Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationale to impeach George W. Bush

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Renaming may be a good idea though. Mailer Diablo 16:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

=[[Rationale to impeach George W. Bush]]=

Agit-prop masquerading as an encyclopadia article. God knows I am no fan of the smirking chimp, but I can't see how this can be defended. In what way is this not a POV fork? Just zis Guy you know? 10:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for failing to comply with NPOV/being a POV fork. OverlordChris 10:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, first show how this is a POV article. That has already been discussed and disproven. Even if it is POV that is hardly sufficient grounds for deletion. Second, it is not a fork but addresses the rationale in more detail since including it in the original article would make that too long. It is wikipedia policy to create a subpage when an article becomes too long.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 11:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll admit my first reaction was "Huh?" but at a glance it looks well-referenced. Maybe merge to Movement to impeach George W. Bush and break out some other section, such as public opinion? The title Public opinion on the movement to impeach George W. Bush wouldn't seem so POV. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with CanadianCeaser - the title reads more like the title to a persuasive essay than an encyclopedic article Trödel 12:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork and original research. The article tries to support each of the "Suggested reasons to impeach" without letting us know which notable figure has made the suggestion. EricR 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Response this statement can only mean the honourable editor -and those supporting this assertion- has not seen the multitude of references, let alone read them.;Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename and clean up. This article was split out from Movement to impeach George W. Bush because that article grew unweildy long (and is still 41kb). This article should be moved to a title that reflects that these are the reasons being put forth by people in the movement, not just "hey, it's a good idea because..." statements floating out there in the mists of emprical truth. Something like Rationale provided by persons advocating the impeachment of George W. Bush. Clean up so as to reflect this as well. BD2412 T 14:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obviously POV, but as per EricR it seems like OR as well. It also seems a bit self-contradictory in parts, although of course this isn't the place to consider those issues. I'd go along with the others advocating a merge and move, but in that case that would require such a fundamental rewrite of this article that maybe it's best to clean the slate. --Deville (Talk) 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very title is POV. Break out another section of Movmenent, such as "Public opinion" ifn necessary, but this is a poor way to do it.--Mmx1 15:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork. Renaming it using weasel words isn't a great idea. Eivindt@c 19:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Overwhelmingly POV article. Much as I too have no time for the chimp in question... Marcus22 19:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course the article puts forth a POV; how could it not? Is there not an article on Clinton's impeachment which likewise contains POV? RGTraynor 20:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

:*The clinton article does not attempt to hide criticisms of bush under "rationale for impeachment", and it is fairly NPOV abou the acutal charges pressed. --Mmx1 20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::*Response If the title is your problem then suggest renaming it. As to charges of POV, what part of the article is incorrect and does not adhere to wikipedia policy, please consider this:

:::*WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

:::*Feel free to read about Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.

:::*Neutral language When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited.

:::*To those insisting it is POV, it is not prohibited to insert other views to counter these perceived problems. Improving an article is preferable to deletion. See: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balanceAn article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it.

:::*SubpageSometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 20:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

::::*The content, if it remains, should properly be titled "Criticism of President Bush". I would have thought such an article already existed. --Mmx1 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

:::::*Odd, I would think criticism is not equal to suggesting impeachment.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 17:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

::::::*Since the legal criteria for Impeachment is the very broad "high crimes and misdemeanors", any categorization of a criticism under "rationale for impeachment" amounts to a POV argument that his actions rise to the level of impeachment. Until impeachment is carried out, any speculated "rationale" is just an extension of the criticisms.--Mmx1 17:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

:::You are conflating organizations which have criticized or challenged President Bush's activities with ones which have actually called for his impeachment. These are two very different things. This article should be Mergeed back to the Movement article; it does not stand as notable as a standalone, nor as NPOV. It's notable that people believe these things, but does not justify a separate article on the movement and the specific charges it makes. Georgewilliamherbert 03:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

::::Response surely you must be aware the original for which this is a subpage already is too large. But of course merging while retaining the information is better than unwarranted deletion. As to who said what, those "fringe" people suggesting impeachment: Center for Constitutional Rights, Elizabeth Holtzman, John Dean and Jennifer van Bergen (from FindLaw), Ralph Nader, Katrina vanden Heuvel.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 19:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep a relevant and worthwhile subject, and one too long for the original article. In need of some editing, however. --Nerdydentist 22:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Movement to impeach George W. Bush. If a section is so long you actually have to split something from a split-off article, for God's sake, stop randomly typing stuff in and do some editing. Lord Bob 22:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep , duh. Anyone saying this isn't NPOV doesn't what NPOV is. The real world is POV. We just have to report on it neutrally. Cyde Weys 00:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. If there is a significant impeachment movement rather than a few people calling for this, it would warrant an article under the name of the movement. We should have articles on rationales for or against as it is inherently POV. Capitalistroadster 01:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a significant impeachment movement. You choosing to deny its existence speaks more to your bias than anything regarding the truth. There are more people for the impeachment of George Bush than there are people involved with pretty much any other article. There are more people in favor of impeaching George Bush than there are people living in any of the city articles on Wikipedia (and there are tens of thousands of those). --Cyde Weys 17:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitly isn't OR since everything is sourced. Yes, it is POV, but that means it should be fixed, not deleted. Rather than saying things along the lines of Bush violated the constitution, Bush sold his soul to satan, etc, it should say that by 's understanding of the law, Bush violated the constitution but there are other groups who disagree. The article shouldn't present a POV, it should present the fact that many people have a certain POV just as an article about religion should describe the religion but shouldn't actually say the religion is correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowoftime (talk • contribs)
  • Merge back into the parent article as per others. Also, as per Lord Bob, try editing a huge chunk of insinuation and jumbled PoV criticism down to an encyclopaedic article before assessing whether or not it should be split off. The name is inherently PoV and at the least, should be changed. 'Rationale' is a clever word for 'reasons' - only the most one-eyed POV warrior could think an article called Reasons to impeach George W. Bush should even make it through CSD, let alone AfD. Proto||type 09:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - is there a serious effort to impeach? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

:*Comment - I think that depends on how you define serious. There have been a number of scholars and one major magazine which have put forth arguments that his activities rise to the level of impeachable, and a very few Democrats in congress have publically stated that they feel that he should be. It appears to be a small, but not fringe, segment of US left-wing politics which is in favor at this time of doing so. Georgewilliamherbert 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

::*Response even a serious attempt to impeach would fail since the power balance in both Houses surely means the Republican party will block such proceedings.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

:::*This is irrelevant to the question of what we do with the article, irrelevant to the posed question, and arguably untrue (Nixon was about to be impeached with the republicans in the House turning against him largely unanimously when he resigned). An AfD is the wrong place to be making this argument. We aren't arguing to delete the content; we're suggesting that it's mis-organized (or, I am). Georgewilliamherbert 17:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

::::*Response I am not arguing to delete. Second, "arguably untrue" sounds odd in light of how a thorough investigation into 1 the absence of WMD and link to AQ in relation to the prewar allegations is being stonewalled, 2 the alleged structural nature of prisoner abuse has been stonewalled, 3 the alleged violation of FISA has been stonewalled. To me (yes POV) each of these examples warrants a detailed investigation yet somebody (surely mostly democrats?) feels that it is unwarranted.--Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: There is some logic in separating out the legitimate legal arguments for impeachment from political criticism, although it seems that in its current form the article defines examples which they assert could qualify as the "high crimes and misdemeanors" a little too broadly. Impeachment is not recall. Peter Grey 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete
  • :# pure speculation and unverifiable; the only body that can file a bill of impeachment is the US House of Representatives and until a bill of impeachment is at least proposed by a member of the House, any listing of possible grounds for impeachment is pure speculation, either on the part of a wikipedia editor, or a partisan publication, blogger or web site.
  • :# Original research and POV. The alleged misdeeds of the Bush administration may or may not meet WP:V. However their inclusion in an article titled "Rationale for impeachment" (or any variant thereof) is pure POV on the part of the editor.
  • :# Unverifiable as many of the alleged misdeeds are themselves based on highly POV interpretations of events. Thatcher131 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Cyde Weys. Hall Monitor 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Look at this link [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kevin_Baas&diff=43280531&oldid=39252196] for a snapshot of an anti-Bush editor's user page. Note this quote on that page "[B]ased on these arguments Rationale to impeach George W. Bush was made. Feel free to improve that article with the following suggestions". This article is an aggregate of the personal opinions of a small group of anti-Bush editors who spend too much time reading the Democratic Underground. What makes this an Original Research violation is that the logical flow of the article, as laid out, is a dynamic bullet list of every complaint by make by whomever anywhere, yet organized here by a few zealots so as to appear that there is some cohesive movement against Bush for these particular reasons - as they appear here. I suggest that there is not one anti-Bush group in the USA to which we can point, that is citing these reasons - as presented here - as their basis of attack on Bush. This article is a speculative POV rant and an anti-Bush screed. People who want to write articles like this, ought to start their own newspaper, because this is not an encyclopedia article, it's yellow journalism. And it's a boring, offensive and inaccurate read to boot! Merecat 02:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • :The article doesn't claim it to be a single movement, it just shows reasons that some people believe George Bush should be impeached. Given that there are many people calling for his impeachment, including members of Congress, the idea is notable. Many people site these reasons, or some of them as reasons why they want Bush impeached. If the information presented is incorrect, it should be corrected, not deleted. If it is POV(and I definitly agree that it is), it should be made NPOV, not deleted. Also, though I'm not a contributer to this particular article, I do think it would be nice if you focused on describing why the article should be delted rather than assuming bad faith and making ad hominem attacks on its editors. Shadowoftime 03:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

::First, no member of Congress has called for the president's impeachment. This is not asserted in the article, and the main article this seems to be a fork of, Movement to impeach George W. Bush, only asserts that 31 members have called for an investigation into possible grounds for impeachment. Second, the POV nature of this article can not be cured by any editing. The very act of including an alleged misdeed under this heading is by definition POV (either of an editor or a partisan outside source) since no actual articles of impeachment have even been propsed in draft form. Note that all the alleged misdeeds cited in this article already have their own articles. If there is any basis at all for having this content in wikipedia, the article Movement to impeach George W. Bush should give, along with people who have proposed impeachment, a brief description of the issue and a link to the main wiki article. Thatcher131 05:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

::Ad hominem? The user's page speaks for itself that he's taking his personal opinions and creating an article as a result. --Mmx1 05:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Hold the phone! Several arguments are presented and none of them apply.

::::1 Organizing the rationale that has been put forward by many, and certainly not limited to the fringe as can be seen by my explicit naming these, hardly constitutes an anti-Bush agenda.

::::2 Since I started the page I admit I have a POV (who doesn't) that is exactly why I said: Feel free to improve that article. To those of us that assume good faith this evidently means, "if you find any incorrect information or the article is POV, please help by adding information to make the page NPOV". By asserting I only want this page to be POV indeed assumes bad faith and is a personal attack.

::::3 There is no suggestion in the article of impeachment proceedings being started. It is a collection of arguments used by several individuals and organisations of reasons they think suffice to start such proceedings. However, if that is not evident please help to rephrase it in a way that this is clear. And yes, congress members support investigating the possibility. To suggest that two geeks after a binge last friday night (metaphorically speaking), decided this would be a good prank is absolutely ridiculous.

::::4 Regarding the suggestion these things are already discussed this is incorrect. First, criticism is not equivalent to impeachable offenses. To discuss both in one article is unwarranted. Second, although it is possible to make a comment in every separate article this is of course a ludicrous idea. Somebody who would like to know what these offense are certainly won't find it. Making a comprehensive list only accomodates these users. Furthermore, what exactly is your problem with this article? Why is discussing these things in a organized manner prohibited?Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 17:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Coffee 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Movement to impeach George W. Bush. --ManiF 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to people voting merge - Please stop saying it should be merged to Movement to impeach George W. Bush. That page is already 42KB long and doesn't address the actual reasons people want George Bush impeached. This is a very important topic and certainly it can get two articles on Wikipedia? --Cyde Weys 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said in my vote, when you need to split a subject off an article that is already split off from another article, it is time to do some editing. Lord Bob 22:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So, since television has to be split off from entertainment, all articles which are about TV should either be merged with the article on television or deleted? Or does this work differently for George Bush because the leader of the most powerful country in the world isn't very important? Wikipedia is not paper and President Bush is important enough to have lots of information. Since Wikipeida has a page for every single Simpsons episode, I think it can afford to have detailed information about our president. Shadowoftime 23:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I find your comparison between entertainment - television and this situation irrelevant; the gap between entertainment and television, much like the gap between carbon and carbon dioxide, is larger. And, for the record, I'm not big on articles for every single Simpson's episode either. Sorry for taking so long to get back to this; I only just noticed it! Lord Bob 16:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::*Is the war on terror a better example? Are you not by inference implying that invasion of Iraq, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Criticisms of the War on Terrorism, Guantánamo Bay, McCain Detainee Amendment, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, Bagram torture and prisoner abuse should be merged into one article: war on terror?Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::*Better, but still not good. I could go into a point-by-point thing on each of those, but I'm sure those aren't the only examples so it would be a waste of time. I do see what you're saying, and I made a broad generalization where one perhaps should not have been made. I believe that this is a situation where a long article would be best resolved by solid and bold editing rather than simply splitting articles off ad nauseum. Is that clearer? Lord Bob 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::If I may interject, I thinkg the problem here is that the topic is just too large, empirically. That is, there are numerous substantial organizations approaching impeachment from significantly different angles. Also, there are numerous rationales for impeachment, that run the gamut from neglect of duty (Hurricane Katrina) to giving false information to the Senate (Iraq War), to breaking the laws passed by congress (FISA), to name a few. These things don't compress very well, so solid and bold editing really isn't going to make an article about the movement and the rationale a reasonable size. Kevin Baastalk 23:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Kevin Baas's list of possible rationales raises another problem with this article - each one already exists as an article, making this one highly redundant. --Ajdz 01:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::You are correct in saying that. However, how does somebody who is interested in why people think impeachment is warranted find these "rationales?"Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 11:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::::What? How dare somebody interject in the middle of a public discussion on the merits of an article? Seriously, things like lying to the Senate and breaking laws and so forth deserve mention in Criticism of George W. Bush. And then put a little sentence at the bottom that says "Due to the number and degree of these violations, prominent observers like (insert names of prominent observers) have called for Bush to be impeached. (cite a bunch of courses)". I really don't see the problem here. This is just one example of many of things you could do to straighten these things out in a single article. Lord Bob 17:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Response As we both agree subpages are not prohibited I already stated I support any effort to merge provided the information presented is not lost. Further, would you agree that if after aggressive editing the merged article still is too large a subpage is warranted and acceptable?Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 18:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::If, after said aggressive editing (of course, we might well differ on how aggressive said editing must be), it turns out it's still all too big then of course a split would be acceptable. And, just to clarify, my comment above was a reply to Kevin Baas, not you. Wikis are great but having nice, multi-party discussions with them can be unpleasant. Lord Bob 19:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete An article with a title that starts with the word rationale is by definition POV. Article is also pure speculation as there is no movement of any credibility to impeach the President of the United States. Relegate this from this encyclopedia to some people's wishful thinking list.--Kalsermar 02:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is an article listing the reasons that are used by the Movement to impeach George W. Bush. It is not supposed to say that this rationale are true, but that this is the rationale used by the movement. Shadowoftime 17:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Article is well-referenced and this information should not be censored. (And yes, failing to organize the information effectively is a form of censorship.) I would vote the same on Rationale to impeach Bill Clinton if there had been any. Argyrios 15:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This page just isn't necessary.--RWR8189 16:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, not POV. Ashibaka tock 16:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

::Others disagree. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

:::POV or not, that is not grounds for deletion. Wikipedia policy clearly states that it should be improved, not deleted!Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

::Because?.....

:::Frankly, I have not encountered a sound argument for deletion. Kevin Baastalk 22:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: Assume good faith. The people who brought this up for deletion did not do so. I'll always vote against trigger-happy deletions. --MateoP 21:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

::This was a good faith nomination (speaking as the nominator). The article is POV in concept and execution (in the oopinion of this rouge admin, anyway). That has absolutely nothing to do with good faith and everything to do with the policies of Wikipeida. Incidentally, "trigger happy deletion" is a failure to assume good faith on your part. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

:::The article is about a POV held by certain people. I'm sure this point of view can be reported on without having the article itself be POV. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that are about certain POVs held by people in the world, such as the article on Christianity or any other religion/lack there of. That doesn't make these articles themselves POV. And if these articles do become POV themselves, they should be fixed, not deleted. Shadowoftime 23:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

::::I don't think anyone is arguing that it's not notable or a POV violation to point out that there exists a Movement to impeach George W. Bush. The disagreement to me seems centered on whether it's notable to have a separate article for the rationale behind that movement, or whether they should be in the same article. As you can't really separate the movement from why they want to act, I think that a strong case should be made that they should be merged back again. If the article is too large and unwieldy right now... that is justification to apply editorial shrinkage to it, not to split it. Georgewilliamherbert 23:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::The size of an article is not to be arbitrarily pre-determined, but should, in order to be NPOV in amount of treatment among articles and not just within them, be a direct and unimpeded consequence of the amount of relevant, interesting, and important objects/events to report/describe on the subject of the article. As such, an article's size should be proportional to the amount of valuable material there is to present, not to some preconcieved notion. Kevin Baastalk 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::You are welcome to your own opinion, but Wikipeida has the WP:SIZE policy. It is flexible to some degree, but not blatantly ignorable or floutable. Georgewilliamherbert 00:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Hmmm... I think that's why one splits articles when they get too long. Kevin Baastalk 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

::::I'm talking about the POV here (the reason it was nominated in the first place). Plenty of people want to delete it because it talks about the POV of a certain group. I'm simply saying that so do all the articles on religion, politics, etc. As for the article itself being POV, that can always be fixed. Shadowoftime 04:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::Of course, I understand. What Georgewilliamherbert is trying to tell us applies to all wikipedia articles. "As you can't really separate the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, extyraordinary rendition, criticism of the war on terror et cetera from the war on terror, I think that a strong case should be made that they should be merged back again. If the war on terror is too large and unwieldy right now... that is justification to apply editorial shrinkage to it, not to split it." (Admittedly I realize the quotation has been slightly altered) Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 04:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::It's more than slightly uncivil discourse to invent arguments and stick them in your opponents mouths, Nomen. You can play reducto ad absurdum if you want, but that's not what I said, and I would appreciate a retraction and apology. Georgewilliamherbert 08:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::*Since no argument has been put forward as to why the war on terror, star trek, star wars, cartoon controversy, et cetera have multiple pages and the suggested impeachment should be limited to one, I fail to see why pointing out that overt discrepancy is uncivil or even warrants an apology.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 20:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::The phrase that you're looking for, Georgewilliamherber, is straw man. However, I do not see anyway that that could apply here. Were you are were you not arguing that articles should be merged and then trimmed to fit the size constraints, as a matter of principle? That's how I read it. Though I concede that there is some interpretation there, so I might be wrong. The safest way is to go with a variation of Occam's Razor, and restate what you said with out alteration. However, to demonstrate how the argument would apply in what is theoretically an equivocable context, he choose a different example. This is a common and, in my opinion, fairly polite way to show someone their bias. But in good faith, perhaps you were misinterpreted. Perhaps your argument was more centered around "you can't really separate the movement from why they want to act". That would make your recent response make sense. The reason why I, and I would venture to say Nomen, didn't think that was the center, was because it is weak, perhaps the weakest part of the argument, and one usually picks the strongest part as the center. There are two reasons it is weak: 1. It is completely unsubstantiated. why can't you? what prevents you from doing so? 2. It is directly contradicted by the very existence of the thing that we are discussing: it IS separated. There can be no better proof that it indeed can be separated than it being separated. ... regarding retraction and apology, wikipedia has a strong policy on personal attacks, and i very much agree with it, but i don't see any personal attacks there. I don't see what he would apologize for. Kevin Baastalk 18:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Rename The Economist has written an editorial on impeachment of Bush stating that it is a near certainty should the Democrats take the House in November. --Gorgonzilla 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

: There is a word for such predictions - it's called "speculation". Merecat 08:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Clearly the editor has not read or understood the article he is referring to. Please read about forking.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

::::Comment please do not tell me what I have and have not read. And yes, this is a classic POV fork.--Jersey Devil 22:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique. Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Some things should be done; article needs renaming, or at least some way of making a lot clearer that these are proposed reasons to impeach GWB, and perhaps a clearer way of citing for each reason exactly who proposed that as a rationale. --maru (talk) contribs 21:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not encyclopedic content. If and when a movement is made to impeach GW then it might be relevant. Until then this is non-notable cruft.68.84.134.68 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • :So you're saying it's relevant. Then why do you think it should be deleted? Kevin Baastalk 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • MergeILovEPlankton 23:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep User: YankeeDoodle14
  • Strong Keep POV it may or may not be, perfect it assuredly is not, but summary deletion is not the solution. Tenebrous 09:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Movement to impeach George W. Bush - unencyclopedic, highly POV, redundant, speculation, wishful thinking, POV fork, etc., etc. There are plenty of places for people to put their hate manifestos online, wikipedia should not be one of them. --Ajdz 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the page might be worth preserving as one of the best examples of Bush Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen, I think we have crossed into OR here. I'm sorry to let people down but here's a little secret, Bush is not going to get impeached. Hence, there is little cause for this article, which looks like Ramsey Clark's wet dream compacted into a series of talking points compliments of counterpunch, Kos and the boys down at CCR. Well Jimbo has not yet metastized into William Kunstler and this is still wikipedia and people need to be reminded that we are here to write articles on schools, malls and Pokemon. -- JJay 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge - the topics here are duplicated elsewhere, plus this is (as I've said before throwing up my hands in frustration) a POV-driven article. I was browbeaten into submission by those who insisted that this was not, and reluctantly acquiesed. But as I have mentioned, opinion-driven articles do not have a place on Wikipedia. -- Mhking 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:*You can of course show us where wikipedia policy states: "opinion-driven articles do not have a place on Wikipedia." But more interestingly, are you advocating the deletion of religion related articles? Because religion ipso facto is opinion.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 16:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

::I don't see where Mhking claimed to quote policy, although many above have. Please stop biting the voters. --Ajdz 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Since there is no policy prohibiting opinion I just observe that this argument is flawed.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:::: Nomen, your comment of "this argument is flawed" sums up the problem with you - you are looking at this as arguing, rather than consensus building. I've yet to see you yield even the slightest on anything. Well, then thank goodness we have Nomen to be the artbiter of all that is correct. Nomen, what would we do without your help here? Merecat 23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::You may be correct, but this page is about voicing opinion. Most people base their opninion on arguments. When the logic used is flawed why should that not be pointed out? Furthermore it is interesting that you substitute argument with argue, whereas I would call it ideas in a debate. Nuance!Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::What Nescio refers to as "logic" is, in his practice, fallacy and fanaticism. Red herrings, equivocation, argumentum ad nazium, we've probably seen it all. (There also should be a policy - wikipedia is not a manifesto) --Ajdz 02:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::Stop your petty vendetta. Again you resort to personal attacks, and again I demand you stop and observe WP:NPA! I will not ask again to remain civil.Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg Nomen Nescio 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, putting anything salvageable into Movement to impeach George W. Bush. DJ Clayworth 20:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article has changed significantly just in the past day and is now much, much better. It has a long list of comprehensive references that is better than what I have seen on most feature articles. Cyde Weys 20:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

:*It may be much improved, it's still full of ridiculous lines like: The alleged responsibility of the George W. Bush administration in the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina has been used by Ramsey Clark, PopMatters, Green Party of Humboldt County and the Sunday Independent to suggest failure by the administration to adequately provide for the need of its citizens, or "AlterNet, the St. Petersburg Times and the Santiago Times have claimed that Bush has exceeded constitutional or other legal limitations on such war powers.". Rather than an encyclopedia article, this really looks to me like it wants to be a soapbox for the viewpoints of assorted partisan political agitators. Is anyone surprised that Clark, or Altnet or the Green party have cooked up some arguments to impeach Bush? And is there really any reason that anyone should care what Popmatters or the Santiago Times thinks about politics? -- JJay 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Atlant 12:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.