Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Movement to impeach George W. Bush article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
The official Seal of the President of the United States of America.
 This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Presidents, a project to improve the quality of the biographies of U.S. Presidents and related articles to meet the criteria for Featured Article status. You are invited to view our progress.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1
  2. /Archive 2
  3. /Archive 3
  4. /Archive 4
  5. /Archive 5
  6. /Archive 6


Contents

[edit] Article length

Here are some numbers to consider:

Okay. Now, looking through this article, please keep this in mind: however unpopular he may be, the man has not been impeached. The length of this article is completely ludicrous. Need it individually list every single congressperson, town hall, political action subcommittee or ice-cream social which has ever tossed around the idea of impeachment? Wikipedia is meant to provide concise summaries of information, and even if this were meant to be a list article, it would still be one of the most overinflated ones a reader could hope to find. I don't deny that the subject merits its own article; I've seen more trivial subjects survive AFDs before. But seriously, it's time to trim it down. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

After waiting twelve days, I have added an appropriate tag to the beginning of the article. I will begin drastically shortening this article shortly if there is no response. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
After nearly twenty days with no response, I have begun the first of a series of edits to effect much-needed cleanup as previously stated. This will continue for several days, leaving a period of at least one day between each edit. If anyone takes issue with changes I make, please bring it up with me and I will postpone further edits until the issue is resolved. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 09:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add a few comment regarding the article length comparisons above:
  • Some of the articles listed, such as the "George W. Bush", article, are split into sub-articles per article split policy. (because wikipedia is not paper.) If wikipedia were paper, those sub-articles would be combined into the parent article, and the length of, for example, the "George W. Bush" article, would well exceed 137KB. Insofar as we are comparing the amount of content about a given subject for the sake of balance, this larger figure is what we should be comparing, in order to have an apples-to-apples comparison. That being said, if this article has any sub-articles which are specific to the topic of this article (i.e. do not stand by themselves), those should be included in the total for comparison. However, upon perusing the article I find no such sub-articles.
  • Secondly, I believe that, instead of starting with an a priori standard of how much information we should have on each given subject, I believe we should base the amount of information on how many interesting and important things there are to say about the subject, and let that determine the amount of overall information on the subject. That is, instead of saying all topics should be given the same amount of space, one should say that each piece of information of the same importance and interestingness should be given the same amount of space. Then, in the end, if one article turns out to be much longer than another, then we discover that there is, perhaps, more to say about it. That is, I'm not sure that blindly comparing article lengths triumph assessing the weight of each fact.
  • Having said all that, I think this article still might benefit from some trimming and more concise wording, but keep in mind that there is a lot to say about the subject - for instance, unlike, the Bill Clinton impeachment, in which there was only one reason why clinton was impeached - there are many reasons why people feel that bush should be (should have been) impeached, thus, simply by comparing the number of reasons, giving each reason equal weight, this article should be much longer than the bill clinton impeachment article. Add that to the fact that there is a lot more to say about each reason to impeach GWB, and it starts to look like people have already done a pretty good job at summarizing them.
  • So ultimately, my advice concerning trimming, do so because something can be made shorter without taking out any information or evidence, or because something is unimportant, not because it's "too long" by some arbitrary standard. Kevin Baastalk

Perhaps it's so long because of the rampant corruption and constant fuckups of this administration? It it takes 137KB to express that, so be it. If we are that short on disk space I have a floppy disk I can contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.167.177 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. That kind of blatant POV-pushing is what has allowed this article to grow to these proportions, and is precisely the reason this article must be cut down. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
That is, unless someone can justify why this article deserves to be over twice as long as the article on the American Revolution (53 KB). Somehow I think that the "fuckups of this administration" have had substantially less impact on the world. Much of what I have cut from this article to date is either hopelessly disorganized, completely unnoteworthy, or makes use of a paragraph where a sentence would do. If anyone wishes to dispute individual changes made to shorten this article, they are free to do so. But there is a reason this article has undergone three AFDs in the past: somewhere along the line, it was decided that if anyone, anywhere, called for the impeachment of this man, it was somehow worth mentioning. This has gone on for long enough. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and if this article is to justify its continued existence, then it's time for the bloat to go. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you. This has turned into nothing but Bush hater venting and digging up every reference they can to every article that ever said anything bad about him. The fact that 7 years into his presidency, there has been no real effort to impeach him should be a big clue that this is a lot of hot air. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that leaders of powerful nations should be thoroughly scrutinized with as many critiques of them as possible. If only Republicans were allowed to edit this page it would disappear completely. And as for the actions of this administration being less important than the American Revolution, that's simply POV. One happened a long time ago and brought with it some idea of rights and the other is happening now as rights are being taken away. By your logic the article on the Big Bang should be the biggest article in the wikipedia because it is the oldest event. Anyway... I like my political figures thoroughly scrutinized. --70.226.173.95 (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libby Reverts

I have made a point in being consistent with my manner of editing this article. After implementing a group of changes to the Libby section, I waited for three days for any sign of objection before continuing with the second set of edits. However, after implementing these changes, both groups of changes were reverted at once. Since someone took issue with these changes, I would like to invite further discussion to see if consensus can be reached. My edits to other sections may have been too much too fast in retrospect, so for now I'll focus on changes made to the sections on Lewis Libby and the Plame affair.
Here is a list of the edits to these sections which were reverted and the rationale behind these changes:
  • 18:08 1/21/2008: Removed subtle inlink bias which asserted the 2003 invasion of Iraq to be a crime. While this position is held by some, this still qualifies as POV-pushing.
  • 18:27 1/21/2008: The section entitled "Possible involvement in the CIA leak" gives a lengthy description of the Plame affair and the events leading up to it. The section clearly states that neither Bush nor Cheney were found to have a connection to the leak, and the section does nothing to relate the subject to the article's main topic of impeachment. Thus, it fails to establish the point it is trying to make. And being as a willing reader can find all of the information detailed in this section on either Niger uranium forgeries or Plame affair (another article tagged as being too long), the detail here is unnecessary. I merged this section with the one following it. This merger was reverted.
  • 07:48 1/24/2008: Removed a judge's speculation that Bush would intervene to shorten Libby's two-year probation period. This has not happened. The section simply borrowed additional material from the NYT article it was cited from, unnecessarily inflating the section without drawing any relation to impeachment.
  • 07:59 1/24/2008: Statement is not supported by the citation given. The text says that Conyers made an announcement, while the source says that Conyers was simply expected to make an announcement.
  • 08:04 1/24/2008: Redundant citation on Jesse Jackson's stance was present, removal on my part in retrospect was probably unnecessary.
  • 08:10 1/24/2008: Author William Rivers Pitt is not a politician or a journalist, so his notability in this matter was questionable to begin with. But when considering his personal involvement with the Libby case defending a news report by truthout which came under fire for saying Karl Rove had been indicted in connection to the Libby case when he had not, Pitt's credibility on this matter is highly suspect. In addition to his lack of notability, I do not view him as a reliable source on this subject, and believe mention of him in this section should be removed.
  • 08:28 1/24/2008: I compressed the rest of this section to eliminate several unneeded block quotes, leaving the content specifically related to censure and proposed impeachment. This was reverted.
I understand that intermediate edits I made to other sections may have been excessive all at once, but unless there are reasonable objections, I will soon begin reinstating the preceding changes to the Libby section. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
After a week without response, it now appears that there are no objections to this change. I will soon resume my efforts to trim the article. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to object, trimming is absolutely unwarranred. Will expand on this in the comming days. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been practically two weeks, and you have yet to elaborate on your objection. I think it's safe to say by now that you have no intent to do so. I will resume cleanup again shortly. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 17:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I notice that the person editing this page only sees a problem with too much information. Perhaps he should see if there is not something that is missing from the impeachment article. --70.226.173.95 (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Online polls and surveys

I applaud a reasonable effort to trim this article, but I must object to the wholesale removal of the section entitled "Online polls and surveys". The accompanying edit summaries by Jc-S0CO do not justify this action. On the first occasion, you gave this justification for removing the section:

"MSNBC's is admittedly unreliable, Democrats.org's is not going to yield representative results simply by demographics, and MoveOn's link displays no results."

I restored the section, with some updated numbers, and added this comment:

"these are notable and reputable, albeit different from other type[s] of polls"

Jc-S0CO then removed the section again, adding this:

"MSNBC's doesn't restrict people from voting more than once, and the others are skewed by demographics. They are not representative or even defensibly accurate, hence they are unreliable."

Before I (or perhaps someone else) add the section back again, I'll respond in further detail. The MSNBC poll is admittedly unscientific, and although it is reasonable to infer that it is not a reliable substitute for a scientific poll, it is not represented as one. You are mistaken, I believe, in your assertion that MSNBC doesn't restrict people from voting more than once. While their cookies-based restriction might be easily circumvented by some, there is no reason to assume this has been done by a significant percentage of the respondents. Furthermore, any such abuse could just as well be committed by those on either side of the issue. It is not our place to pass judgment on how these figures should be interpreted, only to duly note that a reputable news organization has gathered and presented them. This is certainly relevant to the general heading of "Public opinion" under which it falls.

Your contention that "the others are skewed by demographics" also makes an unwarranted and irrelevant presumption about interpretation. It simply is to be noted that a reputable group has gone to the trouble of gathering and presenting a poll of public opinion, with some measure of protection against abuse. This is not represented as a scientific poll, and I don't doubt that its protections against abuse could be circumvented, but the same argument still holds: any such abuse could come equally from either side. The fact that Democrats.org is sponsoring the poll is duly noted - that doesn't mean that their poll results are meaningless or inconsequential. Why don't we let the reader make that decision for himself?

As to your objection to the MoveOn poll, I'm not sure what your point is. The link is valid, and it supports the claim that MoveOn has been conducting such a poll. If you are complaining that they don't show the tally of results, well that wasn't the point of the reference. In fact, the point was that MoveOn has been strangely reluctant to pursue the issue more openly and vigorously, for whatever reason, yet they have been quietly polling the impeachment question for a while. I think these are things worthy of bringing to the reader's attention, without the need for any further censorship or editorializing on our part. - JCLately (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would briefly like to direct attention to the topic which I created above. As policy clearly states, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this article (while certainly deserving to exist) stands in pointed violation of this standard. I have been attempting to trim information in this article on the basis of notability, and as such, I have been removing information which either constitutes little importance or is patently unreliable. Though it is my opinion that these polls fall under the second category, I want to make it clear that I am not impugning the credibility of the sources of these polls and surveys. I based this decision on the nature of the surveys themselves. As you stated, these works are unscientific, and do not give a representative view of the population. The fact that abuse may have come from both sides by no means implies that the two cancel each other out, and one can reasonably assume that the more frequent visitors of sites such as democrats.org and moveon.org will be those of similar political orientations. As far as voting multiple times goes... considering the person who is the subject of this article, this would be the last place I would expect to find dismissal for polls of questionable accuracy.
The standard which I had hoped to promote through my changes was to shorten the article to perhaps half of its present length and to focus the article more towards the collective legal justifications offered in support of impeachment, rather than an indiscriminate list of small organizations or individuals which have promoted the effort. Congress alone has the legal authority to begin the process of impeachment, and when congresspersons are promoting motions towards this end, online opinion polls which are prone to tampering seem of negligible importance in comparison. I am not opposed to the reinstatement of the section, but as previously noted this article is in desperate need of cleanup if not a complete rewrite. In any case, I would hope that other editors will assist me in the goal of shortening this article to a respectable length with nonpartisan citations. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You have repeatedly made the point that online polls and surveys such as those that were listed are not representative of the population as a whole and are of questionable accuracy. The extent to which this is true is impossible to ascertain, but more to the point, this line of objection is largely irrelevant. Perhaps it would be clearer to title the disputed section "Online petitions and surveys", to stress the distinction from scientific polls, whose explicit purpose is to obtain an accurate, representative sampling of the entire population. By contrast, the purpose of an online petition or an open survey is to provide a means of directly enabling people to collectively voice their opinion on an issue widely considered to be of some importance. For a scientific poll, the size of the sample is significant only to the extent that it bears on the accuracy of the statistical analysis. On the other hand, in a petition or an open poll the absolute number of votes is of considerably greater significance: it provides an indication of how many people care enough to actively make a statement at their own initiative. The results are not representative of the entire population, by definition, because an open petition self-selects only those who care enough to bother, whether they vote one way or the other. Nevertheless, those results are interesting and of some historical value, if nothing else. While it is true that Congress alone has the legal authority to begin the process of impeachment, it is also true that Congress is not entirely unaffected by public opinion as expressed in such online petitions and surveys, which is the central motivation for people's participation in the first place. Of course one must make some judgment as to the extent of fraud or inaccuracy in any type of poll, but the best we can do is to provide references from reputable sources and leave it to the reader to make his own determination about the credibility of what is presented. - JCLately (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nice job

WP:POINT[1] Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's be consistent about omitting "Undecided" counts in polls

I can see no benefit to the inclusion of "Undecided" poll statistics, and since this article generally omits them, I suggest that we omit them consistently. If the sum of Yes + No + Undecided is less than 100%, what are we to assume about the remaining percentage? Who cares whether the remainder were undecided or whatever other categorization might have been applied? In response to User:Niteshift36: I thought my edit summaries were pretty clear as to why I reverted your selective addition of this piece of trivia, but obviously you missed my point. Now why don't you explain to us what line of reasoning led you to revert my changes, providing this seemingly nonsensical justification: "Unsure is far more relevant than some township in NH voting on it." - JCLately (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my "justification", it was commentary. The "justification" is that the poll reported it. I reported the poll results ACCURATELY. The 7% "unsure" is significant. My commentary is because you aren't running around the article deleting other totally irrelevant things, like a single township in NH votong on some totally pointless resolution with no legal effect. You allow things like that to stand unmolested and want to nit-pick over including 7% that felt they needed more info. That makes no real sense. You reverted without discussion, then reverted again when asked to discuss BEFORE making the reversion. Why do you refuse to discuss prior to reverting yet again? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you take a look at Help:Edit summary. If you wish to exhort others into paring down this article, the appropriate way to do that would be on the Talk page, not by adding general commentary as an irrelevant edit summary, which certainly seems to imply a justification for your change. Better still, you might yourself participate in removing trivia, instead of adding it. I didn't dispute the accuracy of your addition, only its significance. Especially considering the narrower scope of the poll in question, whether Bush should be impeached "over the Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction", the 7% undecided is utterly inconsequential. Furthermore, it is a trivial matter to deduce that 8% didn't either say Yes or No, so I question how it can possibly be of any notable significance that 7% were undecided and the remaining 1% were presumably something else. What were they, going to the bathroom? Busy picking their noses? Who the hell cares?? The only point to telling us that 7% were undecided is to clarify that of the 8% who obviously didn't say Yes or No, 1% didn't do so for some unspecified reason. Why is this an important fact, and if it's so damn important, why is it moreso than in every other poll statistic provided in this article? How do you justify this inconsistency? I did not refuse to discuss my reversions before making them: I added a relevant edit summary each time, and I added this new Talk section before the last time I reverted your change. This time I'll leave it to someone else to revert your change, if anyone agrees with my point of view. Finally, as to your absurd suggestion that I should personally bear responsibility for trimming what you consider to be excessive trivia from this article, let me suggest this: instead of vaguely disputing the neutrality of the article, why don't you try to balance it appropriately, by providing credible counter-arguments and suitable references supporting them. If you can't do that, I'd suggest removing the Template:POV-check tag at the front of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCLately (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered that the missing 1% that you are so overly fixated on is lost in rounding of numbers? No, probably not given how much energy you've spent focused on it. And it's not more important in thos poll than in others, but I didn't add the others, did I? I take responsibility for what I added. If other editors chose to eliminate that, it was their call, not mine. If you want to get down to brass tacks, what is the significance of ANY of the polls from 2005 or 2006? They are outdated. You may have added this talk section before you reverted, but you did the revet before any discussion took place, so you're really just engaging in semantics there. And I haven't suggested you bear personal responsibility for paring the article. I am simply pointing out your fixation with this particular point, while ignoring the rampant inclusion of information in the article that truly has no bearing at all on the topic. Instead of caring about paragraphs of worthless trivia, you focus so much effort on a half of a sentence. Nor am I disputing the neutrality of the article. By it's very nature, it is going to be biased. I have no interest in debating the minutia of each arguement with the army of Bush haters who authored the article. But that doesn't prevent my making any contributions I make accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
"Have you considered..." That question clearly demonstrates that you continue to miss the point, which is simply that no one on either side of the issue gives a damn about the "Undecided" statistics, and in all this time you have yet to make a single cogent reply that is responsive to that point. If you take responsibility for your edits, why not demonstrate your magnanimity and just concede the point - feel free to delete this superfluous addition yourself. If you consider these polls to be of no significance, why did you make this addition in the first place? If you think this poll is so telling, why did you find it necessary to omit mention of its narrower scope, which then required further clarification by another editor. Do you imagine that puffing up your contribution with a piece of superfluous trivia somehow gives it greater weight? I don't regard this particular dispute as a big deal one way or the other, which is why I was content to confine my previous remarks to the edit summaries. It was you who suggested that we elevate this discussion to the talk page, so I did that. Now you criticize me for pursuing the matter and state that you "have no interest in debating the minutia". Very well, why don't you try a little harder to avoid contradicting yourself, and consider making a more significant and constructive contribution, if you are capable of it. - JCLately (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you are talkkng to, but about half of that drivel is mainly stuff you've made up in your mind. And I didn't purposely omit the narrowed scope, it was simply an error. I'm sure you never make those. You've proven to be both unwillingly to actually listen to what was said or actually be honest in how you discuss it. You are a waste of my time to further converse with. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The Case for Impeachment of GWB.jpg

Image:The Case for Impeachment of GWB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shall I start a movement to dissolve the Democratic Party page?

Among conservatives, there is certainly a movement to dissolve the DNC. If an article about the impeachment of George W. Bush is allowed to exist when no such movement exists in any organized or official form, an article should certainly exist which documents a similar and opposite group of radical beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.240 (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Once Obama gets the White House, people will have forgotten about GW anyway. There is no organized movement. As I have done before, I propose this article be deleted. Timneu22 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You are free to start any article you wish. Just remember to provide adequate references for your topic. Oh wait... I guess the Movement to dissolve the Democratic National Committee doesn't really exist, so you're out of luck. Just becuase you disagree with something doesn't make it a "disgrace to Wikipedia" any more than the articles about Criticism of Christianity or Pro-pedophile activism. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a fringe movement at best, perpetuated by bloggers and Wikipedia editors. This article and its editors are seriously misguided. In 10 years — even 2 or 5 years — people will read this article and say "really?, that happened?". The answer is NO. It didn't. Timneu22 (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Add Section for E-mail Controversy

This article includes a fairly detailed list of laws allegedly broken by President Bush. However, I don't see where the Bush White House e-mail controversy is included. This controversy includes the allegations that the Bush Administration violated Presidential Records Act of 1987, and the Hatch Act of 1939. Is there a reason this controversy was omitted? Should there be another section added or does it fit into one of the current sections? (Diafygi (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Add Section for Executive Privilege

In this article, there is no mention of the controversy over the Bush Administration's claim to executive privilege. These claims seem to be counter to the U.S. Supreme Court decision United States v. Nixon in 1974, and are also used as supporting evidence for the impeachment movement. Should a section for executive privilege be added? Can it be incorporated into an existing section? (Diafygi (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Template {{verylong}} removed

I have removed the "this article is too long" template. Compared to other articles, the word count is comparable. One must take into consideration that a good 1/4 of this article is references and other markup which take up lots of space and contribute to the inflated article size (which does not differentiate between words and markup). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I put it back. The article has about 11 pages of printable content, excluding references, while the wiki guidelines put the upper limit at 10 pages. So, while this article has been greatly improved, it still has a little more to be shortened before it fits standards. 129.110.116.65 (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD merge

The article New Hampshire House Resolution 24 (2008) was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on May 29, 2008 with a consensus to merge the content into Movement to impeach George W. Bush. If the merger is not completed promptly, New Hampshire House Resolution 24 (2008) might be re-nominated for deletion.

To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.