Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive 7

Current event tag
Hey there, yesterday I added a tag to the article Movement to impeach George W. Bush, as it certainly represents an ongoing series of events (at the very least in Vermont). User:Stbalbach removed the tag without an explanation in the edit summary, and I cannot think of a valid reason for its removal. I am going to reapply the tag: I hope that if you decided to re-remove it you will provide an explanation. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 16:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there are certain articles on Wikipedia that are always current events. For example, George W. Bush, and this article. The purpose of the CE tag is notify editors and readers that an article is undergoing rapid changes. It is not meant to stay in place for very long, and certainly not forever, which would need to be the case for this article (at least, until Fall 2008). This article has new ongoing current events all the time, but they are not of the nature that requires a permanent CE tag, there are just not that many changes being made that a warning is required. -- Stbalbach 00:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
Please provide actionable, detailed rationales for the POV tag. The complaints about this article being POV have been so general and so often knocked down as irrational and unsupportable that putting up a POV tag just because certain parties complain about it without actually providing a solution to the problem it is just a way to complain about this articles mere existence, which is not what POV tags are for. -- Stbalbach 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * as stated above [] those putting the tags don't have to have a solution first. If every tag placer on wiki had the solution there wouldn't be ANY tags. The solution would be implemented. Also as stated above in the tag discussion the person placing the tag doesn't have to have specific reasons if a debate on the neutrality exists, then the tag should be placed. I am not taking sides on the issue myself but to read through it makes its point. Quite nicely. Problem is there is no critic section, no counter point. On a hot button issue how could there not be? By me saying this That merrits a tag. I don't have to have the solution, I don't have to have the links or cites, You own words the complaints are 'general' thats just it. The whole feel of the article is 'generally' pov. It doesn't mean the article isn't true, lacking credibility it means parts, sections or the entire thing people have opposing views of that are not shown. Your ignore rule link? You complained about the circular reasoning in an above discussion. One can use the exactly logic when you show the IAR link. The tag should be placed due to IAR. It would improve the article by showing editors it needs more content showing the opposing side. By doing this you improve the article. By saying the tag shouldn't be there, some editors would not be inclined as much to put in opposing material. Hense you are not helping the quality of the aricle. (what IAR is about). Putting the tag improves it. By saying "hey, we need to show both sides to make a complete article, for now its not" You keep the politics and feelings out of it and treat it like any other article its not as big a deal as its being made into. Also you say above - "There is consensus to remove the POV tag -- it has been achieved in multiple AfDs and discussions on this talk page " where is this talk page concensus? --Xiahou 21:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"those putting the tags don't have to have a solution first." Nobody is saying that. Only tagging an article without any explanation makes it impossible to address the issues at hand (what issue?). Now you mention the lack of criticism. Of course that is something editors can look at and if need be amend. But I still think a tag without explanation can be removed: does it refer to WP:RS, or weasel words, or biased sentences, or the headers, article title, et cetera? See, by telling us about the criticism which is lacking I now know I don't have to look for semantical problems. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Nobody is saying that"? "just because certain parties complain about it without actually providing a solution to the problem " as seen in first paragraph of this section. He specifically asked for a solution before tag placement. Which is why the whole section is there saying how that isn't how it logically works. If you have a solution you impletment it, there isn't a issue.
 * I don't get your sentence " Now you mention the lack of criticism. Of course that is something editors can look at and if need be amend. But I still think a tag without explanation can be removed" there you go. The tag is up there needing a section on criticism. The tag directs to the talk page discussions people see this saying "lack of criticism" is why the tag. There. Ok so we are agreed it lacking an obvious political criticism section thats what the tag is for. So I am putting the tag up till there is a critical section something from the other side to balance the article. I can quote all the wiki acronymns, but it breaks down to this. The article which has its own merrits like any good article needs balance. As of now it has none. Its not up to the tag placer to fix this (as editor Stbalback seems to think) the issue is it needs some sort of critical section to be NPOV since its lacking I am replacing the tag. Once some more sections opposing/criticism is added. I just get this feeling around here about this article its some sort of sacred cow like I cannont talk bad about. As I mentioned before I am not looking at it from my political feelings I am looking at it as a wiki editor and in all the political articles I've looked at the some Ive edited Ive never seen one with 0, none, not a single section in opposition to the said article. This one needs it. By lacking anything opposing it lacks balance, its pov. Doesn't matter if I am a walking protestor for it or totally against. Its the article, it needs a criticism section. There black and white text for all to see. The tag has reasons. The tag goes up. The reasons taken care of balance added tag comes down. --Xiahou 22:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, you have started explaining why the tag is needed therefore you agree with me that tagging without telling why is pointless. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 09:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Problem is there is no critic section, no counter point. - This article is not a debate panel. That would indeed be a hopelessly POV article, with ideologues from both sides trying to make their position, point after counterpoint etc... This article is, as the lead paragraph says, a place to mention those people who want to impeach Bush, that's it. This article exists for a very good reason. Without this article this material would be spread across dozens of articles and would become a real problem -- aggregating all of this into a central place makes sense for a lot of reasons. Trying to turn it into a debate forum where we do "he said she said" between political pundents would not solve POV problems, it would in fact create them. Bush has not been impeached. Until that happens, there is nothing to counter.  -- Stbalbach 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How to reply to this. "Bush has not been impeached. Until that happens, there is nothing to counter" this is an encyclopia article not your personal soapbox. I am looking at it like an article not a personal political agenda here. "Without this article this material would be spread across dozens of articles and would become a real problem -- aggregating all of this into a central place makes sense for a lot of reasons" all the more reason to have parts of criticism otherwise you would have to have a seperate article. Its not a debate look at ANY other political page that doesn't have pov problems it shows both sides of the issue of the article. So both sides of this article would be those for the movement and critics of. If you take personal political feelings out and look at it like the encyclopdia article that it is, you can see its lacking balance. I am here trying to improve the article not deleting it, not to discredit it, but to show it needs balance to improve it. Saying its just "a place to mention those people who want to impeach Bush, that's it" Is selling the article short. Its hardly just that. Its not just a list of names its an issue, its an encyclopedia article. As mentioned before it would go agaisnt what you said having multiple pages for same thing having another aritcle of a group of names against the movement. The tag should stay until its balanced out more. simple as that regardless of the issue. --Xiahou 21:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Did some more looking and noticed [] Content forking. So the information on those against the movement and are critical of it should be added to this article. A seperate article for this wouldn't be appropriate. So to acheive npov and not to content fork we need a criticism section or something of that nature. --Xiahou 21:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the tag b/c this seems to have been hashed out. Please just move forward and add your rebuttals, or "controversy/criticism" section, or whatever. Hopefully then the article will be "fair and balanced" enough. Fox can go ahead and sue me now. --Jackbirdsong 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was hashed out. Until a enough is added to add some sort of sembelence of balance some sort of criticism the tag should stay. Showing that its needed once they see why by reading this and other sections. Once the info is added and the article is balanced on bias Then the tag is removed and the article is all the better due to more info showing what the issue is about (which is done well) and those who are critical of it and why (which isn't done at all). --Xiahou 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of "balance" are you looking for? Are you looking for some sort of criticism of the "Movement to Impeach George W Bush?"  This article isn't about the merits of impeachment, it's about the movement to impeach.  It's not as though the article is fawning over those who want to impeach Bush, either.  It doesn't describe them as "heroic freedom fighters" or somesuch, it just discusses those who are calling for impeachment and why they are doing so.
 * If you think the article is unbalanced, feel free to balance it out. You might want to discuss any such balancing before you post it, in order to avoid edit wars and bad feelings, but that's up to you.
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "What kind of "balance" are you looking for" see the entire above comments.
 * "It doesn't describe them as "heroic freedom fighters" or somesuch, it just discusses those who are calling for impeachment and why they are doing so.
 * " No one but you till now said it did??
 * "If you think the article is unbalanced, feel free to balance it out" I don't need to I tagged it for other editors to. If I had the info I agree no tag I would have added it. I don't have the info off hand, someone does or knows where and when they do they can add it and tag out the tag. Its how articles work. A person can see whats missing but not know specifically what to put in. If I by happen-stance to find the info in other browsings of the internet or reading I will till then the tag is there to alert other editors what it needs, the talk sections says what and possibly they can help. --Xiahou 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When an above editor says, quite rationally, "If you think the article is unbalanced, feel free to balance it out", your response is "I don't need to I tagged it for other editors to."? This to me is the antithesis of what wikipedia is about - individuals adding pertinent info to a database under their own volition, not being persuaded to add info from a certain POV by tags or other editors. If you think an article needs more info, then add it! Be bold! The tag makes the whole article appear unbalanced, and I think the general concensus on this page is that a lot of effort has been made to lay out the article in an objective and fair way. Not every political article requires a criticism page, but if you think one is needed here then add it. I'm removing the tag again, as it seems unfair and silly for you to tag an article but refuse to remedy the problem that your tag pertains to.--Jackbirdsong 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied quite rationally as well. Just because an editor doesn't have the info to add doesn't mean the tag is no less valid. Using that logic the pov tag would not exist anywhere on wiki. Because saying that means those that add the tag should fix it then and there.
 * "Not every political article requires a criticism page, but if you think one is needed here then add it. I'm removing the tag again, as it seems unfair and silly for you to tag an article but refuse to remedy the problem that your tag pertains to." So if one is acceptable here to add. Then the article would benifit from it. Then if its lacking it then its deserved of a pov tag. Its far from silly. In fact one could say I wonder why you try to hide the fact by removing it? The editors who remove the tag continue to say go ahead and add the info. I don't have it. But till i or someone else does it shows the article is lacking in its point of view. So why do you and the other editor continue to delete a tag stating the article needs something you agree can be put in? I am trying to improve the article. So how is my adding a tag to alert other editors to look at the talk page and to see what needs to be improved that merrited the tag (that editors who keep removing it and calling putting it in silly) in the first place. How do you justify tag usage in direct relation to your personal feelings about wiki? a person who wants to tag has to have the solution handy? I am being bold I am adding a tag. I find it 'silly' it keeps getting removed by editors who agree the section could be added. Now apparently I have to wait a while so know one waves the 3rr card at me. Still going to put it up in a day. The article needs some sort of criticism section. Both editors against the tag this have not dismissed this. So again I ask how is alerting other editors with the tag (the purpose of it) that something is needed while I find the info or someone beats me to it. It just boggles me that the logic for removing the tag is "I" should provide the info. Have you ever placed a cleanup tag, pov, any tag and not fixed whatever the issue is right away then removed the tag? I could play the check your contributions and see. I am not. That would be 'silly' I hope you see what I mean. Straight from the NPOV page "the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner"--Xiahou 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have missed my point. If the article is about the movement to impeach, rather than the merits of the movement, then I don't see what kind of "balance" you're looking for.  Saying "see the above entire comments" isn't really helpful, as I've read your comments through and am still not clear on what you're looking for.
 * I wasn't ordering you to "fix" the article, I was suggesting that if you see it as biased you might want to do something about it beyond simply flagging it. If you choose not to, that's your decision, of course.
 * As for the "freedom fighters" remark, I was using that as an example of what would make the article biased and POV. However, as I pointed out and you did not really address, if the article simply reports on the movement, then I don't see where there can be bias.  Should there be a section entitled "Opposition to Movement to Impeach George W Bush"?
 * Your quote from the NPOV page seems out of place to me. There are competing approaches to the topic mentioned, because different people are advancing different rationales for impeachment.  Are you looking for a discussion of people advancing rationales against impeachment?  That might be a valid section; perhaps you could find some references and write it?
 * * Septegram * Talk * Contributions * 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to draw your attention to a few things - [] WP:NPOVD - Key parts "That an article is in an NPOV dispute does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.


 * Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral — or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side — who cares enough to be making the point — thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with." - Other editors including myself have claimed its pov/bias. Editors who remove the tag admit the section could be added alievating that.


 * "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."


 * I think our discussion here has shown it hasn't.


 * Under the "How can one disagree about NPOV?" heading the last one is very key - "Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms." the alternate view point is not even addressed. Which the the key to the tag being up and trying to add something to flesh the article out to true npov quality status. It shows its side very well no one at least that Ive seen is disputing that, its a current hotbutton issue. There are two sides to this movement those for and part of it. Those against and working against. They are not represented not even a criticism section.--Xiahou 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Either change the article, or leave off the POV tag. No one is stopping you from editing the article. No one can say what you personally desire to remove the POV tag. Your holding the article hostage with revert warring. Want a criticism section? Fine, I'll add one. Anything you else you want? How about actually contributing instead of playing games with rules and nag tags. -- Stbalbach 01:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you guys arguing? He see the article needs change by adding some sort of criticism section. So he tags it mentions what is needed. And you are coming unglued at him saying he's playing games with rules? All I see is someone asking to make the article NPOV? You say he's playing games, but then you just add a criticism header and no content. Sounds like you are playing games. I've been watching this develop. You mention no one can say what you personally desire to remove the tag - That seems rather obvious some sort of critical balance to the article. Which would make it NPOV then the tag should go. A portion of it showing that the movement does have it detractors or those who don't see it as a movement etc etc. Seems obvious. He only said it a half dozen times. Tagging an article for improvement is not holding it hostage? I think the article is very well written I agree with much of it. I also know that it comes across 100% one sided. So I agree with Xiahou that we should tag the article for others to come here and see that something else is needed and that something else is another pov to make it NPOV.--74.38.143.245 06:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is, I don't think it can be done. A "critical balance" would either be hopelessly original research, or contain sources that are non-notable. I've been watching this article for over 2 years and I have yet to see anyone provide decent sources or NPOV material that is "critical" - it's all been political pundentry by non-notable people or original research. This "critical balance" stuff is nothing but a strawman to discredit the article with a pov-tag. BTW if your going to participate in this article, which is highly controversial, please login with a user ID - people are hitting 3RR maximums now and I don't want to start doing IP check's for IP sock puppets. -- Stbalbach 11:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I have some suggestions so please be patient with me as I am new here. First off, there are dead links that need replacement, I noted this a few days ago but do to the tensions here I did not doing anything with them in hopes someone who has been working this article would update them.  Second, POV is an issue, even with me which is another reason I am being very careful here.  How about adding into the context the notable republicans that are standing by Bush, McCain comes to immediate mind but I know there are others, which is probably why no impeachment has even taken place.  You can also think of adding in the huge sums of money being spent to non-bid contractors, which is another area of dispute and call for impeachments of many in office right now.  This is just a few ideas off the top of my head, it's early. :)  Also, with the disputes that have been on going in the past, I noticed the articles has been voted to keep three times, how would I best catch up to understand what has been talked about and done?  I don't want to have to spend days of reading arguments so any suggestion about what parts of the archives would catch me up so that maybe I can help with another view to help the article would be appreciated.  Lastly, the tag up or down really doesn't matter to me, I caught interest in the article without the tag and felt even then that the article needs balance which should be easy to do.  There are plenty of people that are notable that have spoken out on the news, in congress and so forth to give primary and secondary sources.  Maybe if some focus is applied in this direction for awhile, boy I hope that all I have said hasn't already been said before, it will take the article to a balance satisfactory to at least most who are interested.  I obviously need to go back and see what has been discussed in the past so I am not talking in the blind.  If the time comes and I want to change anything, I always take it to the talk pages first.  I only do spelling and other checks like that to the article without discussion first.  I hope I am welcomed to join in. --Crohnie 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How would doing the opposite of the article be hopeless original research? 2 years you don't own the article. I have been reading Wikipedia.com for quite few months and just started editing but I know no one owns the articles. Just because someone has not provided NPOV based information to better make the article NPOV doesn't make the current article anyless POV than it is. Strawman arguments to discredit the article? Are you not reading what others wrote. You currently have 3 editors right now and claming others in the past saying its a POV article. Myself and Crohnie have said nothing about disagreeing with the content of the article. Heck I agree with it, it's the fact its hopelessly biased. So your defense is we are trying to discredit it? Are you kidding me? I want it to be credible by showing others are against it, but the movement is there. Not some one sided article that has an editor who disallows any form of disagreement to protect it from possible challenge when all I want to do along with others is show both sides. As far as 3RR maximums I just read about them I don't know what you are getting at with this but this is only my second talk and going to be in a minute my 2nd article entry so I don't know what you are referring to. Sockpuppet? I just started editing. I may get an account since I apparently like to edit. Hard for me to sockpuppet when I just started Ive only edited here and on Thunderstorms --74.38.143.245 12:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I set up an account User:Fujita (after my favortie tornado researcher) so now you will at least listen to my points rather than worry about User name status. Formally - 74.38.143.245 --Fujita 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For someone who "just started editing here" you sure seem to be pretty sophisticated in your knowledge of how wikipedia operates. There are a couple vocal minority partisans who keep hacking away at this article under different and various names and IPs and never achieve anything or add anything constructive or help in any way. There is nothing wrong with this article, currently the POV tag is being abused for partisan reasons. This article has become a giant target for a couple Republican and Bush supporters, yet they don't realize this article is doing them a great favor, by keeping this material out of dozens of other articles across Wikipedia. When important and powerful politicians call for the Impeachment of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES it is more than notable enough for Wikipedia, no matter who the President is. -- Stbalbach 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * (WP:AGF). I think an NPOV tag is appropriate.  However, I also think a discussion of what the problem is needs to accompany it on the talk page.  I do not think a solution HAS to be proposed, nor do I think that the person putting the tag on must correct the article.  But he or she must describe the problem in sufficient detail so that the article can be fixed.
 * And therein lies the problem. This article details something that does not exist.  There is no movement to impeach President Bush.  Hence there cannot be any real organized counterpoint.  (For example, if I created a page that described how various random kooks accused the Clintons of murder, would the fact that there are such people that the Clinton's ignored, mean that it was an NPOV article when nothing substantive and attributable was presented in the article in a countering viewpoint?)  Just by itself, that alone is the reason why this article is POV and why it should not exist. It is simply a bad article, an example of a bad article, and probably cannot be fixed. --Blue Tie 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems there is no concensus. You have more than a few editors now. So far no one has disagreed outwardly untill Blue Tie and he brings up good points as well. How can you say trying to make the article NPOV is some kind of political game- I thought this was a goal of all ariticles on Wikipedia?. Bringing partisan politics into a debate on if an article needs some sort of section that makes it NPOV is very partisan itself. Sure I've used wiki to edit for a short time. I am an amaetur meterologist I just started editing after seeing citation needed tags in articles and felt it should be helped. So I did. I stumbled on this article and agreed with it. I also realized We were only seeing one side of it. I had never seen a political article without something from the other side mentioned. I read the talk pages and saw what was going on. I don't agree at all that its partisan politics its not asking to take away from what is already said it should be tagged so we can get something said from the other side to have a truly complete and NPOV article. Why are you arguing about the issue of impeachment itself? I don't understand. It hasn't been about this?--Fujita 15:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the article boarders on WP:NOT, and so justifies a POV tag until the problems can be addressed. There is a great deal of discussion about impeaching Bush, even organized campaigns. However, this article is more a dumping ground of anything about impeaching Bush. The only way that I can see to make this article encyclopedic is to rely almost entirely on reliable, nonpartisan, secondary sources, especially to determine proper WP:WEIGHT of the various topics, issues, individuals, campaigns, etc. --Ronz 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please list, specifically, which sentence, words and sources in the article are "SOAP". Just saying its SOAP without actionable items makes it impossible to address, and thus in effect a permanent POV tag, which is an abuse of the purpose of the tag. -- Stbalbach 19:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. I'm here to help, and I'll help as I see fit and have time.
 * How about we all start listing, specifically, which sections actually meet WP:NPOV by being properly sourced with reliable, nonpartisan, secondary sources such that those sections are fairly balanced and not giving undue weight to any topic? --Ronz 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stbalbach - "I don't want to start doing IP check's for IP sock puppets" this is Xiahou not logged in. Please don't play games stick to the issue. More editors are coming on board saying the article is pov big time. I was nice but to accuse a new guy of being a sock. That's low. Now I am going to log in do some other stuff. Then I will reply back on here to catch up on current debate. --63.163.213.245 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Xiahou logged in now. I'll get back to this later just trying to show Mr. IP check that its quite possible and happening that others don't feel the same way he does without being sockpuppets. --Xiahou 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am just going to quote Ronz he nails it good - I don't have to solve the problem, only give convincing justification for the existance of it. I've also suggested how to address the problem. Sorry you're unhappy with my responses. Basically, all I'm doing is trying to apply WP:NPOV to the article.  I'm not asking you to prove or disprove anything, so your arguments about fallacies are irrelevant. I think the second sentence makes a good example of what's wrong with the article: "...that include both Democrats and Republicans which indicate a degree of public support for the impeachment of President Bush." This appears to violate WP:NOT, WP:WEASEL, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV as written. --Ronz 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

---That says it pretty good --Xiahou 02:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

An IP Check has been done, and Xiahou and Fujita are the same person - sock puppets. This of course means more of the anon IPs that have been editing here recently are probably also sock puppets. See User_talk:Jpgordon for verification. Xiahou says he's on an "extended break" but just as likely using another account and still active. -- Stbalbach 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Say what you want the IP check there didn't pan out. Two different users, discussed with an admin through emails by other party and its a done deal not the same never was never will be just wanted to clear the air on this. On a break due to busy season at work. (which is ending soon) Have a few hours to kill for once tonight and cleaning up some old business. Ironically Stbalbach is gone. And the ridiculous debate about the tag is done and gone as well. --Xiahou 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Article On Wrong Track
This article should be about about movement to impeach bush, and less about the impeachment process. The whole article seems to avoid the actual subject and describe the people involved, outdated polls, the process and not the actual actions of what happened in the movement. Also, the entire article seems highly disorganized and hard to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.255.107 (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article length
Here are some numbers to consider:
 * Impeachment of Bill Clinton: 19 KB
 * Presidency of George W. Bush: 32 KB
 * Bush v. Gore: 33 KB
 * United States presidential election, 2000: 40 KB
 * George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States: 49 KB
 * Criticism of George W. Bush: 56 KB
 * United States presidential election, 2004: 73 KB
 * George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States: 82 KB
 * George W. Bush: 115 KB
 * Movement to impeach George W. Bush: 137 KB

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 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 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 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 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 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)


 * Or maybe it's a sign that our system is broken. Coolgamer (talk) 22:34, 15 July 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)


 * I'm sorry, but I have to ask: did you even look at what this article was before cleanup was initiated? Nearly half of it consisted of a hodge-podge list of individuals and small organizations (plus a subsection consisting only of musicians) which had at some point voiced support for impeachment. The article content which was removed was not an unbiased critique as you suggest, but the result of poor maintenance and supervision of an article which by its very nature is certain to attract the attention of partisan elements.
 * Wikipedia is about balance, and by its very nature, nobody is disallowed from editing so long as they do so responsibly. As I stated above, the topic is notable enough to deserve its own article, and it would be wrong for it to "disappear completely" as you say Republicans would have it. However, one must keep in mind that the door swings both ways: when an article devolves into a disorganized and ceaselessly-growing cluster of sour grapes, the encyclopedia is no better off for it. My edits were not motivated by partisanship, but an attempt to clean up a very poorly constructed article which has been nominated for deletion numerous times.
 * Without proper maintenance, this article has been time and again proven to grow like a weed, building off of the lack of a long-term historical perspective and disregard for what information is notable which is frequently displayed by editors lacking in either restraint or experience. This particular article is meant to describe a political movement which has been amorphous at best, not to outline a case for impeachment. If it is such critiques that you seek, remember that Google is your friend. There is certainly no shortage of them to be found elsewhere on the internet. ~ S0CO</b> ( talk 05:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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. ~ <b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 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. ~ <b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 17:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to object, trimming is absolutely unwarranred. Will expand on this in the comming days. Nomen Nescio <i style="color:blue; font-size:smaller;">Gnothi seauton</i> 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. ~ <b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 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)
 * Yes, if one thinks that the article is not neutral, then one could add some information to balance the article. Perhaps you could start with the text of the Bill to Impeach the President which was read in The House of Representatives earlier today?  Maybe compare and contrast it with the several Bills to Impeach the Vice President?  The more information we have, the better the encyclopedia is.  67.49.8.228 (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mention can be made, but "compare and contrast" without third-party RS would constitute original research. The big problem with this article isn't that it's lacking information, it's that there is far too much information here which wasn't notable enough to be included in the first place. Often shorter is better. If it can be said in a sentence instead of a paragraph, or is already described at length in a parent article to which a link can be provided, then there is no need to give an extensive description here. ~ <b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 05:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "compare and contrast" without third-party RS would constitute original research
 * Bullshit. My opinion on the matter is at variance with your opinion  At worst it might be synthesis and then only if unwarranted conclusions are drawn.  Don't try to pretend that Wikipedia policy provides any support for butchering selected portions from the article. It does NOT. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * * follows synthesis link*
 * * looks at top of page*
 * Huh.
 * Anyway, contrary to your position, Wikipedia policy clearly states that "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas" are not allowed, especially if it is in the form of analysis, which this "compare and contrast" proposition certainly is. The sections which were "butchered" were in great need of it; I do believe I provided a link to show the state in which this article was when cleanup began, along with appropriate links to policy which justified my actions. You are free to review the history of my edits to the article if you so wish, and to tell me if I violated policy through my actions. In any case, I have refrained from aggressive language and would ask you do the same. It's best for everyone if this discussion remains civil, thank you very much. ~ <b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 06:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First I apologise for my rude comment above. I also should thank you for your diligent efforts on this article, thank you. However I disagree that it is WP:OR OR WP:SYNTH to compare differing positions regarding impeachment. It would be synthesis to say that "A says x and B says y so z."  It isn't synthesis to state "A says x but B says not x" or "A says y but B says z", in establishing the existence of a controversy. It seems plain from the evidence that a significant number of people hold contrary opinions regarding: the evidence for; the possibility of; the outcome of; the ramifications of; the consequences of; and the justification for, impeachment of a number of high-ranking elected officials, for high crimes and misdemeanors which may or may not have been committed by said parties, within the time period of 2000-2008.  There are enough people on both ends of the controversy that I think the term 'significant minority viewpoint' could be readily applied to both camps.  I'm not going to have an argument with you, if possible I would prefer to work collaboratively.  67.49.8.228 (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Apology accepted. ~ <b style="color:black;">S0CO</b> ( talk 07:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)