instances of reporting that H Res 333 has had some new legislative activity, specifically referral to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. Bearing in mind the desire to avoid prognostication on the outcome, I would like to make note of this significant activity in the "History" section. Since JasonCNJ is usually the first to come forth with technical information on legislative process, I'd like to ask him to suggest a wording that would pass NPOV muster in his book. Oddly, THOMAS says the subcommittee referral happened in early May, but I don't recall seeing this information on THOMAS in the past, and the first news reports of it are this week.--OtisTDog 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid use of the word "significant." Allow the reader to determine the significance of the facts. I would advise an edit that states simply the Resolution has been referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties where it awaits further action. What would you like to say about it? JasonCNJ 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the initial suggestion, JasonCNJ. The article up until now has made it clear that the referral to committee was automatic and not particularly interesting. The referral to subcommittee is not quite the same thing... it's the first indication that the resolution might ever be voted on. I'd like to convey that significance without blowing it out of proportion, since the resolution clearly has a long way to go before reaching that stage. Maybe a brief description of what further steps would need to happen before consideration at the committee level? The existing note that it would require favorable action no longer seems sufficient.--OtisTDog 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that referral to subcommittee is "the first indication that the resolution might ever be voted on." I don't think there's any evidence to support that leap. I suppose, in theory, I wouldn't mind a listing of the further steps for consideration...but the problem is that there is not any defined path. The subcommittee could put it on the agenda for consideration but not vote on it. They could vote on it unfavorably and the full committee could still consider it. They could vote favorably and have it die in full committee. They could not hear it at all and the Committee could take it and consider it. I mean, there's no way to write "further steps" without engaging in speculation that Wikipedia policies forbid. I think we just have to report the facts as they happen; that it was automatically referred to committee and has been referred to a subcommittee. And that's it. JasonCNJ 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remarks in History Section by McDermott and Jackson

Just a heads-up about these remarks. As part of NPOV considerations, the working agreement for this article has been that only the commentary of those immediately involved in whether the resolution moves forward or not will be included in the article. So far, that has meant Kucinich (the author), Pelosi (the Speaker), or the various co-signers, not all of whom have issued statements. I'm leaving the new comments from McDermott and Jackson up for the moment because Congress is on vacation and no official actions are being reflected in THOMAS. However, if these two do NOT end up as co-signers of H Res 333 -- and quickly -- then their comments will most likely be removed from this article. No offense is intended, just trying to avoid edit wars here; if you want to make sure that a non-co-signer's comments are included in Wikipedia, I recommend you work with the article on the person who made the comment.--OtisTDog 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI -- McDermott is now officially a co-sponsor, so his remark should stay. It looks like another user has already removed Jackson's remark on the grounds that it does not specifically address the impeachment of Cheney, who is the subject of H Res 333.--OtisTDog 11:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In what context did Pelosi say "Impeachment is off the table"?

In the History section, it reads: "During the campaign for the 2006 midterm election, Pelosi stated that impeachment was "off the table."

I was looking for the context of this quote. Did she mean Bush? Cheney? Both? Did she mean forever, or just at the time? Although this quote is locked into the public consciousness, it should have a reliable footnote. I have looked and cannot find it anywhere! Axcelis555


I searched for: " 'Nancy Pelosi' impeachment 'off the table'" on google. I then added "60 minutes" to my already existing search query. I came up with many, many results.
As always, let's go to the direct source if possible. CBS News, 60 Minutes: "Nancy Pelosi: Two Heartbeats Away. Lesley Stahl Profiles The Woman Who Could Become the Next Speaker Of The House"
She has pledged that as Speaker she would give the Republicans rights they’ve denied the Democrats, like allowing them to introduce amendments to bills. But she may have trouble reining in the Democrats’ appetite for revenge. There’s already talk of multiple investigations and impeachment of the president.
"No, impeachment is off the table," she says.
"And that's a pledge?" Stahl asks.
"Well, it's a pledge in the – yes, I mean, it's a pledge. Of course it is. It is a waste of time," she replies.
"Wouldn't they just love it, if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth in 12 years, is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them," Pelosi says. "Making them lame ducks is good enough for me."''
So, that is the context in which she said it. I also found a NY Times article that shows Speaker-designate Pelosi reaffirmed her comments shortly after the 2006 midterm elections and a Washington Post article saying substantially the same thing.
I suppose you could footnote the quote, but it is locked into public consciousness and fairly easy to find on your own. JasonCNJ 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice work, JasonCNJ. It seems the phrase came into common parlance in May 2006. Tim Russert asked Pelosi "Is impeachment off the table?" during Meet the Press on May 07, 2006 but she answered a bit evasively, and she did not use those words herself. A few days later her spokesman used the phrase in reporting what she had said in a closed meeting. I was beginning to wonder if she had ever said "off the table" on the record herself, but JasonCNJ's citation shows she did. I agree that the use of that specific phrase should be cited in the article.--OtisTDog 21:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work. Still, it seems to me like it was in context to Bush, not Cheney. In fact, the spokesman specifically says "Bush" here. In the interest of NPOV, I'd rather see something to the effect of "Pelosi is often quoted as saying "impeachment is off the table", although she has not clarified in subsequent interviews whether that was in reference to only President Bush, or Bush and Cheney." In either case, it might also be valuable to note that Pelosi does not have the authority to remove the impeachment option.
And finally, I can't find clarification in Wikipedia about who *does* have the authority to move the resolution out of subcommittee, and out of committee onto the floor. Surely Pelosi does. It seems Conyers does as well. But could a majority vote on a committee override the chair? - The "Current Status" section says "Absent a positive referral from the Judiciary Committee, the only way..." What determines that a bill get a "positive referral"? What do you guys think? Axcelis555
That's true -- the context of the quote you brought, JasonCNJ, does seem specific to the impeachment of Bush. I have noted that you previously ejected Jesse Jackson's recent pro-impeachment comments on the basis that they didn't specifically address the impeachment of Cheney, and I agree to that edit. However, in the spirit of fairness, that same critique appears to apply here.--OtisTDog 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Okay, so I have a lot of things to say. I'll do my best to be brief and be clear.
  • The context was both Bush and Cheney. The Speaker said, "Wouldn't they just love it, if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth in 12 years, is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them," Pelosi says. "Making them lame ducks is good enough for me." How you can read the context of that interview and not believe that it applies to the Vice President is beyond me. The proposed edit that "Pelosi is often quoted as saying 'impeachment is off the table', although she has not clarified in subsequent interviews whether that was in reference to only President Bush, or Bush and Cheney" is POV. First, "is often quoted as saying" seems to minimize the fact that the Speaker said the statement and highlight that she was only quoted as saying it. There is actual video of the Speaker saying "impeachment is off the table. In addition to just "being quoted" as saying it, we can actually she that she did - in fact - say it.
Second, I do not believe we should include our editoralizing comments of what she failed to clarify in the text. Couldn't you then also add "Pelosi also failed to clarify if she meant 'impeachment is off the table' after receiving evidence of Bush's failure to do" X or "Pelosi failed to clarify whether she meant "off the table" to mean that it wouldn't be considered or that she wouldn't vote for impeachment" or...etc. I do not think we should add more to the statement than the statement itself. I would be fine if you wanted to put up the longer excerpt from the 60 minutes interview but I would object to any edits that include editorial comments about what the Speaker failed to clarify.
  • Speaker Pelosi cannot suspend the provision of the Constitution governing impeachment...that's true. But to say that Speaker Pelosi does not have the authority to remove the impeachment option is to turn a blind eye to the fact that she's the leader of the House, controls the Rules committee, and is largely able to determine what the House will vote on or not. The article accurately quotes the Speaker and the Speaker's comments that "impeachment is off the table." To otherwise note that a majority of the House could overrule her would seem a bit much. But if you have a proposed edit, I'd be happy to look at it.
  • Only the Members of the subcommittee have the authority to refer a bill or resolution from the subcommittee to the full Committee; but the Committee may, at any time, take a bill or resolution that has been referred to a subcommittee and consider it. Only the Members of the Committee, a majority of them voting in favor, can report a bill or resolution from the Committee to the floor. Neither the Speaker nor the Chairman have the authority to order or direct that a bill or resolution be favorably reported. The exclusive mechanism for the Committee report is by a majority vote of the Committee itself. It should be noted that, in all instances, the Chairman of the full Committee has the exclusive authority to determine the agenda of the Committee and only he (or the full House, if it so directs) may determine what bills or resolutions are considered and when. A subcommittee Chairman has similar power, subject to the orders of the House or the full Committee.
Any member can move to "suspend the rules and consider the resolution," despite the fact that the Committee has not voted on the resolution...IF that member is recognized by the Speaker for that purpose. The Rules Committee could report a rule to the House floor that provided for consideration of any bill or resolution, even if the Committee to which it was referred has not reported the measure. But the Speaker controls the Rules Committee and Rules Commmittee resolutions must be adopted by the full House before they have any force or effect.
I hope this clears up some of your earlier confusion. Sign your talk posts, please, using four ~
JasonCNJ 15:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


I forgot to include my response to the comment by OtisTDog. I will do so now:
Yes, I removed Congressman Jackson's comments because they had nothing to do with the impeachment of the Vice President. For reasons stated above, I think it is clear the Speaker's statements DO refer to the Vice President. Regardless, Congressman Jackson is not in House leadership, does not control the Rules Committee, has no authority to recognize or refuse to recognize a member on the floor of the House, and is, frankly, not as powerful or relevant as the Speaker. Her comments, even to the extent you do not think them to encompass the Vice President, are more than relevant to this article since they indicate her willingness to permit the House to engage in consideration of the resolution. The idea that if we exclude Jackson's comments we must also exclude the Speaker's ignores the obvious differences between The Speaker of the House and a lowly Congressman from Illinois' 2nd District JasonCNJ 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
JasonCNJ, as always I appreciate your forthright replies. I completely agree with you that Speaker Pelosi's comments about impeachment in general apply significantly to H Res 333. I also agree that the removal of the comment from Jackson was appropriate, unless and until he becomes a co-sponsor of the resolution. My primary goal is to get the most relevant and direct quote from Pelosi as possible, in order to keep the focus of the article on the subject and maximize NPOV.
Having reviewed it a few times, I am inclined to agree with your inference on context for the 60 Minutes citation -- which is definitely the most relevant comment found so far. However, I believe it is only an inference, and not one that was drawn by the author of the summary cited, which only mentions the impeachment of Bush. Ideally one of us will find something where she puts the word "Cheney" and "impeachment" in the same sentence, or specifically refers to H Res 333, so that no inference is necessary. Until then, I support the relevance and inclusion the 60 Minutes citation you found, but I also support making it clear that its applicability to H Res 333 is a common inference.
The language "does not appear to have specifically addressed" is part of the sentence sourced from the Raw Story article on the day of the original press release. As the article points out, Kucinich had not discussed the matter with Pelosi recently at the time H Res 333 was introduced. We are not provided with a transcript of the interview Raw Story had with Pelosi, but all quoted statements from her in the article refer directly to Bush. As noted above, I agree Pelosi's feelings on impeachment of the administration in general are notable for this article, but how is it less neutral to point out that she does not appear to have directly address the impeachment of Cheney?
Right now the sentence sourced from the 60 Minutes quote says "Pelosi is widely quoted for having stated". It is not my intention to minimize that comment. Do you have any other phrasing suggestions?--OtisTDog 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Excellent discussion, and all very good points. Good information on legislative process is difficult to find - One final question: Of course I agree Pelosi cannot remove impeachment from the Constitution... it is one of the only serious checks the Congress has against the executive branch. But it was my understanding that she also could not stop a resolution from being approved in a committee, and therefore hitting the floor. Is that not true? In other words, can she alone literally prevent a House vote? (JasonCNJ only said she was "largely able" to determine what the House votes on)
And great points re: who this quote referred to. The quote was still a direct response to a question about impeaching Bush. Her subsequent comments "wouldn't they just love it..." and "This is about them..." were made *after* the specific question and answer about Bush. But I'll agree the "Making them lame ducks is good enough for me" is a lot stronger in implying she meant both Bush and Cheney.
Re: the second part of my question: Wouldn't "off the table" likely have meant 'as of right now' and 'in the context of the current discussions and considerations'. Obviously I would love for someone to ask Pelosi this question again. But in the meantime, if Bush was caught personally breaking into the DNC headquaters and stealing their database - her "impeachment is off the table" would not likely be considered applicable, right? So, the normal context of saying something like this is 'as of right now'. 333 came after this statement, as have many other actions and revelations regarding the president and vice president. Wiki may not be the place to clarify this, but NPOV is hard to find anywhere else! Axcelis555
RE: Can Pelosi stop a resolution from being approve in a committee and therefore hitting the floor? That's a very complicated question. Resolutions approved in Committee are placed on the House or Union calendar and the Chairman of the Committee is entitled, by the Rules of the House, to call up the bill or resolution for consideration at designated times (on Wednesdays, for example, the call of Committees is required to be called, unless the House otherwise directs.) But that's not how House works in practice. Bills called up under that procedure are open to amendment, do not have pre-set debate limits, and do not provide adequate control for the majority party. And the Calendar Wednesday rule is normally waived by unanimous consent every week. Under the normal process, resolutions favorably reported by Committees sit on the calendar waiting for the Rules Committee to propose (and the House to adopt) a special rule providing for consideration.
Additionally, the Speaker has discretion to grant or deny recognition so if a renegade Committee chairman were to attempt such a procedure, the Chair could act to delay or obstruct such a process. Above all, your question ignores the fact that the Speaker is a powerful and popular leader of her cacucus...if she were to determine that Members should vote no on the resolution, it is difficult - at best - to imagine the Chairman posting the resolution for a vote or the Members voting in favor on it. To answer your question, I would say that if an absolute majority of the entire House were determined to pass a resolution and the Speaker was determined to prevent the resolution from being considered, the House would win over the Speaker. But, in that case, the House would have declared open warfare on its Leadership and probably sparked an internal challenge to the Speaker. I think it is inappropriate for this article to get into the details by which a House majority could act in contrevention to the Speaker and get House floor consideration of the resolution without some indication or preparation for those steps...otherwise, we'd be engaging in random speculation in the minuate of House procedure.
I agree that this article is not the place to add in a "as of right now" qualification to the Speaker's words. I think it to be obvious that the Speaker meant it applied to the future since she said it was a "pledge." But, if the President were to take a gun and shoot someone on the South Lawn of the White House in front of the White House Press Corps and then sign a pardon for himself (for example), I think it would be obvious the Speaker's statements that "impeachment is off the table" were not made with that action in mind and may or may not reflect her current views. I do not think it is our place, as editors, to write in "as of right now" or further try to mitigate her statement that "impeachment is off the table." If a clarafiction is made, it can only be made by the actions or the statements of the Speaker...not our speculation about what she was referring to, what actions she considered prior to making her statement, and what would cause her to change her mind.
JasonCNJ 20:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Wow, great info - thanks for all the work, JasonCNJ. -Axcelis555
Still digesting. OK, so you said "Only the Members of the Committee, a majority of them voting in favor, can report a bill or resolution from the Committee to the floor." But I think bills can be released from committee by vote of 218 members of the House (a release petition - or something like that). You also said "Neither the Speaker nor the Chairman have the authority to order or direct that a bill or resolution be favorably reported." But I thought I read other sources (I'll look now) that imply that the chairman of a committee can favorably report a bill/resolution to the floor without anyone else. (Although I thought that sounded pretty weird). I also heard The Speaker may set time limits on committees. Failure to act on a bill before the time limit would effectively kill it. Has Pelosi set a time limit on this bill? -Axcelis555

[edit] Sponsors

Any objections to changing the list of sponsors to a sortable table? I think it would be useful to be able to sort by Name, State and the Date they signed on. Chadlupkes 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. Lead on!--OtisTDog 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
None at all. Thanks. JasonCNJ 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
A great improvement over my alphabetizing! How about adding if they are members of any of the relevant subcommittees? Axcelis555
Excellent. Also, instead of changing the number of sponsors each time, wouldn't a general rule be to sequentially number a table (a la MS Excel)? Axcelis555

[edit] Running for President

I think it is important to note that the sponsor of this Resolution is running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Inclusion of this fact is standard whenever Members of Congress who are also presidential candidates appear in the news...I think it should also appear here.JasonCNJ 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Massive Reorganization

Pursuant to the discussion in this talk page, I have decided to be bold and reorganize the article. I have removed the "Summary & Sponsors" heading, moving the summary of the charges above the table of contents, so that we actually say what exactly the Resolution is before bombarding readers with information and combining the sponsors/co-sponsors table and information into a separate section. I have reordered the table of co-sponsors, since the explanatory text elsewhere in the article is based on chronological order. I have preserved all references/links.
I have kept the content the same, except for a few minor additions for grammar purposes.
I do have additional content edits to make, but I wanted to see how people reacted to this new setup before I did that so it would be easier to revert if consenses demanded otherwise.
Let me know what you think. JasonCNJ 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't say that I think it's an improvement. Since I know you have been considering this for quite some, I would like to hear input from some others to help broaden our perspectives. My specific critiques are:
  1. I don't think that this organization scheme helps a reader understand the flow of events surrounding the resolution. Specifically, by splitting the timeline for co-sponsorship apart from the history of the resolution's introduction and related events, readers will not be presented with a single chronological account that reflects the major points of public discussion on the resolution.
  2. Even within the "History" section, the chronology is not immediately apparent. For example, the referral to subcommittee is in the first paragraph of the "History" section, while most of the later paragraphs deal with comments from the day of the resolution's introduction.
  3. Although you said that there were no major content edits, I notice that the paragraph concerning supporting evidence for the charges has gone missing. The only remaining reference has these documents demoted to footnote status. I will assume good faith for now and take it as given that this was a simple oversight.
There have been big improvements in the tone of our conversation, JasonCNJ, and I do not want to lose that. However, I have not forgotten that you were initially hostile to the very existence of this article, and sought to have it deleted. It seems reasonable to assume that you are also opposed to the goal of H Res 333. You will forgive me if I have a suspicion that your purpose in this reorganization is to hobble what you could not kill. That said, I have appreciated your continuing contributions to the article; anything that the two of us can agree on must surely satisfy NPOV requirements. :) I am open to being convinced of the superiority of your new format, and I kindly ask you to describe at length what improvements it provides in your mind. I'd also like to hear what specific critiques you have concerning the previous format.
For others weighing in, I encourage you to compare the current version (which may have been improved since this post) to the latest version of the earlier format. Your input is welcomed.--OtisTDog 01:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I look forward to the discussion of this organization change. I think input from others will be most helpful. Let me address your specific critiques.
  1. I think the new organization is more helpful to the reader than the old version. Here's why. In the older version, you had a very long "History" section that spent most of its time talking about the co-sponsors of the Resolution, whereas you had a "Co-sponsors" section that didn't really talk about them at all. I think the older version mixed up "History of the resolution" with "History of the resolution's co-sponsors." The actual history of the resolution is distinct from the number of supporters who sign on as co-sponsors. In the new version, you have a concise description of the resolution before the table of contents; a true history of the resolution's introduction; an entire section about its co-sponsors and their statements; and a current status section. I think this organization is chronological, accurate, and allows the reader to browse the headings and know exactly what content they can expect.
  2. I remember being torn about where to put the "Current status" sentence. It appeared twice in the older version and I did not want to delete anything. I agree that this sentence should be removed to the "Current status" area and only appear once. I will make that edit after posting this comment.
  3. The entire paragraph that you are referencing is not missing...I moved it up above the table of contents. If I left out a sentence, I apologize. I did not intend to remove the sentence; I took care to preserve the footnote but mistakenly assumed that I had copied over the remaining content. I am glad to see that you have restored it.
There have been improvements in our tone but I am displeased at several of the comments you mentioned in your recent comment. First, any editor has a right to nominate an article for deletion. I initiated the process that Wikipedia mandates for proposed deletions; the community complied with that process; and (even though Wikipedia says votes don't matter and it's not a democracy) the votes were counted and the article was not deleted. I respected the process and the decision. To view with suspicion my edit of the article's organization simply because I once nominated the article for deletion is inappropriate.
To make assumptions about my underlying feelings on the resolution is similarly inappropriate and without merit. That you assume I am opposed to the resolution is not a response to my organizational edit. Please refrain from rampent speculation of my personal beliefs. And let's keep this talk page a discussion on the merits of article edits and not the resolution itself. Such comments do not further the positive tone or good faith on which we have relied.
To the extent you brought the history of my involvement with this article into discourse with your comment, I note that you created this article and you initially supplied its organization/structure. Perhaps you are far too close to this issue to objectively see improvements to "your" structure. I am reminded of the Wikipedia statement: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." (emphasis in original) And I'm aware of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, a policy that you should review.
JasonCNJ 17:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
JasonCNJ, this new format simply does not present the information about events surrounding the resolution in a uniform chronological way. The very fact that there are two separate history sections (one for co-sponsorship activity, one for everything else) ensures this. Here's my fundamental question: Why don't you consider decisions to co-sponsor to be part of the history of the resolution?
The previous "co-sponsors" section served as a quick reference of those who had made the decision to support the resolution. I assumed this would have been handy for readers more interested in the current status than in the overall history. The point (as I understood it) was not to contain all information related to co-sponsorship.
My primary concern with your new format is that the value of the "History" section has been degraded. Specifically, someone who wants a complete timeline of significant events must piece it together from no less than three sections (History, Co-sponsors, and Current Status). Someone jumping there from the table of contents would miss quite a bit. Again, I ask you to explain the nature of the improvement you see. I readily agree that, as you put it, "The actual history of the resolution is distinct from the number of supporters who sign on as co-sponsors", but wasn't the separation better under the previous format?
I know you have been planning this change for quite some time; if I'm not mistaken, you first brought it up prior to your nomination of the article for deletion. Perhaps this has unnecessarily colored my perception of your motives, which, as you note, I can only speculate about. Will you respond in greater depth to this comment to help dispel my lingering suspicion?
You may be right that I am being overly fond of the earlier format, so let me try to show some flexibility. Since your critique of the previous format was the length of the history section, are you amenable to proposing ways to improve the formatting of the old "History" section without spreading its contents to separate sections? That might be a "third way" that satisfies both of our goals.
Thanks in advance for your reply.--OtisTDog 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


I apologize for the delay in this reply. I was away for part of the weekend and not near my computer. Let me jump right in. In general, I feel the topic headings should serve as one/two-word descriptions about the text below. I feel articles should be organized in a way that makes good use of headings. I think headings should contain all the information within their listed topics. That's how I think most people read/use headings. If I arrive at this article and want to find out about the co-sponsors, I'll click "Co-sponsors." If I arrive at this article and want to find out about the history of the resolution, I'll click "history." Under the old system, if you wanted to find out about co-sponsors, you'd have to click "history." My new organization makes better sense and flow. That you would expect a reader to see a heading on this page that says "Co-sponsors" and not think that all the information for "Co-Sponsors" to be in that section is unreasonable, to say the least.
I consider the history of the resolution to be the history surrounding its introduction. The statements made by its Sponsor at introduction. The evidence underlying his position. Where the resolution was sent for considertion. Etc. I do not consider co-sponsorships to be the "history" of the resolution because, frankly, they're not...they are changing/ongoing features of a resolution under active consideration in the House. To lump them in this "History" category degrades their significance, confuses a reader who would expect that information to be in the "co-sponsorship" section, and fails to accurately preview the information under each heading. (Under your interpretation, it seems, everything should be under a "History" heading because everything has happened on a day or time in the past...but I find that unreasonable.)
If you agree that "[t]he actual history of the resolution is distinct from the number of supporters who sign on as co-sponsors," then I suggest you would agree with my organization. You suggest the separation was "better," under the previous format but I fail to see how you can make that claim. The history section was, at length, a history of its co-sponsorships....most of the text in that section were quotes from co-sponsors about hwo they co-sponsored it...all of that information should be in the "Co-sponsors" section in order to properly separate it from the "history of the resolution" -- a distinction you agree is distinct and noteworthy.
The complaint that someone who "wants a complete timeline of significant events" must actually read the entire article means nothing to me. If someone "wants a complete timeline of significant events" then they will want to read the entire article. If you want to create a separate section for these people and call it "Complete Timeline of Significant Events," then do that. But the article is long, needs to have section headings, and needs those section headings to be accurate summaries of the text beneath them. The older structure failed to accomplish these basic goals.
Again, I find no relevance to my previous nomination of this article for deletion. I still do not understand why you keep bringing that up. I urge you to quit speculating about my underlying thoughts on the resolution itself. I think I have advanced considerable arguments in favor of my organization. As far as I can tell, the largest objections you have are that: the statements of co-sponsors should be included in the "history" section and not included in the "co-sponsors" section; users who "want a complete timeline of significant events" will have to read three sections instead of just reading two; I previously nominated this article for deletion and you are suspicious of this organization because I might be trying "to hobble what I could not kill."
While I appreciate the "offer" to find a "third way" that satisfies both our goals, I cannot imagine how that would be possible: We are at a fundamental disagreement.
JasonCNJ 04:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
In case it was not clear, the emphasis of my agreement was "[t]he actual history of the resolution is distinct from the number of supporters who sign on as co-sponsors". In other words, a simple list of current co-sponsors is a distinct and individually useful set of information that is separate from the history of the resolution. This is the separation I supported and consider "distinct and noteworthy". The circumstances surrounding individual co-sponsorships belong in the history section; to me, the value of uniform chronological coherence in the history section outweighs the simplistic topic-level distinction, which is subject to arbitrary decisions on what the topics of interest are.
Also, we do seem to differ on the meaning of "history". History didn't end on the day of H Res 333's introduction! Your reasoning on the superiority of this format is still fairly opaque to me. Nonetheless, this discussion has given me an idea of the critique you had of the old format, and has given me the idea that perhaps what was needed most is some organization within the history. I don't think that's such a fundamental disagreement. Maybe we should also consider changing the title to "timeline" instead of "history".
As you know, the inevitable result of a failure to co-operate is an edit war. Let's not go there. The old format endured for quite a while, and we both made many productive edits within it. Let's focus on addressing your criticism of the old format's long and unstructured history section without introducing new criticism from me. I will get started on a rework that looks to address this goal.
You will note that I waited several days before making any changes in order to have this discussion and make sure that you were able to state your case in full. I hope that you will demonstrate similar restraint.--OtisTDog 12:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
JasonCNJ, here's an attempt to break the impasse. Most of the changes are organizational, but there are a few content changes. I did take out the Pelosi statement you blockquoted from the Raw Story article -- this statement quite clearly referred to Bush and not Cheney. I added some clarification concerning the 60 Minutes quote; mostly that its applicability to H Res 333 is a (reasonable and) widely-held inference. Also, "current" sections were moved to the top since the table-of-contents allows quick jumping to any particular sub-topic in the revised "History" section. If you want to change the title of the "History" section to "Timeline" (or the like), I won't object.--OtisTDog 13:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed your commentary and the two versions, and thought I would offer my own two cents. I believe that the lede as written is superior to JasonCNJ's change. I did not care for the 1., 2., format, which I think was unprofessional and unnecessary. As it stands, the lede adequately informs the reader what the article is about, and does not need new information.
The section labeled "History" is unwieldy as written. There is no need to have so many separate subheadings, particularly when some of them are literally a single sentence.
The co-sponsorship should be separated from the history, as JasonCNJ suggested. I see a distinction between the history of the resolution and the sound bytes that effectively make up the co-sponsorship section as written.
Finally, the topic heading "Public pressure" is absurd. It cites to two articles about how a total of 120 people have "pressured" their representative to support the resolution. I think that the section as written is overselling the point, and betrays a certain POV. Cheers, JCO312 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
JCO312, Thanks for your comments. I retitled the "Public pressure" section to the more accurate "Activist pressure". There is certainly evidence of a more widespread public opinion on the matter of impeaching Cheney, but I have attempted to limit citations to those stories that specifically mention H Res 333, to prevent scope creep and the opportunity for POV conflict. It's clear that the cited stories deal with activists, not the general public.
I've also retitled the "History" section to "Timeline", in light of your apparent agreement that "History" would refer only to events up to and including the resolution's introduction. Will you suggest an alternate set of subheadings that makes it less "unwieldy"? And if you are more inclined towards JasonCNJ's organizational ideas, can you offer any words of wisdom regarding my concern for a chronological account of activity related to H Res 333?--OtisTDog 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
My point regarding "History" is not fixed by calling it "Timeline." I think it would be worth keeping it as "History" and collapsing the subtopics together. It wouldn't be particularly long, since, as I mentioned earlier, a few of the subtopics are only a line or two long. My overall point is that sections like "Response of Democratic presidential candidates" is pointless; you only have one line in this section. Why does this need its own topic heading?
My agreement with JasonCNJ regarding the History section is primarily based on the confusion that I believe results from having a section called "History" and a section called "Current Co-Sponsors," where the history section has most of the information regarding co-sponsorship. It seems logical to me to simply create a co-sponsorship section which includes the quotations and the list, rather than repeat it as it exists now. JCO312 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
JCO213, Again, I'd like to thank you for your comments. My goal in reorganizing the History section is to: a) address JasonCNJ's critique that it was too long and unstructured, while b) addressing my own critique that an article without a uniform chronological history reduces its value. As a result, the initial subtopics I created were intended to reflect the nature and significance of the event(s), not necessarily by length.
For the particular subtopic of candidate response, although the event was brief, it was a notable moment in the resolution's early history. The brevity of the subtopic is a result of not having much else to say about it that would maintain NPOV.
To repeat: I'd like to ask if you have any suggestions for other ways of creating subtopics within a "History" section that would address your criticism. Also, can you make any suggestions as to other ways to present a uniform chronological history while allowing the separation of co-sponsor additions from other events in the timeline? I do remain open to other formatting choices as long as they address my goal. Am I wrong in thinking there is value to including all significant events in the "Timeline" section?--OtisTDog 11:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I took some significant time away from this article in accordance with wikipedia recommendations to take a break. Again, I find your "Timeline" section to be totally inadequate. I do appreciate that you have renamed it and moved it to the end of the article. But that does not address the fact that anyone wanting information on the cosponsors of the resolution have to wade through every event that has occured in order to examine which of the "Additional Co Sponorship" headings contain the Member for whom they are searching. Additionally, your one-sentence subtopics look cluttered and unnecessary. The only additional editor on this thread supports my view of a unified Co-sponsorship section. I feel we are again at an impass and will soon be taking this dispute to the next step. JasonCNJ 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
JasonCNJ, as noted in the new section about the co-sponsor table, the time-based order can be easily obtained by sorting the table. I do not understand your characterization of the unified timeline as "inadequate" -- inadequate for what purpose?
As you know, I've laid out the reasoning for the current structure above, which is an attempt to address both of our concerns. If your primary remaining critique is the lack of an index for finding individual Congressmen in the timeline, perhaps this could be addressed by renaming the generic "Additional co-sponsors" sections with more descriptive titles -- e.g. "First co-sponsors: Clay, Schakowsky".
You are welcome to escalate the matter as you see fit, but you may wish to present another proposal (that also addresses both of our concerns) before doing so. It's certainly not required, but would be evidence of good faith.--OtisTDog 02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering the Co-Sponsorship table

I feel the co-sponsorship table should be organized as to the date the Member signed onto the resolution. It appears others feel differently, as it has been changed back to a different view. I would like the proponent of sorting the names by the alphabet to explain his or her position, I'll explain mine, and we can determine the consensus of the page with a discussion in this thread.

Thanks. JasonCNJ 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, JasonCNJ! Just an advisory, the table is set up in a sortable format, so it is possible to convert it to a time-based order if desired. Due to the use of first-name-first representative listings (e.g. "Robert Brady" instead of "Brady, Robert") it is not possible to resort it alphabetically by last name. To me, this is the main motivation for keeping the default order as is.
Also, the time-based order of co-sponsorship is preserved in the "Timeline" section as it stands, though not in tabular format.--OtisTDog 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] discharge petition

The article currently states that unless the judiciary committee reports the resolution out of it, the bill dies unless speaker Pelosi intervenes. Two questions (1) how would the speaker get the bill out (de facto or de jure), if the committee won't, and (2) what about the theoretical possibility of a discharge petition being adopted? Input appreciated. Thanks. Ngchen 17:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems highly unlikely that if the Speaker wants a resolution on the floor that the Committee would refuse to report the resolution. So, to answer question (1), the Speaker would use her influence with her caucus to have the Committee report the bill. Technically, the Speaker also controls the Rules Committee which would report a rule discharging a Committee from further consideration and providing for floor consideration notwithstanding the failure of the Committee to report the measure.
A discharge petition is just that: theoretical. And, in this context, largely moot and POV to add to the article. A discharge petition requires the signatures of 218 Members of the House. So if a discharge petition was filed, it would have to gain 218 signatures to be of use. If it did, that would also be enough votes to enact the Resolution on the floor. We've yet to see any indication that any of those things are even remotely close to happening. If a discharge petition was filed on the resolution, I would be fine discussing those topics in the article. Since no one has filed a discharge petition, though, it would be a bit early and POV to discuss how a discharge petition might work to bring this resolution to the floor, against the wishes of the Speaker. And it's important to note that the Discharge Rule which governs discharge petitions still gives scheduling limitations that restrict its ability to be offered - unless the Speaker intervenes.
JasonCNJ 18:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Ngchen, I don't believe (as JasonCNJ does) that such information would be POV, however, I do agree that a discussion about discharge petitions is not relevant enough for inclusion in this article right now, since no such petition has been filed for H Res 333. That does not mean I think that such information is irrelevant -- just outside the scope of this particular article. If you would like to make available more information about methods by which the resolution might be moved forward, then perhaps the least controversial method would be to add one or more wikilinks to articles concerning those processes.--OtisTDog 13:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's Activity Applicable to This Article?

JasonCNJ, thanks very much for getting in today's update. I hadn't done it myself because I wasn't sure whether it was "on topic" for the article -- it seemed to me like maybe Kucinich was reintroducing the same articles of impeachment as a new resolution. H Res 333 has already been referred to committee, right?

You seem to know a lot about procedural rules for Congress, so maybe you can clarify this. Is it possible for a resolution to come out of committee by question-of-privilege and to be sent back to the same committee it came from?

FYI -- This Guardian article seems to think that today's activity was around H Res 799, not 333.--OtisTDog 01:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I know a bunch of people who work in Congress and I got forwarded the resolution. I assumed it was H Res 333, but I was wrong. In order to offer it as a Question of the Privleges of the House, it did have to be a new resolution, thus the new number: H Res 799. I'll reflect that change to the article but I do think it's on topic since it's the same text as H Res 333 so I think it should be included here.
Once a resolution is referred to a Committee, it remains in that Committee until:
(a) the Committee reports the resolution to the House;
(b) the House adopts a motion to discharge the Committee from further consideration;
(c) the Rules Committee reports a resolution discharging the Committee from further consideration and the House adopts the Rules Committee resolution;
(d) the House suspends the rules and agrees to consider or to adopt the resolution;
(e) the Congress adjourns sine die after its term expires, and the resolution dies.
It is possible for a Committee to have two resolutions of the exact same content under consideration. It is also possible to send back to Committee a resolution that the Committee has already reported to the House.
Sorry for some of my confusing edits today; it was a pretty busy day and I wanted to make sure the article was updated. Let me know if you have any questions you think I could answer. JasonCNJ 06:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Disagreement renewed

I don't mind a new section for H Res 799, though I do think it should be mentioned in the lede.

What I do think is monumentally silly, and probably a conflict with the MoS, are the headings in the "timeline" section. Besides not understanding why the "Timeline" is essential, there are a few sections that are just one sentence. It's pretty silly and it makes the article harder to read. It should be changed.

JasonCNJ 22:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm encouraged by our ability to work together pretty peacefully over the last couple of days, and I am still interested in finding a compromise on organization that will genuinely satisfy both of us, if possible.
Here's my take: H Res 333 is not really a settled matter for history. It's a bit like a slowly-evolving current event. As such, I believe that the flow of relevant events over time is extremely important to understanding the topic. That's why I'm insistent on a "timeline" or "history" section of some sort.
To the same end, the subtopics in the timeline section are created to show the significant stages in the evolution of the "situation" surrounding the resolution.
I see that we seem to have picked up some new editors over the last couple of days. Maybe they can provide some input?--OtisTDog 02:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Shea-Porter Section

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

[edit] "Movement to impeach George Bush" link

I'm removing this for a second time. By previous agreement, the focus of this article has been narrowly focussed on the subject of H Res 333 itself, with an exception made for H Res 799 info because it is essentially a reintroduction of H Res 333's content.

If there's a page for a movement to impeach Cheney, then that link certainly belongs here, since Cheney is the target of H Res 333. However, Bush is not addressed by the resolution in the slightest, unfortunate though that may be.

If someone is able to cite something from Kucinich or one of the many cosponsors indicating that he or she supports H Res 333 only as a necessary first step to impeaching Bush, I will gladly endorse the addition of this change. Otherwise, it's just "scope creep" for this particular article.--OtisTDog 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If someone can provide the sort of cite you request, it's worthy of explicit coverage in the text of the article, not just a "See also" reference. Meanwhile, there is a strong enough relationship between these two topics to warrant the See also link. Look at either page and you'll find plenty of direct couplings, including the final Kucinich quote on this page, and various polls and other material in Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Omitting a link to a page that is obviously closely related and likely to be of interest does a disservice to the reader. - JCLately 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
JCLately, I agree with you; such a citation absolutely would be worthy of explicit coverage in the article. FYI, I am the one that added the final Kucinich quote in the current article that you refer to, but I don't think it's sufficient to make it an undisputed fact that H Res 333 is intended as the first step of going after Bush.
Part of the issue is that this article focuses only on the resolution. It is not a "movement to impeach Cheney" article. A few months back, someone else introduced the same change as this, but then another person created a see-also link to the "impeachment of Bill Clinton" article. Arguably, there is as much of a relation to that article as there is to the one about the movement to impeach Bush, depending on your point of view. Both see-also links were removed to restore neutrality.
This article is obviously a politically hot one, and it has been through a few cycles of clashes. One working rule that has served both sides well is to keep the focus of the article as narrow as possible. Your arguments seem better suited to showing that there should be a link from the "movement to impeach Bush" article to this one, but I don't think the reverse applies.
I've worked hard to defend this article, which I started and which has survived an AfD. I am happy to see other editors interested in the article, but I have no desire to see POV-oriented edit wars start up again. I'm fine with this link staying for now, but I will probably side with anyone who wants to remove it on NPOV grounds.--OtisTDog 07:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Movement to impeach Dick Cheney

It's about time to create this article. The movement used to consist mostly of HR333, so it made sense for that address to redirect here. But now, with HR 799, and with Wexler's initiative, the larger issue is way too big for this article.

I'd suggest the following:

  1. move this article to that address
  2. trim all the stuff out of this article that doesn't refer to HR 333
  3. summarize the HR 333 stuff in the "Movement" article, and make a {{main}} link to this article.

Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I cautiously approve of this idea, since this is definitely getting to be a large article. This might offer a way to break the ongoing conflict between JasonCNJ and me concerning the article's organization. If the timeline/history section can be preserved intact as part of the new article, I would no longer object to a non-chronological organization in this one. Does that organizational concept work for you with respect to a new article, Pete?--OtisTDog (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)