Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

Documentable proof that there is a Movement to Impeach Bush.

In the above section ("59 Senator Feingold's censure resolution") the website referenced includes a significant sub-item that will finally lay to rest the argument "There is no movement to impeach Bush." Note the following excerpt (emphasis added):

Censure is not the cure. Impeachment is. But censuring Bush and Cheney ought not be seen as a compromise, or an insufficient response to the crisis. It is a senatorial compliment to the burgeoning movement for impeachment -- a movement that today delivered petitions with more than 1,000,000 signatures to Congressman John Conyers appealing to him to begin impeachment proceedings.

Here it is worth noting the WP page on [Political movement] which states "'...a political movement aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement." When one million citizens take the time to sign a petition advocating a specific activity that is unmistakeably an active political movement by any definition. Low Sea 11:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh.. you did not pay attention to your own reference. This is not a movement to impeach Bush. This is a movement to SEEK impeachment. There is no movement to impeach Bush. --Blue Tie 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Hold on! It doesn't matter whether we believe a movement to impeach exists or not. There are plenty of reliable sources that express that there is a movement to impeach, see the extensive list of references that I put forward when we discussed it earlier. That should have settled the matter, but now we are back to it again. This is becoming unproductive.Terjen 01:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it was not settled then. You are not recalling the discussion correctly. What is unproductive is this page. There is no movement to impeach Bush.--Blue Tie 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Plenty of sources refer to a movement to impeach, or a similar phrase, as shown in the earlier discussion and elsewhere. Whether you (or I) think it isn't a movement is irrelevant. Hence, claims on this discussion page that there is no movement to impeach Bush can safely be ignored. Terjen 05:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Opinions by inconsequential people who want to DECLARE that they are a movement are not good sources. Blogs in particular are not good sources. That you can cite 40 blogs does not mean that these are reliable sources. --Blue Tie 20:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
However, I didn't "cite 40 blogs" refering to a movement to impeach or a similar phrase. A few of the references might be categorized as Blogs, specifically Raw Story and The Huffington Post, several were published op-eds (not letters to the editor), and some were articles, newsstories and editorials from mainstream media. These were all from a quick sample based on a Google News search back in May, and included Reuters[1], Washington Post[2], CNN[3], The Seattle Times, The Nation, Salon, The Baltimore Chronicle, Barre Montpelier Times Argus, as well as local TV News and smaller local papers. Other perhaps less prominent yet hardly "inconsequential" sources included FAIR, CounterPunch, Democracy Now, John Nichols, Norman Solomon, Howard Zinn, John W. Dean, Ramsey Clark, Paul Craig Roberts, David Swanson, and Dave Lindorff. Apparently quite a few think there is a movement to impeach, and we can cover that, whether or not we individually would label it a movement. Terjen 23:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
More recently, Bill Moyers of PBS wrote that "There’s a movement for impeachment"[4]. Others that recently has mentioned the movement includes Walter Brasch - "the movement for impeachment has gained credibility and strength"[5]; John Nichols - "burgeoning movement for impeachment"[6]; Boston Herald - "faces a nascent censure and impeachment movement" [7]; Amy Goodman - "a grassroots movement for impeachment has been rapidly building"[8]; Terjen 00:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have not looked at all of your sources.. I did a sample. Here is what I found: Blogs, opinions, editorials or the error of amphibole. I have not found a source that clearly and unambiguously discusses in sufficient detail to be conclusive and with all elements considered, the question "Does a Movement to Impeach" exist. You can produce hundreds of blogs, opinions, editorials, self declarations or amphibole, but that does not prove the point. Do you not understand what I am saying? There really is no movement to impeach. There is at best, a movement to encourage or seek impeachment. Or as someone else pointed out.. there are efforts to encourage impeachment. THAT I would entirely agree with, though there could be other problems with the page.--Blue Tie 17:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not you or I think there really is a "movement to impeach" is irrelevant. As was my intention of compiling the list, there are plenty of reliable sources that label what you call "efforts to encourage impeachment" using terms like "movement to impeach" or "impeachment movement", and that's sufficient.Terjen 20:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, blogs, editorials, self reference and poor construction do not adequately support the contention. Its not reliable sourcing.--Blue Tie 02:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Terjen, honestly at this point I think he just realizes how annoying it is that he keeps saying "There is no movement to impeach Bush." He's said it verbatim at least once on at least his last 6 posts. He's trying to "get your goat" for lack of a better term. 68.45.171.156 13:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Or alternatively, I believe what I am saying and I maintain my position. --Blue Tie 20:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You can still be a productive editor on this page even if you don't think there is a "movement to impeach". Just like Creationists can be productive editors on the entry on Evolution, at least as long as they avoid repeated rants on its talk page that there are no evolution and that the entry thus should be deleted. Terjen 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the responsibilities of good editing is to reject bad articles. --Blue Tie 16:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Blue Tie, it is great and fine that you believe what you are saying. Nobody doubts your genuinity. And that you maintain your position is duly noted. However, the fact that you maintain your position does not add anything to the discussion, so it does not need to be repeated. I think that was anon's point. Also, that repeating it doesn't make it more or less right anymore than it adds any new information to the discussion.
Now that Terjen was able to cite and quote 40 blogs all saying pretty much the same thing is pretty impressive. And you must admit, does prove beyond a doubt one rather significant thing: that there are at least 40 blogs saying this thing.
Terjen was also able to cite numerous, authoritave sources to support his argument. All of which are easily verifiable. In so doing, Terjen has satisfied the verifiability criteria for a wikipedia article. Remember, wikipedia is not about what's "true", but, rather, about what's "verifiable".
And if you look at the WP page on Political movement, it states that "'...a political movement aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement.". It is not the action itself. It is that which aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take such action. A movement to impeach is not the impeachment proceedings. Were there impeachment proceedings, a political movement to compel such proceedings would be completely superfluous. Why would one seek to compel proceedings that are already taking place? I think what you are referring to would be appropriately titled "The impeachment proceedings of George W. Bush". However, that is not the title of this article. And that is not what this article is about. I think you are getting the two confused, or that you misunderstand the definition of a political movement. Kevin Baastalk 18:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


We differ substantially on several matters. First, I think it adds to the discussion for me to repeat a basic fact that is otherwise being ignored. Second, our views of what is impressive are substantially different. I am not the least bit impressed by blogs. Furthermore, you quote wikipedia, but wikipedia is not a good source for wikipedia per wikipedia's own rules. Finally, what I am referring to in my objections would appropriately be called "Movement to impeach George W. Bush", which is exactly the title of this article and the reason I object to it. I would not have that objection if the article were called "Calls to have George Bush impeached". I am not the least bit confused on this matter. --Blue Tie 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What you are refering to would be called "impeachment proceedings", and by your logic, we'd have to rename the "civil rights movement" to something like "calls to have civil rights". That's not to say the civil rights movement on the movement to impeach george w. bush is at all comparable in size/strength. your logic isn't one of size/strength (quantity), but one of quality. the civil rights movement was not a movement that started in congress, so by your logic, it shouldn't be classified as a political movement. Kevin Baastalk 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, what I am referring to would be called a "movement to impeach" or "actions to impeach". By my logic there would be no need to rename the civil rights movement to anything else. This has nothing to do with size or strength. A movement to impeach Bush would necessarily be tiny yet could be successful. I do not think you are following my logic at all. --Blue Tie 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Semantics

Blue Tie: I have been reviewing your many posts on this discussion and it seems clear to me that your concern is in the validity (or lack thereof) of the article as per WP quality standards, starting with the Title. Fair enough. You also offered potentially valid criticism of my semantics on the definition of "movement" as it related to "groundswell". Let us begin then by seeing if we can iron out the semantics that seem to be at issue. Here are some questions on your posts for which I am seeking clarification:

1. My analysis of your posts suggests that it is your position that a "movement to impeach" does not exist unless there is an active House Resolution to Impeach, validly initiated by a member of Congress. Is that a correct assessment?

2. Furthermore, if such a motion were actually before the House (or at least in a Committee) would you then cease to state "there is no movement to impeach"?

In some of your posts you have talked about "people who simply do not count in the discussion", "a list of people's rants (most who have no say in the matter)", "folks who have no direct control over impeachment", and most notably "It is a legal matter that is entirely in the control of the House."

3. Is it your belief that citizen constituents have no power over their elected Representatives?

The WP definition of the term Political movement states (in part):

A political movement may be organized around a single issue or set of issues, or around a set of shared concerns of a social group. In contrast with a political party, a political movement is not organized to elect members of the movement to government office; instead, a political movement aims to convince citizens and/or government officers to take action on the issues and concerns which are the focus of the movement.

Political movements are an expression of the struggle for the political space and benefits. These are an expression of the contentions in a polity.

4. Do you accept the aforementioned definition of a "political movement"? If not, how would you define this term?

The clear answers to these four questions should serve well to allow this discussion to move forward. Thank you. Low Sea 15:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for the questions. I think you are closer to understanding my point than many folk are. Let me clarify per your questions.
1. I do not think that a movement is only composed of a resolution. I think that a movement would not even require a bill in Congress. I believe that it could emerge out of several means: A growing sentiment among a number of Representatives... with at least 40 or 50 (about 10%) on firm official record demanding it (and this would be even stronger if there were at least 5 or 10 that were not of the same party) would be one way to demonstrate a movement -- particularly if it were growing.
Alternatively a proposed bill with a review in committee that includes hearings and witnesses. That would be a movement to impeach. I do not think that it has to go to a full vote... the movement could die. Or it could go to a vote and die there. Or it could succeed with a vote to impeach. But I do not think a movement to impeach exists outside of Congress (the House), since only the House has the power to impeach. I also think that if it goes to committee without any hearings and it just dies, that there was never really a movement, just an presumption of one. Too many things take that route to call it a valid "thing" (i.e. "movement").
2. Yes, if there were a legitimate movement in Congress, I would not object. However, I would consider MOST of THIS page to be irrelevant to THAT topic.
3. It is my opinion that they have no power "over" their representatives, but that they have influence "with" their representatives, generally in proportion to the voting population that they may represent, or in connection with the dollars invested in election campaigns. (Representatives have their own views and it helps if they match with the folk they are talking to as well).
4. I think that's an "ok" definition of political movement. However, I do not think that because something meets a definition it is thus inherently encyclopedic. In the context of this discussion, I would still consider the article to be a cruft and tripe (and possibly a POV fork with uncorrectable POV problems) but at least it would be named appropriately if it were called "The political movement to seek the impeachment of George W. Bush". Even without pov problems, I would still consider it unencyclopedic - trivial. But that's a matter of judgment and reasonable people can differ on that opinion. I generally am opposed to articles that appear to be like dust magnets -- attracting all kinds of cruft from folks with an axe to grind.
Hope that helps. --Blue Tie 20:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that does help. I do not fully agree with your position but at least now we are on the same page and can have a meaningful dialog. What I say next is not an attack on you, just a clarification of what seems to have happened in this discussion:

The bold-faced statement "There is no movement to impeach" was crystal clear to you but to others it seemed a blatant refusal to acknowledge the realities of what is happening on the political landscape. Consider if you will that I only became clued-in to what you really meant after you contrasted "movement to impeach" with "movement to seek impeachment" -- this was a fine point of distinction at first glance because I was (and still am) looking at the word "movement" in the context of popular/grassroots/political movements (I will say more on this later).
Similarly others here were seemingly (unknowingly) contrasting "no movement to impeach" with "no movement at all (related to impeachment)" and seeing them as the same idea. My analysis of the posts make it clear that it appeared to many here that you were living in a state of denial when in fact we were having a fundamental failure to communicate.
Put succinctly, you meant there is no movement in Congress but others thought you meant there is no movement in America .

As for my position on this article's validity I find there is room for improvement but I will have to disagree with you on many of your points of concern, however - before starting that discussion I urge you to read the "twin brother" of this article located at sourcewatch.org [9]. It is far more encyclopedic and NPOV than this article. Pay particular attention to sections 3.1 and 3.2 of that article. Low Sea 02:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would summarize differently. There is no movement in Congress or in America to impeach -- because they are the same thing. I would not disagree that there is a "movement" of sorts to seek or encourage impeachment. I did not know about this other article and now I wonder, even more, why this article does not have that title. The other article is PERFECTLY titled. --Blue Tie 16:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Some observations:

  1. A President can be impeached and usually that process is called impeachment of X (X being the person involved)
  2. There may be no actual impeachment proceedings yet there may be groups (in Congress, organisations, private citizens) insisting such proceedings should be initiated. One might refer to this a movement to impeach.
  3. Movement to impeach is not equal to impeachment proceedings.
  4. The moment impeachment proceedings are started there no longer is a movement but there effectively is impeachment.
  5. The points 1 and 2 are seperate and may even exist without the other.

It would seem certain editors feel that point 2 is impossible without point 1 because they are the same thing. Clearly it is possible for people to advocate for impeachment without it actually happening. To insist that in such a situation there is no movement to impeach is a misunderstanding of point 3. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


I agree with #1 (partly), 2 (partly) 3 and 5. I disagree with 1 (partly), 2 (partly) and 4.

A better statement of facts would be:

  1. A President can be impeached.
  2. Once successfully accomplished (that is once the charges are successfully agreed upon and brought forward), this is called impeachment.
  3. Proceedings to debate and vote on these charges are called "Impeachment Proceedings".
  4. There may be no actual impeachment proceedings yet there may be groups insisting such procedings may be initiated.
  5. One might falsely refert to this as a "movement to impeach".
  6. The US Government is a Republic.
  7. The power to impeach exists solely within Congress, not with the people.
  8. A movement to impeach requires the certain participation of Congress
  9. A movement to seek impeachment (Or efforts to promote impeachment proceedings) may only require two men and a dog-- who do not even have to be US Citizens.
  10. "Movement to impeach" is not identical to "impeachment proceedings".
  11. "Movement to seek impeachment" or "Efforts to promote impeachment prodeedings" are not identical with "Movement to impeach"
  12. Prior to impeachment proceedings there may be a "movement to impeach".
  13. The moment impeachment proceedings start, the movement is in high gear.
  14. The moment impeachment proceedings end, the movement to impeach typically but does not necessarily come to an end.

It would seem that certain editors insist that there is a "movement to impeach" but that requires a profound misunderstanding of point #6. --Blue Tie 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, Blue Tie, you've had ample opportunity to make your case for the necessity of changing the article's title. I think it's pretty clear that you've failed to persuade anything close to a majority of editors, and you've expended all your ammunition on this point. I hardly think it's necessary to rebut your last response to Nomen Nescio. Was that supposed to be a logical argument? You slipped in an unsubstantiated assertion of your disputed conclusion as "fact" in the middle of a bunch of irrelevant non-sequiturs! This is a misguided, pedantic argument that has become tiresome, to the point of being disruptive, whether or not that is your intention. Why not carry this absurdity further and argue that the article really should be entitled "the movement to persuade Congress to have George Bush impeached, convicted, and evicted from the White House"? There is no sign of confusion among the general public as to what is meant by the "Movement to impeach George W. Bush", and regardless of your assertions to the contrary, the simpler title is neither inaccurate nor misleading. At this point, I encourage others to vote here with your signatures, so we can put an end to this particular argument. - JCLately 04:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You claim I have had ample opportunity. I do not agree. That biased editors do not agree with me is no shock (is it a shock to you?). However, I have not expended all of my ammo. LOL. Why do you think you can dictate my abilities to me? Its ok with me if you do not want to rebutt an argument. It was a logical argument of sorts, but if you think the logic was bad, I do not mind since it was a copy of the logic I was responding to --- only a better version. That you consider my arguments disruptive does not make them disruptive. You can simply not pay any attention to them. The reason I would not argue for your version of the title is that it is not compact and lean. It can be expressed better. In addition, it may be incorrect. Whether there is a sign of confusion or there is no sign of confusion would require original research. I am not interested in a vote. Wikipedia does not work by votes. Thanks for your interest. --Blue Tie 05:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll take that as your vote. The score currently stands at 1 to 1. Let's see how it goes... - JCLately
You demonstrate an inability to correctly tally votes. I have not voted and you are not authorized to cast my vote for me. Your blatant efforts to squelch free speech are simply not appropriate on wikipedia. That is not how wikipedia operates, even if you want it to and the vote is not binding. --Blue Tie 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, if it makes you happy, I'll take that as an abstention. - JCLately
Again, you demonstrate an inability to correctly tally votes. (And there are even bigger problems with your poll). I have not abstained. --Blue Tie 05:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm flattered that you made the only other possible choice, but I wouldn't want to take advantage of you. - JCLately
There are many choices here and I have made several. It is not clear to me that you have detected any of them, but there is no cause for you to feel flattered. It is simply my nature to make choices. --Blue Tie 05:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I see you also have a sense of humor. - JCLately 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. You can see an example here though it may not be obvious at first. --Blue Tie 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no argument

In Jefferson's Manuel section LIII,603,of the Rules of the House of Representatives it states "impeachment may be set in motion by charges preferred by a memorial,which is usually referred to a committee for examination." Petitions are addressed to the House which could be presented by the Speaker or a Member.The first definition of movement in the free encyclopedia is motion.Go ahead,read it again.Thousands of petitions have been signed and the movement to impeach George W. Bush continues as history seeks its course.Eonblu 06:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that :"impeachment may be set in motion by charges preferred by a memorial,which is usually referred to a committee for examination." but not because it is in Jefferson's Manual. Although petitions are addressed to the House, they are irrelevant to impeachment. Nothing happens until the charges are "preferred" as described above, and as you describe, the first definition of movement is "motion" but there has been no motion to impeach George Bush. What you probably should have said is "the movement to motivate impeachment proceedings against George W. Bush continues its march into the dust bin of history." --Blue Tie 06:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So then in hindsight you would have no quarrel if the name given to this page was: The movement to start a movement to impeach George W. Bush.Am I correct.Eonblu 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that might be technically correct but I would object to that as soon as I got my seat in the Department of Redundancy Department. Instead, I would suggest something like, "Movement to motivate impeachment proceedings". Or "Efforts to Encourage the Impeachment" or something like that. --Blue Tie 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Night Massacre

For those objecting to the link, and for whatever reason prohibited to read the sources in the paragraph, I have provided some references. Please note, your personal feelings the link is not to be used are irrelevant since, as policy demands, there are sources making the connection.

The stealth dismissal of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration carries echoes of the Nixon administration firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox in 1973. .... Cox was investigating White House misdeeds when Nixon told Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire him. Richardson refused and resigned, as did Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Third-in-charge, Robert Bork, complied, and the “Saturday Night Massacre,” as it was called, came to epitomize an imperial administration, acting above the law and using its power to interfere with legitimate processes of justice.[10]
  • Deconstructing the Dispute over the Politicization of U.S. Attorney Firings: The News Stories, the Testimony, and What Should Happen Next
Some Democrats portray these developments as an enormous scandal, which has overpoliticized U.S. Attorney hiring and firing -- even analogizing the forced resignations to the "Saturday Night Massacre."[11]
  • Firings raise concern over Justice Dept. and politics - Gonzales admits mistakes were were made, but he stands by dismissal of federal prosecutors
"What comes to everybody's mind is the Saturday Night Massacre, the president not liking what an independent prosecutor is supposed to do and firing him, said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor.[12]
  • Prosecutor fired so ex-Rove aide could get his job
"What happened here doesn't sound like business as usual; it appears more reminiscent of a different sort of Saturday night massacre," Schumer said, referring to Watergate-era firings at Justice that were ordered by President Nixon.[13]
  • Capitol Hill Showdown Looms Over U.S. Attorney Scandal as Bush Refuses to Let Officials Testify Under Oath
Again, we were down that road in Watergate with the Saturday Night Massacre.[14]
  • President and Congress clash over Justice Department dismissals
The Bush administration’s sudden firing of eight chief federal prosecutors around the country has provoked a congressional inquiry, heavy news coverage and recollections of an infamous 1973 Justice Department shakeup known as “the Saturday night massacre.”[15]
  • Executive privilege must not derail probe
If even one U.S. attorney was fired because he or she failed to yield to political pressure in an ongoing case, the administration was sending the message department-wide that it was willing — perhaps even anxious — to pervert justice for political gain. That, of course, is beyond presidential prerogative. President Richard Nixon learned as much when he fired Attorney General Archibald Cox to prevent him from pursuing the Watergate investigation during the “Saturday Night Massacre” some 35 years ago.[16]
  • Showdown in the hospital[18]

Since we have sufficient sources supporting the link I will restore it. Please do not remove it again as removing sourced material may be seen as tendentious editing and disruptive editing.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Even with those sources, it is not handled correctly in the article. Instead. it should be expressed as a quoted opinion ("Some Democrats portray these developments as an enormous scandal, which has overpoliticized U.S. Attorney hiring and firing -- even analogizing the forced resignations to the "Saturday Night Massacre.") instead of as a direct link without explanation that this is NOTHING like the Saturday Night Massacre. (What is true is that some people have made the analogy. What is not true is that the analogy is apt or appropriate-- its nonsense).--65.183.218.42 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No valid reason advanced to ignore sources. The fact you feel there is no connection, or it is not the same, is not an argument. Sources that is what WP is about not your opinion or mine.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Could somebody inform GATXER/65.183.218.42 that removing sourced material is bad form, as is using sockpuppets to mislead us into thinking more editors share his disruptive editing style. Again GATXER I demand you stop being uncivil and adhere to what you have been told.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 20:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Well Editor N....you have now posted more lies....my IP is not 65.183.218.42 and never has been any Admin can see that. Could someone tell me what board I can refer his lies to for punishment? I'm sure there is one for people who tell lies about sockpuppets with no evidence except what they want to believe. I don't care what a guy who call Bush the Fuhr and then edits Bush pages with is sick POV. Unless you are a Admin...you cant Demand ANYTHING! If you are so desperate that you need to lie about me.....maybe you should check into medical help. While I think the Sat Night doesnt belong at all...I could live with what Blue Tie edits did putting it in the section and not at the top. The resons for it being on the page are just silly and POV....but if it must be there...put in by a Bully.....left it be in the base and not at top....unless we are going to add links for every guy who ever left office. GATXER 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I am a doctor. And in my professional opinion the above comment is evidence of the lack of coherent thought by this increasingly disruptive editor.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The above statement is a violation of professional ethics guidelines agreed to by mental health professionals. It is also a violation of wikipedia rules of discourse. --13:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
...huh huh... he said "check into medical help"... huh huh...68.45.171.156 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that the existence of sources is not the only criteria for inclusion. My first question is, what relevance does the attorney firings have to the movement to impeach the President? Do any of these reliable sources mention that this is a reason or motivation for impeachment? If not, then this information is irrelevant to this article, and including it is POV, and a synthesis of thought advancing a position (original research). - Crockspot 12:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
None of the mention a movement to impeach but they do provide opinions (they are oped or blog type sources) for supporting impeachinment. They are inherently biased sources and there is not other side presented. The sections is pov--Blue Tie 13:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. We have one op ed piece, and some ranting on partisan websites. Nothing here convinces me that this is other than the view of an extreme partisan minority, and so much coverage violates WP:UNDUE. Which brings me to problem number two, and this goes beyond just this section. There are wikilinks at the top of each section that go to articles that cover these events in minute detail. Normally, in a case like this, you would have the links to the "main article", and just a short summary of what is at those links. I would also tie these events to the impeachment movement here too. This should only require two short paragraphs, plus sources. There is way too much detail in this article, that is covered better elsewhere. Keeping them all in sync with each other is a nightmare. - Crockspot 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if Editor N is a Dr...which I doubt......he cant be a good one based on his own actions......most Dr. dont lie!. It should also be pointed out that on HIS block list which is long....he was once blocked for being a sockpuppet. As for POV Editor N doesnt care as long as it his POV.....what others say means nothing to him....and he will keep making POV edits....if his past record shows nothing it shows that at least. GATXER 14:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
Why is this a fringe movement? Why shouldn't Bush get impeached for leading us into a war with lies when the previous president got impeached for lying about a blowjob? 169.232.78.24 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
...exactly. Eight year later, and even for the only actual impeachment in the last decade, the actual reasons are forgotten. Which, in case you were wondering, was for attempting to obstruct the prosecution of a sexual harassment charge against him, not the sexual harassment itself.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not a forum. This isn't the place for this kind of discussion. Either of you. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to consider the movement a significant viewpoint, whether openly held by a majority or not. the Associated Press; CBS News; the United Press International; Google News; all think it is a significant viewpoint. Vincent Bugliosi has amassed a credible case against G.W. Bush, is prepared and has expressed a willingness to try the President for Murder once he is out of office. If you read the text of Representative Dennis Kucinich's bills you will see that there is a clear-cut case for impeachment of both Bush AND Cheney. This article stays, thank you very much ! 67.49.8.228 (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall saying the article should be deleted; on the contrary, I have argued that its subject is noteworthy enough to merit an article. I simply believe that its focus should be article quality, rather than article length. In any case, the point I was making (per the link provided) is that this is not a place to discuss the impeachment movement itself. The purpose of the talk pages is to discuss improvements and changes to the article, not personal opinions about the subject at hand. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


User:Jc-S0CO: I completely agree, my comment was aimed at the 2 bloggers above. I probably should have outdented to show that more clearly: I have now removed one colon from my indent (no wisecracks please) so that my comment is 'even' with yours. If (as you point out, it is not) Wikipedia were a forum,that would have happened automatically. My error in formatting. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Typically, it's best just to ignore discussions such as this one so as not to feed the trolls. On articles where admins make regular rounds, non-constructive threads like this are usually deleted before the conversation gets too hostile, but such is not the case here. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Hm, well I really don't want to start a flame war here, but please don't refer to me as a troll; I was simply questioning the poster's logic. I didn't realize that we had to maintain NPOV-ness in the *talk pages* of articles, I'll keep that in mind in the future ;) 169.232.78.24 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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))

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))

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)

This is what WP:IAR is for. The content of the article should not be held to any arbitrary limit. If the article is too long, you don't delete content, you remove content to another article, summarise the other article within the main article, link to the other article within the section, and above the summary. That's how it's done. Not by trimming out facts that are relevant, referenced, and reliably sourced. Wikipedia is not paper. Just print it with a smaller font if you must have it fit on 10 pages! 67.49.8.228 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue is not verifiability (relevant, referenced, RS), but notability of the content in question. The opinion of Roger Waters, for instance, does not qualify. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I follow your reasoning re: notability. I just don't think that the issue of article length is germaine. I invite you to explain your reasoning about, for example, R. Waters' opinion not being notable, rather than simply pronouncing it not notable. Please, for the sake of those to whom it is not as obvious as it is to you? 67.49.8.228 (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I would invite you to look at the format in which Waters appeared in the pre-cleanup version of this article, linked in the Article Length thread above. At that time, literally half of the article was a list of random organizations and individuals referenced mostly in self-published sources, if citations existed for them at all. Some that were included did not even make mention of impeachment; they were listed merely for expressing anti-Bush sentiment at some point in time. The article was a mess by every conceivable definition. But as far as notability goes, politically-themed lyrics in someone's favorite rap group or one-time theatrics performed at a concert by a person who is not even eligible to vote in the United States do not qualify for notability on the same level as, say, a state legislature or a member of Congress condoning impeachment on legal grounds, as Kucinich has recently done. It's a fine balancing act which involves making choices. Policy does not spell out exactly where the notability line is drawn, but we've seen what happens if the bar is set too low. As a result, notability of a topic is typically determined by consensus among participating editors. Nobody objected to my cleanup (see the dates on my comments above), so I saw no reason to stop.
Every article reflects on Wikipedia as a whole, and articles which at first glance appear overlong and one-sided to a casual reader do not strengthen the project's reputation. When comparing this article to articles which reach featured, good, or even B status, there are very clear differences in style, structure, and tone, and the articles are typically much shorter than this one. This is an unavoidably political topic, but AFD's don't happen just because there are people who don't like the subject. This article faces and has faced major problems in the past. In any case, WP:LENGTH can probably do a better job of explaining the issues than I can. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 07:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Keeping articles short does have merit - it enables readers to get a good view of the subject without having to read too many pages. The attention span of a typical reader rarely extends beyond a couple of screenfulls. However, that doesn't mean we have to delete stuff which is both notable and referenced. The solution is to spin off other articles that go into more depth in one specific area. If we have a long list of organisation who are talking about impeachment and that is making this article too bulky - then make List of organisations seeking the impeachment of George W. Bush and simply summarize it here (eg "There are over 30 organisations seeking to impeach - see also:"). One might argue that such a sub-article might fail the notability test - but if it's not notable there - then it's not notable here either - so if you have the courage of your convictions, splitting that information off should be a no-brainer. SteveBaker (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush/Archive_11&oldid=1088455198"