Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush

what prompted me to try and decrease the font size of the templates?
was it greed? no. malice? no. Vandalism? no. POV pushing? no. Dreams of global domination? no, was it the fact that when I loaded the thing for the first time I literally could not see one word of text from the body of article at all without scrolling 2/3rds of the page length down to find the text under a sea of templates? could very well be--205.188.116.138 06:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * let me tell you, the next wave of my attack is even more sinister, I plan to change the font color of the NPOV template from Bagé to off-white, MUHUAH, oh the humanity--205.188.116.138 07:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page history
Due to a "page move" archive (rather than via "cut & paste") which was done tonight by Prometheuspan, the very informative talk page history for this article has been obscured. You can see the full history here: Talk:Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush/Archive 3. Merecat 07:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * stop talking in message boxes, please, it looks really silly, and forces me to respond to you in turn, not to mention, I was bagé, and you were orange, you're just going to confuse people if you keep switching colors ):--205.188.116.138 07:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you are right, let's quit the boxes on this page. Merecat 08:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just when I was starting to like orange--205.188.116.138 08:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

205, if you are not a vandal, I apologize for saying that. All those IP edits were really something and got me thinking vandal (sorry). Let's let the AfD proceed and see what the outcome is, ok? Merecat 08:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

from thewolfstar
Enough! The bickering in this room is sufficient to cause permanent hearing loss. Are we debating about the article here, or we passionately attacking each other?

I read most of the article just now and I am impressed. This is a GREAT article! Well thought out in the right ways, well written, loaded with fact and referenced up the kazoo. I am going to vote don't delete. This article rocks! thanks for writing it. '''ps Don't use this as an excuse to continue harassing Merecat, though. You are pushing him over the edge in other edit wars.' Maggie''thewolfstar 09:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yikes! Maggie, don't you know that all mentorees are supposed be robotic drones of the mentor? Oh well, I gues my Svengali powers have failed me again. That said, my biggesst gripe with this article is that the enormous number of links make this a WP:NOT violation. Maggie, this will be our 1st dialog as peers as you are now graduated from my mentorship (though are still fully welcome at my talk page), so I am highly interested in what you think about WP:NOT in regards to this article. Please talk on this page here for this topic. Merecat 10:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maggie, I like to compliment you on making an objective observation without letting your personal feelings hinder you. Feel free to offer suggestions for improving the article. As to Merecat, I have no problem with him and am not harassing him. As you said, the article is well-sourced, so when Merecat started deleting sourced material I objected to that. That is all. When all editors simply discuss major edits, to what evidently is a controversial article, much irritation can be avoided.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 11:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Nescio, as evidenced by supportive comments I have received from the preponderance of the editors who commented at the RfC against me regarding this article (Requests for comment/Merecat), there is only weak community support for your assertion that "started deleting sourced material" outside of reasonable wiki standards. In fact, it can often be reasonsable to delete material - sourced or not - for various editorial reasons. Regarding any deletions I've made at this article of your "sourced material", I am certain that I was diligent in citing my reasons in detailed Edit Summaries and I am also certain that to the degree and extent you and I have discussed edits on talk, you have virtually never yielded on anything. Suffice it to say, a review of the comments at the RfC makes clear that there is a considerable number of editors who support me instead of you regarding the editing disagreements here. And frankly, if we were to add up the comments on that page as a vote, at this point, you would have less support than I do. What all this means is that you have done a lot of complaining, but have made very little progress towards reaching consensus. Until you become more flexible in your thinking and dialog here, I don't see how your complaints about other editors of this article will be easily solved - and I think the RfC which you started supports that view. Perhaps you should ponder some of the comments offered there and a re-evaluate your approach on this article. Merecat 15:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Any comment based upon political in stead of factual analysis I do not take serious. Many comments on the RFC are from people I never heard of, and never took part in any discussion. Suffice it to say that your deletion of Katrina as reason to impeach more than adequately shows your deleting out of suppressing information and not because of valid reasons.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 16:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Mirror of Article
There's really no point in "mirroring" the article on its own talk page. If it's deleted, the talk page is too, so nothing whatsoever is accomplished. Still... material moved to: /Mirror


 * Prometheuspan 19:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree immensely. I think that creating a mirror as a form of discussion would be a tool useful to getting things done instead of bickering. I hope that wikipedians will think carefully about this suggestion, because i know for a fact as a systems theorist that it has enormous merit. I hope that my example of how such a mirror would be used and how it would be useful is not taken as what the process would look like. I hope that you will reverse your action after contemplation.


 * In theory yes, a meta-discussion over the article would be nice, but there's no neat way to do it in wiki. All you'll have is a snapshot of one version of the article, hacked up with many people's comments and extremely difficult to follow. --Mmx1 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, Prometheuspan seems to be missing a really fundamental point: this article is under AfD. If it is deleted, so is the talk page.  Even if a temporary fork were a good idea (I've seen them tried, and they rarely help anything), the place to put it where it wouldn't get deleted would probably be under your own user page.  In any case, I am pretty sure that if the AfD decides on "delete", editors will have privately copied the useful content to allow merging the good parts back into other appropriate articles.  LotLE × talk  19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article can still continue in userspace, including the talk page. -- noosph e re 20:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What to do post-AfD?
The whole AfD process has been handled exceptionally poorly on all sides. Something or another will be done by some closing admin, but I think we should think about how to move forward after that. I would note:


 * 1) This article contains a considerable amount of encyclopedic material; and editors have done considerable work assembling that information.
 * 2) It is hard to find a title and tone for this article which is factual rather than advocacy.
 * 3) Both this article and Movement to impeach George W. Bush are quite long individually, and would be even longer combined.

The voters on the AfD seem to react to these facts in several different ways. Well, it seems clear to me that a pretty large number of "Delete" voters have been recruited informally, and they are basically voting on the unrelated counter-advocacy of the opinion "GWB should not be impeached." That's just wrong (as a stance for WP articles; not judging the underlying opinion); but so would be the symmetrical advocacy of the opinion "GWB should be impeached."

Leaving aside the purely partisan positions, a lot of AfD voters are voting "merge" and/or "delete" on the basis that this article title is editorial (and perhaps that it opens a slippery slope to other "Arguments for X" articles). I have a certain sympathy there in that I really, really don't want advocacy articles. On the other hand, "merge" seems equally wrong to me since it so desperately violates WP:SIZE.

I believe that a compromise to this morass might be a different sort of refactoring of the parent "Movement" article. There are good citations and good descriptions in this article, but perhaps it's grouped wrong. Maybe creating several children like Movement to impeach George W. Bush (War Powers Act) would be less prone to perceptions of advocacy; such a child could incorporate material from both this article and from the parent (i.e. both the advocates and their rationales). Moreover, if there were a half dozen such children, the WP:SIZE concerns could be better addressed overall, the parent and each child remaining under the recommended 32k.

17:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC) I think a very large number of vfd voters have been recruited informally. However, I am also enough of a logician to appreciate the very few cogent arguments that are presented which make a person like myself think about some issues and problems. Some of the VFD merge votes or transwiki votes seem to be at the very least cogent and well grounded in something other than bias. I wouldn't want to raise the hackles of those voting in good faith by characterizing the entire process too generally.

The article is a factual article on a noteworthy topic. The doorway that the article used to become noteworthy is a special case exemption, and that should be strongly noted. If these other "advocacy" groups get millions of people together to advocate for something, then, even if it is insane, or rediculous, the number of persons involved in the effort will make it a noteworthy event. Our task here is in some ways to sort what is encylopedic about that movement from what is not. However, as reporters of a factual movement upon their factual rationales, it isn't up to us to decide which rationales should be included or excluded. It is our responsibility to show what the rationales are, to show whether or not there is a strong legal foundation for those rationales, and to provide also a mpov defense echo.

I am not opposed, in theory, to a refactoring of several articles such that the sum total of the information is kept. My suspicion is that seperating the assorted rationales would only lead to them being individually isolated. Further, then each of the rationales seperately would become a pov warrior match. Keeping only one "rationales to impeach" article keeps the noise confined to that article. Lastly, I am sure that the opposition to impechment would attempt to isolate each of those rationales from each other. Some of these rationales ARE weak enough that by themselves they would only carry perhaps 3/4 of the weight to probably needed to impeach. It is AS a SET that they aquire such a startling overall picture of an admin that has slipped into fascism. And yes, I did say that. The FACTS bear that out. But only a collective look, at all of the facts, bears that out. Collectively, these rationales for impeachment give good grounds not only for impeachment, but for identifying the current administration as a Fascist system using political science and cogent logic. The FACTS speak very loudly. Seperated from each other into closets, the facts might suddenly seem very shallow. In order for such a refactoring to be fair, the assorted rationales would have to each get their own article, and each article would have to be well linked both to the "movement to impeach" article AND each other. Again, i think that this is actually more trouble than people realize. If done fairly, it actually empoweres the argument and the rationales. I think that some of these votes currently calling for the article to be spliced up might rethink it if it wasn't being spliced up for the purpose of emasculation, but instead for the purpose of bearing out each argument or rationale fully. 209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I resent having the delete votes on the AfD denigrated as voting on the counter-advocacy of the political opinion with no indication that an equal proportion of the keep votes are likely being voted on the advocacy for the opinion represented in the article. Also, despite your and many other people's suggestion to the contrary, I did read the article before voting, and although I found some information that deserves to be kept (thus my vote to merge), I mostly found the article to be an unencyclopedic list of everything that anti-Bush people with a POV to push could think of to list.  I think there are perhaps two or three issues on the list that should be merged into the Movement to impeach George W. Bush article and the rest are simply not impeachment-level issues.  I think the relatively small amount of relevant WP:NPOV material from this article can be merged to the "Movement" article, which itself could use some editing to remove the advocacy from the article.


 * I guess it doesn't surprise me that the POV pushers (not implying that Lulu is in that group) will only see those voting to delete or merge in the AfD as having no basis other than a political motivation, while those voting to keep are voting on purely encyclopedic reasons. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And vice-versa. -- noosph e re 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your vote in good faith to merge. I disagree, but i won't fault you for it. I really don't care whose side or which side or wether or not both sides are conducting a bad VFD. The entire state of affairs demonstrates to me a few things, I'd like to mention them. 1. There IS considerable vote stacking. 2. There IS considerbale personal attacks and ad hominems; BOTH VFDs were in fact opened with an Attack. 3. Wikipedias "No personal attack" policy is toothless in the face of the problem that most Republicans can't communicate without making attacks, and nobody seems to take the rule seriously, or to even know what a personal attack is when they see one. 4. The VFD policy is itself deeply flawed. Votes should be limited to participants in the process, people working on the article or working on the discussion page. VFD should be considered in cases like these only after a legitamate attempt to make a discussion happen have failed. The reverse was true; Merecat has only been gaming the system, lying, deleting anything merecat didn't like, and using psychological warfare. The request for comment filed by Nescio was as good as popping ones head out a hole in "Whack a mole." He got no help, he got no serious answer, attacks continued, cheating continued, and when it became apparent that they couldn't win by cheating alone, they filed a bad faith VFD. The VFD should have been closed and kept closed until and unless somebody Republican and running on more than pov neurons could get in here and make an effort for compromise. 209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Doug, I noticed you didn't vote delete, but merge; and I certainly see your vote as well considered, not "political" advocacy. Just reading through the actual votes on the latest AfD round, the opinions expressed by maybe 1/3 of the "delete" votes look to me like they're partisan rather than judgements about encyclopedic quality.  I don't see any keep votes that feel the same way to me.  But that leaves about 2/3 of the "delete" votes where I don't think the editors are being partisan, even though I disagree moderately about the salvageability of this article (i.e. making sure it's NPOV).


 * I don't think the question should be whether you or I think something might be an "impeachment-level issue". If some prominent person outside of WP claims something is a "rationale for impeachment", that seems notable, even if I disagree with their judgement.  "Prominent", presumably means someone like a congresscritter, or former AG John Dean, or maybe a nationally syndicated journalist... but not just some left-winger with a personal blog (the blogger might well be more correct than the congresscritter; but the question is notability).


 * Well, in any case I certainly don't think only partisan motivation drives "delete" votes. But I still find the WP:SIZE issue rather pressing here.  A 100k article is simply far too long.  So "merge" doesn't feel like quite the right answer to me.  Maybe "merge-then-split-differently".  LotLE × talk  19:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Indeed, the question isn't for us to decide which issues are prominent, which are impeachment level issues, etc. We are reporting on a factual movement and that movements rationales. Not Wikipedias rationales given wikipedias lens of biases. Not by wikipedias filter, where in the name of neutrality the facts are emasculated. This isn't up to people like you to decide which rationales are worthy or which ones fit. The question for the defense is only what their defense is for each of these rationales. There will be no impeachment of a given rationale from the discussion. Its not up to us to decide. We aren't here to decide which facts are the important ones, we are only here to convey the important facts that have due weight. 209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how you don't see advocacy in any of the keep votes. As to the size, I think the "movement" article has a fair amount of advocacy cruft that can be refactored out of the article to reduce the size, and as I say above, I think a lot of the content from this article simply needs to go away and the remaining portion merged. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, I was editconflicted out of my comment...no biggie...definitely I say merge and resplit those points that are similar and that should do. The whole rationales title just bugs me...sounds way too partisan.--MONGO 19:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree that "Rationales" is tin-eared as a Wikpedia article title. I'm not quite sure what the right one would be... I guess what I suggest above: make explicit children of the "Movement" article that indicates the specific discussion topic (War Powers, Katrina, etc).  I suppose we need to wait for the AfD to run its process before mucking with anything.  None of the possible votes seem quite right to me: merge suffers WP:SIZE; delete throws out some salvageable parts; keep under-emphasizes the POV issues.  LotLE × talk  02:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks lulu for being the first person involved in this conversation that seems reliably level headed enough to try to talk with. I agree that the article is a serious affront and problem for the pov issues. However, the special case exemption of "Noteworthy movement" does open that box. We can note its a pandoras box, and that all kinds of things fly out of that box, including potentially bad precedent. However, setting precedent isn't a cogent reason to do anything. I think it is a cogent reason to talk about this, and to be clear that the last thing we want to accomplish here is setting a percedent. "Keep underemphasizes" some votes for keep might. Notice my vote for keep included a disclaimer. There are huge pov issues raised here. They will have to be dealt with sooner or later, and nothing in the weight of those issues has made a cogent argument to my mind that deletion or merge are reasonable alternatives. Merge with special conditions may be a cogent solution, but that would depend upon very specific merge criteria. The idea of making a page per rationale is a great one, but it has its own set of problems too. As I spoke of above. The biggest one being that now you have a dozen pov flame war bait articles instead of just one. However, it does solve a large number of problems to enact such a solution. The editorial flavor of the articles title, and its "listyness" are two of these. My concerns are that if such a solution were enacted, the defense of Bush side would use as opportunity to emasculate the entire argument to impeach. And, some of these rationales admittedly are much weaker than others. Hiving them out like that opens each one to its own seperate round of attacks of the kind that are the current run of the mill. "That isn't a legal rationale to impeach", or "No lawyers think that is a rationale to impeach" and etc. The NSA spying issue is a great example. The fact is, this is grounds to impeach and it is basically the same grounds that got Nixon. There are laws against what the Bush admin did, and it broke them. More importantly, and, perhaps the best reason why its worthy to impeach over, is that the admin lied about it to the American public, and that the republican defense network continues to use psychological warfare and rhetoric to defend the practice, even after the admin has been caught red handed breaking laws and lying about it. In this case, the more impeachable defense is actually the last issue; psychological warfare against the people. Lies and more lies of the admin to cover its tracks. The point of this digression is, Do we have to go through that for each of the rationales? Do we have to beat this out here on wikipedia? No. We can just report the facts and let the facts say what the facts say instead of trying to censor the facts to suit an agenda.

Making a dozen articles for each of the rationales seems to me to be inviting a situation where now we have to bother to rehash the argument. It sets wikipedia up for a longer game of pov warfare. If we just finish this article, and then use it as the prime example for why we need some new rules, we can both finish the article and be done with it, and learn from the situation, and possibly create a situation where future political articles can actually have a resonable process.

Again, I am not in theory opposed to making 12 new articles or merging information to existing articles. As long as the information is kept intact and not dilluted, and so long as the interelative relevence of each rationale to the others is not lost. I simply anticipate however that this would actually be more stress for Wikipedia, not less. 209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Lulu makes some great points. I especially like the idea of dividing this article up. Let me preface this by saying some of you remember me from other pages in which you assume I am a supporter of this President. I am a Conservative, Bush is not. He spends like a drunken sailor, fails to protect the borders, expands NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. (but I digress). I would welcome investigations into some of his alleged mis-doings. However, this article is not encyclopedic in the least. It contains encyclopedic content, but that alone doesn't make it encyclopedic. The whole article is based on a few sources put forth by certain people (all far-left liberals, by the way...nothing about the "true-blue" conservative reasons for possible impeachment) that are all strung together and referenced repeatedly throughout the entire article under each "rationale".


 * I wouldn't exactly call John Dean a "far-left liberal", but most of the rest are on the left of the USAian political spectrum. Well... I also have taken personal issue with Francis Boyle (I'm on a maiing list he also participates in) for what strike me as rather right-wing anti-pornography ideas, but that's a very different question than his stridently anti-interventionist ideas on US foreign policy (about which I pretty much agree, though it's also not really a left-wing idea as such).  LotLE × talk  04:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

For example, how about an article on John Bonfaz's book (Warrior King) and describe his arguments there. Similarly, separate articles entitled something like "John Conyer's reason for wanting the President impeached" (I know title needs work, but you all get the idea); "Francis Boyle's argument for impeaching the Bush"; We already have an article on the Plame Affair, this is all repeating info available elsewhere, and etc, etc. Each argument can be explained and explored in it's own article and the list of politicians, commentators, etc that support that particular argument can be sourced in that article.

It would make for shorter, better organized and more easily readable articles that offer less opportunity for POV soapboxing. Can we at least discuss this?--WilliamThweatt 02:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) I too was surprised by the lack of several different rationales for impeachment offered by the right. However, i think the allegation that all of these come from the far left is fallacious. 209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm gratified by WilliamThweatt's sympathy with my idea for refactoring. I think the idea of assigning a personal name to the refactored children isn't as good as assigning a thematic idea.  Francis Boyle might make certain arguments, but insofar as other notable figures make the same arguments as Boyle, it would seem to make sense to group them together.  In general, there are something close to 100k bytes in these two articles.  Somehow shaping that into one main article ("Movement ...") and, say, four children that elaborated particular lines of notable advocacy (advocacy by public figures, of course, not by Wikipedia itself) would make very nicely sized 20k chunks.  LotLE × talk  04:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) I agree with the idea of trying to make broad umbrellas. The Iraq war impeachment rationales actually number 3; 1. That the legal permission to go to war was not granted by congress, 2, that the war was sold to the public on false allegations, 3, that the war was mishandled so badly and so sloppilly and with such greed driven interests that now we have a mess nobody can fix. All three of those rationales fit under the larger "rationales to impeach Bush relative to Iraq War". Other umbrellas could keep this from branching into a dozen articles and keep it down to five or six. This seems much better. 209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some observations:
 * To create seperate articles for every proponent of impeachment seems odd to me. While there is a clear overlap between proponents this would result in multiple articles saying the same thing.
 * As to this being a left-wing soapbox. This ignores the fact that almost every person suggesting impeachment is a legal expert, and uses legal arguments. Second, it is impossible to have what is inhertently a political process, without political arguments. Too dismiss them as not valid, ignores the fact that impeachment ipso facto is a political process. Again, I have asked for this repeatedly, feel free to include rebuttal from another political perspective. The fact that nobody wants to improve the NPOV, but in stead argues for deletions (three times!), only proves that this is more than simply a POV problem.
 * Regarding POV, if we were to delete all articles with opinion or POV, there would soon be a drastic decline in the number of articles.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 11:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Nomen, i don't think anybody is proposing an article per proponent. I think they are proposiing articles per large umbrella topics. I'd like to point out that from the perspective of making the strong case against Bush, This is GOOD for us. Perhaps a pain, but more or less good. Of course, it depends on HOW it is implemented also. It could be bad for us if the implementation functions to emasculate the argument. However, with me around, thats not likely to happen. 209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nomen, I sympathize with your frustration - it's a lot easier to get people like me to call this article a POV fork than it is to get us to come in and write the other half of the article. (I, for example, am far too busy as a result of my recent obsession with catalogueing vampire fiction.  ;-P  )


 * However, that doesn't change the fact that this article is, as it stands, a POV fork. (It doesn't particularly matter in this regard that many of your sources are lawyers -- if I made an article titled "reasons why scientists believe in intelligent design" or "reasons to be sceptical of global warming", it would be a POV fork even if I argued that every statement was sourced to "a scientist."


 * You're a talented editor - why don't you gather up the legal arguments on the other side of the dispute and work them into the article so that it shows both POVs? Alternately, maybe you could recruit someone you respect to do it - is there a Project:US law or something around here?  TheronJ 14:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) There are a few good cogent reasons to have a pov fork. Most pov forks are bad. The alternative that you seem to be missing here is that "George Bush" the article ought not to be spammed with rationales for impeachment. CAll me a vicious, left leaning extremist moderate, but I simultaneously believe that we should impeach, AND that we should keep that issue off of the encyclopedias entry for THE PRESIDENT. 209.129.49.65 20:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NN, you said: this is more than simply a POV problem. I don't know that you have ever accepted the criticism of the article as original research. Going back to the example i keep using, the Geneva Conventions section, if it were written as:
 * Veterans for Peace has called for impeachment based on the detainment and alleged abuses of prisoners by the administration during the WOT. The Conyers report called for further investigation as to whether this constitutes an impeachable offence and cited reports by the International Committee for the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch. (summarize ICRC and HRW arguments).


 * then i would not be able to claim the section is OR. All the arguments of the section would be directly connected impeachment. As the section stands now, Joanne Mariner and ABA are mentioned, but i believe they both call the detainment illegal and do not mention impeachment. The claim that the Geneva Convention requires a mandatory review by a "competent tribunal" for the detainees in question needs to be connected to either the ICRC or HRW. I would guess that both organizations made this argument, but the article needs to be clear as to who and also how it is connected to impeachment.
 * If there were a similar set of critera that editors could agree on for each of the sections then i think the claims of POV and OR would go away. I sympathise with your position that other editors are not helping out and trying to fix the problems they see, you and i would probably both agree as to why it has been so difficult to edit this particular article. EricR 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying certain problems. Regarding the POV, I can only say that using an AfD to rectify that is entirely inappropriate. Maybe the impression is otherwise but I am more than willing to include any rebuttal of the allegations. My being stubborn is related to the wanton deletion of sourced material. Indeed, it is frustrating to see nobody clearing up the POV-problems and then using these POV-problems to support a delete on the AfD. A self-fulfilling prophecy if ever I saw one. Although I could look for the rebuttal myself, this would only be used to support the already used allegation of me owning the article. Other editors need to step in and address these problems, in stead of promoting deletion of what evidently is a controversial topic.

As to OR, the article presents certain allegations and then uses notable persons to explain that such and such is an impeachable offense. To respond to the GC, first it is explained that the administration is violating the law. This is not equal to an impeachable offense per se. After establishing the legal parameters, it is suggested (I think not necessarily by the same people) that these transgressions rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Why is that OR? If people go to a doctor and he makes certain observations, and then another doctor makes further comments based on the previous one, does this become invalid? Do you think that only if the entire explanation about possible diseases and therapy is made by ONE doctor it is acceptable? Nomen Nescio 15:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would mostly agree with the points you raise concerning POV, and would also point out that there was hardly any chance to work on those issues between the 1st and 2nd AfD's. However, if i understand things correctly POV problems are considered in a slightly different light when the text is forked off of a main article.
 * As to OR, we shouldn't be playing doctor. Lots of people are describing symptoms–but only a few are prescribing this medicine. Doctors see the symptoms and find the cure–while snake oil peddlers start with the cure and look for the symptoms. If the proponents of impeachment accurate in describing their reasoning then the wiki article should try to be also. A strict adherence to the no original research policy keeps us from misrepresenting their arguments. EricR 17:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

=A Suggestion: Warrantless Surveillance Controversy= I note that you could read the entire section on the warrantless surveillance controversy and still have no idea who has proposed that the President be impeached as a result of that controversy. Instead, there's three or four paragraphs that discuss whether warrantless surveillance is legal, a subject which is covered in more detail in the main article on that subject.

My suggestion to improve that section would be: 1) As the very first sentence of that subsection, identify who, if anyone, has called for the President to be impeached on that ground and where they have done it.

2) If any legal commentators have opposed impeachment on that ground, include it as the second sentence.

3) I suspect this will be more controversial, but I would also recommend moving any legal analysis that doesn't directly address impeachment into the main article on warrantless surviellance -- people who want to know if it's legal can click on the link.

4) If there is any non-OR information on how probable additional proceedings towards impeachment are on this ground, that information can replace the legal analysis.

As I said, #3 might be controversial, but I think implementing #1 and #2 would be a significant improvement, both for this sub-topic and the others. (I can't do it myself, because I have no idea who has called for impeachment based on the warrantless surveillance controversy.) Thanks, TheronJ 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning point #3, how strictly would you apply the "directly address impeachment" part? For instance: Holtzman, in The Nation article, mentions the Congressional Research Service analysis re: FISA. Would it then be appropriate to summarize this analysis in the article? My feeling is that it would be best to quote Holtzman quoting the CRC: the Supreme Court has never upheld the President's right to do this in the area of wiretapping, nor has it ever granted the President a "monopoly over war-powers" but further explanation may be required in some cases.
 * I also note that the section connects Conyers and Boyle to impeachment re: FISA, but the cited documents don't seem to support this. The Conyers report has a brief mention of FISA–very weak justification for including his name in the section, and Boyle's draft resolution (footnote #10) doesn't metion the FISA controversy at all. EricR 16:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize there was a support sentence in there. I will reorganize the topic as I discussed (without deleting anything) - let me know what you all think.  TheronJ 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * deleted Conyers and cite, plus Boyle cite from section. EricR 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)