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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Vote to Move

Current title is not used anywhere, but the term "Impeachment Movement" has been. Vote for moving to

Impeachment Movement (George W. Bush)

Stirling Newberry 06:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. --DNicholls 06:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree with Stirling Newberry. Wikipedia does not need to consult the news media over how concepts are titled. An article about a movement to impeach (or supportive of impeachment) of a particular person should be titled thus. The attempts to unseat the President are not a special case of a general "Impeachment Movement". -Acjelen 14:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Point granted, but the difference in titles is slim, and it makes it sound much more like an encyclopedia entry than a news headline or incomplete sentence.--DNicholls 14:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
But there is no "Impeachment Movement" that would require the qualification "(George W. Bush)". Each government official is impeached (or not impeached) as individual cases. The article on Bill Clinton is titled Impeachment of Bill Clinton, not Impeachment (Bill Clinton). -Acjelen 14:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
The impeachment movement is separate from the impeachment itself. At the present time an article on impeachment of George Bush would be premature, since no one in an official capacity has begun procedings that clearly lead to impeachment. There are also impeachments without movements behind them. The article is, as it says, about the movement, and only tangentially about procedings. If, at some later date, it becomes appearant that there are serious moves to impeach - for example, Bush being listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator" by a Federal grand jury - then there should be an article on Impeachment itself.
And to get out of US-centricism for a moment, there is a movement to impeach President Arroyo of the Phillipines. Which means that, currently, there are at least two different impeachment movements which are in no way connected with each other.03:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There is policy on Requested moves and I think that should be consulted and followed. This is not how it's done. Calicocat 09:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"The move should usually be discussed on the talk pages of any relevant articles first, particularly where a page move may be controversial." -Wikipedia:Requested moves Then, if the move is controversial, or we need technical help, we can move over to requesting admin help. Right?--DNicholls 09:17, 24 July

2005 (UTC)

The policy was consulted and is being followed. 1. In my judgement moving the page would have been controversial, thus I sought consensus on the talk page first. 2. Since there was a VfD in progress, it was inadvisable to ask for a move, even if consensus for a move was present. Stirling Newberry 03:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The lead

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

I took another run at the lead. I added some detail; placed the subject of the article in the lead, in bold, as per standards on articles; improved the overall readability of the article 23:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion, issues with

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

  • It may be that the issue is not quite as simple as the nominator believed (800 000 Google hits as of 09:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC) must be telling us something), but I think we can assume good faith as to the VfD. Peter Grey 09:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This is (unfortunately) standard Wikipedia practice. Mirror Vax 01:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • The nominator, as can be read from above, was not acting in good faith. However, the strength of wikipedia is that one person acting in bad faith is not as important as many people acting in good faith. As long as the article hews carefully to a factual description the state of the movement - which will logically include notable and documentable criticisms of it in due course - then it will do a service to our readers.Stirling Newberry 06:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Factual problems

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

Your statements are factually inaccurate. There is a link to Cohen's article on the page. Stirling Newberry 18:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read it. Mirror Vax 19:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Very first paragraph of article[1]: I do not write the headlines for my columns. Someone else does. But if I were to write the headline for this one, it would be "Impeach George Bush." Very last paragraph of the article: Impeach Bush. We're sure to have difficulties with separating fact and opinion, but, be serious, it doesn't get any clearer than this. Peter Grey 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • If you had bothered to actually read the article, you would have found out that "impeach George Bush" is a call to vote him out of office, not a literal call for impeachment. What do you think he meant by, "We get our chance on Tuesday"? And then look at the date of the article. Indeed, the meaning can't be any clearer. Mirror Vax 22:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • He spoke of accountability for crimes, not policy, and used impeach in both literal and figurative meanings. But I would agree something more recent would make a better citation. Peter Grey 00:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      • He accused Bush of lying and/or misleading, which is not a crime. There is no way to read the article as a "call for impeachment". It's a call to kick Bush out of office in the regular way. Mirror Vax 01:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Lying is the basis for impeachment. Two of the impeachment votes to reach the house floor contained charges of lying. See High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Removing tag again since the user doesn't have a substansive reason for placing it there other than his consistent POV warrior stance. Stirling Newberry 14:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
          • And what "POV" is that, pray tell? I happen to be a regular reader of Mr. Cohen's column, which is why it jumped out as me. You don't seem terribly interested in whether what you write is true or not. Cohen did not call for impeachment, nor is he part of a "movement" to impeach Bush. The article appears to be filled with BS. Mirror Vax 17:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • If the article is out of context, don't say "he said no such thing" say it's out of context. Peter Grey 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair point. Mirror Vax 17:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

From a very careful look over all the talk and edits to this article, from having tracked and participated in the previous VfD "effort" I can say clearly that removing the tag of totallydisputed was totally in order. The only one I see making a fuss of this inappropriately placed template is Mirror Vax. I've opened up to two subsections where I asked that the issues of Nutrality and Accuracy be addressed seperately. Please participate in the conversation and I would suggest that everone, especially Mirror Vax, refrain from getting into an edit war over a template that simply does not belong here. Show 1) where the factual disputs are, 2) where the accuracy disputs are, then, if necessary, the article can move to correct those. I also note to Mirror Vax that I find your tone in some comments to be utterly lacking in civility and I hope you don't take a similar tone with me. I don't appreciate that and it has no place in Wikipedia discussions. Calicocat 00:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Mirror Vax, substantiate accuracy disputes?

What exactlly are the accuracy disputs. Please list? I see nothing that could be called "inacurate" here. 23:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This section for Mirror Vax to substantiate his claims that this article lacks Accuracy. Mirror Vax, please show where this article is inaccurate. Calicocat 04:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Mirror Vax, substantiate Neutrality disputes?

Please list the exact neutrality disputs? In looking over the article I see no major issues with "neutrality." Calicocat 23:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This section for Mirror Vax to subsantiate his claims that the article lacks Nutrality. Mirror Vax, show were the article lacking in Nutrality?

Controversial issue discussion

It seems there is some controvery around this article. Some of it has been tantamount to a form vandalism where someone does not "like" the topic, so does everything to hurt the article. They vote for its deletion with breathless ad hominems, the swing by and do a "hit and run" tagging of it with no discussion and other similar bad faith, non-consensus based edits. As such, I thought it would be helpful to place this article on the list of Controversial topics under the sub-head Politics. My hope is that level-headed editors will make useful contributions and expansions to this article and that any partisan edit-wars will come to an end. Please discuss any major changes you may propose to the current article. I would also suggest that sooner rather than later the article be given a peer review, if the group feels it would be helpful. Calicocat 23:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The article is poor quality even by the standards of Wikipedia political articles. It starts out with a wordy introduction that is more appropriate for an opinion piece than an encyclopedia article. e.g. "Being the most senior elected official of the U.S. Government, impeachment of any president is an event of major proportions. However, impeachment is nothing more or less than the normal operation of a the U.S. democratic form of govmernet acting in accordance with the body of laws applicable to circumstances were removal of an elected officeholder may be warranted."
Not an issue with neutrality or fact. If you find fault with the style or quality of the article that's more a case of it needing to be cleaned up, something you, Mirror Vax, have done nothing to contribute too. Calicocat 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Under "proponents of the movement", we have things like, "Ralph Nader's 2004 presidential campaign also promoted the cause of a Bush impeachment by raising public awareness of the numerous alleged crimes of the Bush Administration." Uh, why not list John Kerry? Surely Kerry did far more than Nader to "raise awareness" of Bush's flaws? It's a grab bag collection with no logic.
Not an issue with neutrality or fact. If you, Mirror Vax, think Kerry should be added to the article, then add to it, but there is not issue again with neutrality or fact. Calicocat 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The article is very vague about the positions of John Conyers and Barney Frank, who are the ONLY Congressmen mentioned by the article. It says they "floated a trial balloon". Instead of that opinionated statement, why not state precisely what they said and did?
Not an issue with neutrality or fact. Another specious argument y Mirror Vax, at best, if you want to suggest that needs expansion, then do it and add sources and quotes. Calicocat 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The article ends with, "Despite these obstacles, hundreds of thousands have petitioned members of Congress, including House Judiciary ranking member John Conyers, to introduce impeachment charges in the House." No source cited.
Not an issue with neutrality or fact. If you, Mirror Vax, want to give a source on this, then contribute that. You, Mirror Vax, have made no positive contributions to this article other than to raise specious and minor complaints. Calicocat 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I could criticize a lot more but I think I've made the point. Mirror Vax 00:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I see no presentation of substantive issues with fact or neutrality in any thing you've said. If you think you've made your point, fine, however, you have contributed nothing to improve any of the faults you find with the article. You have been uncivil and unresponsive to invitations to state your exact objections to this article. I opened up specific talk subsections for you, Mirror Vax, to state in unambiguous terms what exactlly you find to be lacking in factual accuracy or neutrality and you have not responded with anything more than minor complaints more in the area of cleaning up and so on. I see by your contributions and other remarks on various user talk pages about you that you are insulting and not at all interested in consensus based editing. Calicocat 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

What's a movement?

I would suggest the article needs to clearly distinguish (and I realize 'clearly' is not always possible in politics) regular complaints about Bush (which may include the word "impeach" just because it sounds impressive) and genuinely sincere efforts to go through at least some formalities of the process. The latter should be relatively easy to corroborate with suitable sources. Peter Grey 03:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this has been previously discussed in earlier talk sections. However, if you'd like to expand the article in those ways, perhaps it would add positively to it. Calicocat 20:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


State and local impeachments and recalls

I think the "State and local impeachments and recalls" section in this article is unnecessary - Bush would not be subject to any such process, so I see no relevence beyond the one line comparing this process to the California recall process. If no one objects (coherently) I plan to remove it. -- BD2412 talk 22:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that's completely extraneous to the topic. Add to that the list of other impeachments, the section of the constitution, the details on Nixon in the intro, the huge pic of some congressman, the stuff about Rove, and of course that unnecessary header. Throw all that out and all you have left is a list of names plus the phrase "downing street memo" repeated about 20 times. keith 20:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the section of the Constitution is relevant so far is it illustrates the technical futility of the movement, and I have no objection to the Conyers picture (although it should shrink some). Mention of Rove should be deleted unless it is more directly linked to the topic of the article (explain why Bush would be impeached for something Rove did - rather tenuous connection, so far as impeachment goes); and the list of other impeachments is pointless unless some context is provided (e.g. is anyone arguing that because Clinton was impeached for X, Bush should be impeached for Y?). Otherwise, I agree with you completely. -- BD2412 talk 20:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Where's the movement?

So I read the article, but I didn't find any evidence that this "movement" actually exists. All we have is an obscure website where a bunch of people signed some e-petition. That hardly constitutes a movement. There hasn't even been a single protest or mention in the media ANYWHERE. Have they done anything other than get e-signatures? Yeah, some movement.

The article mentions a protest at which "1200 supporters... loudly chanted 'Im-peach Bush'". It should also mention the September 24 march that included many calls for impeachment and investigations leading to impeachment.
The media have not covered the marches, but the article does cite two public opinion polls conducted by well-known polling organizations.--RichardMathews 02:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

But hey, if you want to go by oh-so-meaningful e-petitions, let's start Wikipedia articles for the FIFA web page in portguese, ovarian cancer postage stamp and stop ashlee simpsons from singing movements!

And have any of these "notable figures" in the movement even heard of the votetoimpeach.org website, let alone "signed" the worthless e-petition on it? Nathan J. Yoder 19:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There is, of course, no significant movement to impeach George Bush. The article is simply a very successful use of Wikipedia by a politically active user, to promote the idea that there is such a movement, as documented in his other web postings. Oddly, one previous discussion seems to have concluded this was an appropriate use of Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The public movement

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

A movement not under the control of any one individual or organization. Stirling Newberry 21:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Background

The following paragraph was blanked:

Critics of the movement, both on the left and on the right, state that since a sitting chief executive has never been removed by conviction in the Senate, and only one resigned under threat of impeachment, that it is very unlikely that the movement will amount to anything substantive. They also point out that even getting an Congressional investigation while the Republican Party is in control of the House of Representatives is virtually unthinkable. Many critics on the right dispute the allegations made in their entirety, or they deny that the actions of the Bush administration officials currently under investigation constitute anything more than normal handling of politics and national security matters, or are, at worse, "legal technicalities".

On the grounds that it is "conjecture and slander". First this is completely inaccurate - slander is information which is willfully false, spoken and with the intent to defame. This mets exactly none of the criteria. Second it is against wiki rules to make legal threats, and accusing someone of a crime - which is what this amounts to, is a legal threat. Finally, this list of criticisms is precisely what the critics of impeachement of George Bush have said: impeachment won't lead to removal, it won't be pursued by a Republican Congress, that the charges levelled don't reach the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors or that they are "legal technicalities" - the last being the position of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas (R), who, last I checked, isn't in the least supportive of impeachment.

Personal attacks, hyperbole, POV warrior inaccuracies, legal threats and abusive blanking are all violations of good editing practice and wiki rules. Regardless of ones feelings about the movement in question, there is no question that the statements here attributed to critics of the movement are accurate, citable from notable individuals in notable sources, and are relevant for the context of any consideration of a movement to impeach. Stirling Newberry 21:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph above is not the same paragraph that was edited. "slander" was not used in the legal sense here (I didnt think anyone would ever possibly take an "edit note" on Wikipedia as a personal legal threat, who knows, but reads like a disengenious reaction from someone whos been around long enough to know better). To get to get to the point, if Bush did somthing that was really outrageous, a "smoking gun", to say that the Republicans would never impeach him, despite the wishes of the the American people, strikes me as science fiction wishfull thinking. We live in a representative Democracy, if Bush killed his wife, you can bet he would be impeached. Its an insult to portray Republican Senators as automatrons who would never impeach Bush and stick to party lines no matter what. They represent their constituants and are not under the control of the President. In any case we are not supposed to speculate on future events on Wikipedia, there is a policy about that. Im not even Republican! Stbalbach 23:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It's not speculation on a future event, its a description about the current state of affairs in the US Congress. We can represent and appropriately attribute both of these views in the article. I'll write it tomorrow if no one does sooner. — goethean ॐ 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed a portion of the latest version of this paragraph because it is completely unsubstantiated speculation. It is the opinion of the author that these are the motives of these alleged critics. We do not know who these critics are, what they think, or why they think it.--RichardMathews 01:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


Iraq war investigations

The Iraq war investigations the Democrats started in Congress have nothing to do with impeaching George Bush. You, and others, may wish and hope they do eventually go in that direction, but I have not read seen or heard anything connecting these investigations with an impeachment of GWB. To say otherwise is simply a hopeful opinion and doesnt belong in the article. Please stick with the facts surround impeachment and not turn this into slanted original research. Stbalbach 22:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Why was Valerie Plame outed? Because Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed showing Bush's war intelligence to be incorrect, forged, or non-existent. Oh sure...this doesn't have anything to do with Iraq. — goethean ॐ 22:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Phase II Investigation

I'm sorry our local Bushite POV trolls don't like it, but the recent changes to the phase II of the Iraq investigation are significant, in that they have sub peonas power, and the ranking minority member on the committee, as well as the minority leader of the Senate, have alledged actions by the Administration which fall under the rubric of high crimes and misdemeanors. This isn't speculation, and represents a heightening of formal scrutiny into the administration and actions for which opponents of the administration allege constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.

This is significant because the administration is under investigation, with sub peonas power into assertions of wrong doing. This means that the current state of events is qualitiatively different from minority members holding hearings in the basement of Congress. The latter is notable, but, one can be assured, that the next administration will have critics in Congress doing the same thing. The present status is different, because it is now on the first of the four steps of charging someone with a crime, namely investigation with the belief that a crime was committed.

The graf in question is NPOV as it emphasizes, twice, that George Bush is not personally targetted, and is important to frame the current state in both directions - the formal mechanisms of impeachment have not been invoked, but the formal mechanisms of investigation have been invoked, this is equivalent to Congress opening investigations into Watergate - for the first time allegations for which Bush has legal culpability are being pursued with the ability to compel witnesses and force the production of documents, as opposed to normal congressional oversight (such as the Katrina investigation). Stbalbach in particular has been editing in bad faith, and making factually questionable assertions. Stirling Newberry 22:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry our local Democratic party spin doctor doesnt like it, but his POV warrior edits show an obvious attempt to misrepresent the nature of the recent investigations. Just because they could possibly lead down the road in the future to a criminal charge, is a far far road to countering the assertation that there is no impeachment process currently in motion. While the things you mention are notable within the right context and qualifiers, they were added to the article in bad faith by representing them as somthing more significant than explained here. Stbalbach 23:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What Stirling_Newberry just wrote here on the talk page was NPOV and factual accurate. Which makes calling him a POV warrior and saying that he misrepresents mendacious and one may say POV and factionally questionable at best. In any case, it certainly shows bad faith. I don't know where the Democratic spin doctors where, I didn't know they existed. I think you're getting your parties confused. Libby, Bush, Rove, DeLay, Sensennbrener... the spin doctors are all Republicans. They apparently don't see it as unethical. I guess that's one of the many differences in philosophy that can never be resolved. Another difference: absolutely no personal attacks. No sharp language. Communicate like an adult. That is, a gentleman, or a lady, whichever be the case. (And thinking like one, too, helps immensely.) Kevin Baastalk: new 14:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It was most definitely not NPOV. It was a blatant violation of WP:NOT, it involved crystal balling and an attempt to suggest there were impeachment proceedings when there weren't. The FACTS regarding impeachment proceedings is that there are none, anything more or less added to the article is POV. Nathan J. Yoder 20:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking abuot, as i made clear, what he wrote on this talk page, in this section. everything he said was perfectly accurate and objective. nothing he said was an opinion or a speculation, and since POV is neccessarily opinion or speculation (anything other than pure facts and logic), there is therefore no room for POV in what he wrote. I don't know why you mentioned impeachment proceedings, because there are none. Kevin Baastalk: new 16:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The "Bushite POV trolls" personal attack was accurate and objective? He accused Stbalbach of bad faith (violating the assume good faith rule) and making questionable assertions. Stirling Newberry has been hostile to everyone who has challenged his edits on this page and attacked them as POV pushers. I'm sorry, but he repeatedly violates policy on this talk page and in the article. If you look at the edit history for the article, you'll note that on several occasions he completely removed the statement indicating that there was no impeachment investigation into Bush, that's a blatant violation of NPOV rules. How can you claim someone who wants to leave such a key fact out of the article to be in accord with NPOV? He also expressed his own personal opinion here: "this is equivalent to Congress opening investigations into Watergate." Whether or not it's equivalent to watergate is clearly his own POV.
Lastly, his insertion of the "phase II" investigation comments are completely inappropriate for this article. They are used to imply that they are part of some informal impeachment investigation for George Bush or that this will trigger impeachment investigations. It's copmletely out of place and POV to put into the article. This isn't an article about the Iraq War. Even you admit that investigation has nothing to do with George Bush specifically, which makes it irrelevent to this article, which is specifically about George Bush. This is absolutely non-negotiable, that phrase will be removed for its POV implications. I suggest you read WP:NPOV too, just because a statement is factually accurate doesn't mean it's not a violation, the context in which statements are made can make them violations as well, in this case, it's the context of the implication. Nathan J. Yoder 18:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Statistics

Can any of the 'statistics' be independently verified?