Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:11, 18 January 2006 editPiedras grandes (talk \| contribs)296 edits →cleanup ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:21, 10 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,822,848 editsm blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{oldafdfull\|closer=] 01:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)\|result ='''keep''' ("Long vote - All this discussion :/ ")\|date=24 July 2005}}
	{{~~controversial~~}}		{{Calm}}
			{{Old XfD multi
			\| date = 31 July 2005
			\| result = '''Keep'''
			\| page = Movement to impeach George W. Bush
			\| date2 = 7 May 2006
			\| result2 = '''Keep'''
			\| page2 = Movement to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination)
			\| date3 = 19 October 2006
			\| result3 = '''Keep'''
			\| page3 = Movement to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination)
			\| date4 = 20 January 2009
			\| result4 = '''Keep'''
			\| page4 = Movement to impeach George W. Bush (4th nomination)
			\| small =
			\| collapse = \|AfDyes

			}}
	==Archives==
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=other\|class=C\|1=
	*]
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Low\|USGov=yes\|USGov-importance=Low\|USPresidents=yes\|USPresidents-importance=Low\|DC=yes\|DC-importance=\|TX=yes\|TX-importance=low}}
	*]
			{{WikiProject Military history\|class=C\|b1=no\|b2=yes\|b3=yes\|b4=yes\|b5=yes\|Aviation=yes\|US=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Bush family \|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=Low\|terrorism=yes\|terrorism-imp=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Connecticut\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=Low\|American=yes\|American-importance=Top}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 45K
			\|counter = 15
			\|minthreadsleft = 7
			\|algo = old(45d)
			\|archive = Talk:Efforts to impeach George W. Bush/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archives\|auto=yes}}

	== ~~Chronolgy~~ ==		== Trump on Impeachment ==
			"Property mogul and diehard Republican Donald Trump told CNN on Wednesday that President George W. Bush misled the US into the Iraq War and should have been impeached when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006." {{cite news \| url=http://web.archive.org/web/20081019225344/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jEwnQC3h5l3nVJ7w4uNs7V3YBDoQ \| title=Bush should have been impeached: Donald Trump \| date=Oct 15, 2008 \| publisher=]}} {{cite news \| url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/15/trump-i-wanted-bush-impeached/ \| title=Trump: I wanted Bush impeached \| date=October 15, 2008 \| publisher=]}} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>

			== Obama ==
	The public opinion section was changed to be chronological. I believe the most important points should go at the top. Reverse chronological would be better, though being recent does not necessarily make a point important.--] 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
			This article doesn't mention ] once. That's kind of a problem. I know WP:DOITYOURSELF or whatever, but I just don't have the time. ] (]) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
			:Why in the world would it mention Obama? ] (]) 01:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
			:: Indeed, Obama never called for the impeachment of Bush, nor even hinted at it or responded favorably to any suggestion of it, that I can find. No connection, no place in the article. ] ] 02:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

			HUH???!!!! What does Obama have to do with any of this? And why would his not being mentioned be "kind of a problem"??!!!! This person makes no sense at all! (] (]) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC))
	==NPOV tag==
	I've read the arguments above, and have removed the NPOV tag. The main argument seemed to be over the article's existence, not over the content. That argument was settled by the AfD. Any other issues can be fixed. ''] ]''. 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

			:This is because Obama opposed the WAR IN IRAQ, so thusly he would've opposed Bush. The obama point looks ], though.--] (]) 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
	:What? I made plenty of arguments that have nothing to do with this article's existence, please read them again. ] 06:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

	== ~~Original research~~ ==		== OR ==
			I feel that this article, by its very nature is ]. Without a ] that describes this supposed 'Movement to impeach George W. Bush' as a movement (like you might find for the '60s anti-war movement, for example) we are left to cobble together any and all calls for impeachment, which is exactly what this article does. This is clearly OR, the description of a previously undocumented 'movement'.

			I think the best solution is to rename this article ] or something like that and remove anything that is not an impeachment resolution or related to an official action. ] (]) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
	Although many factual assertions of this article are true (I assume), the synthesis of these facts into a "movement to impeach..." appears to be original research (which is prohibited - see ]). No sources are cited for the central claims of the article. ] 23:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

			Agreed. ] (]) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
	:titles of articles are often just place holders, not be taken literarly, the lead section clarifies what the article is about. --] 05:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
			:Bush has been out of office for nearly eight months now, and yet over the weekend I saw four cars with "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers. I have no objection to renaming the article ], but impeachment is a political process driven at least in part by the sentiments of citizens, which relates the collective expression such sentiments by citizens to whatever official action follows. ] ] 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

			::Sure, I cant argue with the fact that impeachment is a political process, but that is ok, because we can easily document politics. Collective sentiment, on the other hand, is not so easy to document without performing OR. ] (]) 13:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
	:There are a number of groups that are sincerely fighting for impeachment, and the article points to some of these at the end. These groups existed before the article was created. Several members of Congress have called for impeachment, most recently Sen. Kerry (last week). Rep. Conyers just introduced a resolution of censure and two resolutions for investigations that ask for consideration of articles of impeachment. An ImpeachPAC is collecting real money to support candidates who support impeachment. The movement is very real.

			:::That is simply inaccurate. The article never intended to prove there was a collective movement, the word movement was never being used in a collective sense, the lead section explained very clearly what the article covered. Article titles on Misplaced Pages are place holders and not meant to be taken literal. They nuance of an article title is explained in the lead section. Also, the article documented very well popular sentiment towards impeachment, this is an important part of American history that has been entirely wiped off of Misplaced Pages. Congrats. ] (]) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
	:Unless a change is made to this discussion to immediately identify specific factual assertions that are not supported, I will remove the tag.--] 06:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			This whole thing falls seriously short of meeting the reasonable definition of a movement. It seems as if only fringe far left political figures like Wexler, Conyers and Kuchinich were pushing this. This effort never gathered the support of mainstream liberals or Democrats, and never had a realistic chance of success. To call this ill fated distraction a "movement" is a bit much. Nobody seriously thought that this would work, nor did anyone believe that this had much support, even with skewed, questionable Canadian polls to the contrary. I've seen polls that birthers (similar crackpots to the impeachers) have commissioned that state 55% of Americans believe Obama was born in Kenya. Should we give them a 'Movement to Impeach Obama' page??? This was a bunch of far left nonsense, and was never a widespread "movement".(] (]) 23:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC))
	::You are missing the point. Original research is prohibited regardless of whether it is correct or not. So arguments that it is correct mean nothing. You must cite sources. ] 16:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			:Ok I am going to request a page move (this might be controversial, so ill avoid just doing it) on or about October 16 unless anyone objects here. My proposal is to move this page to ] and narrow it's scope to only concrete impeachment actions, like Wexler, Conyers and Kuchinich's impeachment attempts. After this move I intend to remove at least the Treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, U.N. Charter and any other section not covered in the afore mentioned impeachment attempts. After that, I propose we expand the description of what was included in the impeachment attempts and describe them in more detail. ] (]) 13:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
	:::The original research claim is rediculous. Not only does the article cite sources, see the comments posted below showing a google search of a dozen or more organizations on the web. We report on what exists in the real world. In the real world, there are movements to impeach george bush. It's really that simple. --] 16:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

	::~~::Again~~, ~~whether~~ ~~the~~ ~~claims~~ ~~are~~ ~~correct~~ or ~~not~~ ~~is irrelevent. It~~ is ~~original~~ ~~research~~ ~~unless~~ ~~you~~ ~~can find~~ a ~~source to~~ ~~cite~~. ~~You~~ ~~haven't found any sources yet.~~ ] 17:00, 21 ~~December~~ ~~2005~~ (UTC)		::Check that, I will add the template today as there is a backlog of at least a few days. ] (]) 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

			This article was edited and fought over by thousands of people while Bush was in office, it would routinely see dozens of edits per day for years on end. Now two or three editors have basically gutted it of all its former content without much discussion because no one cares anymore that Bush is no longer President. Anyway, the material is all there in the edit history for anyone who wishes to go back and look at what this article used to be like. ] (]) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
	:::::There are movements to impeach george bush. That is an undeniable fact. Your using a technicality to run interference. ]. I wont remove the tag right now because of 3RR but will return to do so if needed. I would suggest we work this out in discussion in the mean time to avoid a prolonged edit war. Now, please explain in more detail why you believe that, despite evidence of the existence of somthing in the real world, it is original research to have an article about it. If your looking for a citation to prove that they exist, I can easily cite any number of books or newspapers which mention these organizations. However that is a rediculous stand to take when one simply has to go to their web page and see that they exist. --] 17:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
			::What is a good date to read for a complete version? ] (]) 07:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
			:: includes more extensive coverage of local community efforts and public opinion polls. ] ] 17:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
			:Is there no ] on impeachment? Like, ''being in office''? (For the record, I think W. belongs in Gitmo, but honestly...) ] ] 08:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

			==Link 1 404==
	::::::I am not making a technical point. I don't believe there is a movement to impeach Bush. But I'm not trying to convince you of my view. I'm just trying to get you to abide by the requirement to avoid original research and cite sources. If you can cite somebody who says there is a movement to impeach (as described in this article), then I can accept it. ] 17:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			Link 1 is no longer working. I will see if there is an alternate, or if not I will have to re-write most of the article.--] (]) 22:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
	:::::::impeachbush.org, an organization fighting for impeachment. Just one example of a movement to impeach GWB. Also just a reminder that the rule is used to encourage discussion and discourage edit wars. Youve reverted this quite a few times in the past 24hrs. ----] 17:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
			:Fixed. ] (]) 23:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::::::::I am just asking for sources. What's wrong with that? I am not even asking for good sources. If you want to cite ] as an authority, go ahead. ] 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::I think my comment in the section below was missed: ''The second part of the definition is vetted by polls. ] ] 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)'' ] 17:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			I have just added archive links to {{plural:1\|one external link\|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
	:::What is that supposed to mean? The article says there is "a degree" of public support for impeachment. That is a tautology! There is always "a degree" of support for anything you can name. Besides, it is irrelevent. ] 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070214092150/http://www.startribune.com:80/587/story/960880.html to http://www.startribune.com/587/story/960880.html

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
	:::It is certainly relevant to the second part of the definition, which is whether or not there is a significant degree of public support for impeachment. And that is certainly relevant to the reader who comes to this article for interesting and important things regarding "movement to impeach George W. Bush".
	:::By tautology I think you mean that it is insignificant/uninteresting because it is expected, and it is therefore simply rhetorical and thus POV. However, to be more precise, there is a ''signifcant'' degree of public support. ] 17:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
	::::Where does this "definition" come from? It seems to be original with Misplaced Pages. ] 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
	:::::It's not. "Movement" is often used to refer to a ''social'' movement, especially in political contexts. ] 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
	::::::So when the article says the phrase "is used" this way or that, are we supposed to read that as "is used ''in this article''"? Because I am reading it as the phrase is actually used in the real world. Perhaps it is. If so, it would be nice to see a citation. ] 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
	:::::::I would imagine it's used in such a way on websites supporting impeachment. And as w/Stbalbach, I can speak from anectodal experience that the term "movement" is used in this sense in the context of impeachment of Bush. It has existed for a long time, and there really is no other term for it. ] 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}
	Mirror Vax, it's really not clear at all what the problem is. You say you want a citation from an authoritative source. Can you please provide a hypothetical example of what that would look like? I mean, one only has to do a google search of "impeach bush" and you will find thousands of hits that support that there are movements to impeach bush. So, im really not sure why you dis-believe that they exist, that you require a citation. It is beyond reason. Its like requiring a citation that mount everest exists. This is a waste of everyones time. --] 19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
	:Actually, I didn't say I wanted a citation from an authoritative source. I said above, "I am not even asking for good sources." Cite the best sources you can find. Remember, I am asking for the sources about '''the movement''' and not about some person or other calling for impeachment. There are always people calling for impeachment; that does not necessarily make a "movement". ] 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
	::'''THE MOVEMENT''' - The article makes no claim to a single unified movement. It says there are many, of different types. The word movement has multiple meanings and connotations. Your mis-representing the article title, the very first paragraph defines what the article is about. --] 19:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 06:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
	::Google "movement to impeach". Also:
	Merrian-Webster:
	2a : TENDENCY, TREND <detected a movement toward fairer pricing> b : a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end <the civil rights movement>

			== Seems like this article should be renamed ==
	Dictionary.com:
	3a. A series of actions and events taking place over a period of time and working to foster a principle or policy: a movement toward world peace.
	3b. An organized effort by supporters of a common goal: a leader of the labor movement.

			This article is exclusively about one attempt to impeach GWB. The title implies there were multiple attempts. Perhaps the name should be changed?
	Also social movement on Dictionary.com:
			:The 'Political views and actions' section covers some other (admittedly minor) attempts at impeachment. Still, what would you propose as a name change? ] (]) 13:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
	n : a group of people with a common ideology who try together to achieve certain general goals; "he was a charter member of the movement"; "politicians have to respect a mass movement"; "he led the national liberation front"

			:: It is honestly sad that there is even a page like this, or one for Obama, or one for Trump, or any political figure where a vote never even took place, much less an impeachment itself. Creating a record of something that a few people attempted to do but were unable to achieve, with its own specific page, is an odd course of action and undeniably a by-product of the left-leaning viewpoints of Misplaced Pages that seriously tilted that way during the presidency of George W. Bush.
	People calling for impeachment does not necessarily make a "movement", but when a substantial number of people and groups of people work together vigorously to achieve a common purpose, that is a movement, '''by definition'''. ] 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			::One could substantiate a case for a single page titled "Efforts to impeach U.S. Presidents" with some effectiveness, but it is really hard to justify the existence of any of these pages as stand alone articles, regardless of how much click-bait style articles the editors are using to source the material. Reading through the talk page on the Obama impeachment article is rather interesting, watching editors trip over themselves trying to find a way to justify both removing the Obama page, while defending the Bush or Cheney pages. I say remove them all.] (]) 16:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
	:: people don't make a movement? — ] ] 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
			::: Irrespective of the outcomes of these efforts, these pages document historical facts well-reported in reliable sources. ] ] 16:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

	== ~~definition~~ of ~~movement~~ ==		== External links modified ==

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	The lead paragraph defining the movement is very awkwardly worded and completely unsupported. It currently reads:
	:The phrase "Movement to impeach George W. Bush" is used in two ways. It is used to describe actions by individuals and groups within the public and private spheres intended to support the impeachment of US President George W. Bush. The phrase is also used in a more broad sense to refer to a social movement, related to public opinion polls, including both Democrats and Republicans, which indicate a degree of public support for the impeachment of the president).

			I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	I see no evidence in the real world of the latter definition. A web search finds it used exclusively to refer to an effort by particular organizations to lobby Congress and solicit public opinion in favor of impeachment. I did a google search for the phrases "movement to impeach" and "bush" (736 hits) and for the phrases "impeachment movement" and "bush" (929 hits). The top hits (other than Misplaced Pages and a news article about this Misplaced Pages article) were:
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to rtsp://video1.c-span.org/15days/e071008_kucinich.rm
	* impeachbush.org, an organization fighting for impeachment
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218032405/http://feralhouse.com/titles/kulchur/35_articles_of_impeachment_the.php to http://feralhouse.com/titles/kulchur/35_articles_of_impeachment_the.php
	* votetoimpeach.org, the same organization
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029115506/http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf to http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf
	* disinfo.com, an news article on the organization led by Francis Boyle
	* impeachbushcoalition.blogspot.com, an organization fighting for impeachment
	* informationclearinghouse.info, news re the efforts of votetoimpeach.org
	* irregulartimes.com, interview of the leader of impeachcentral.com, an organization fighting for impeachment
	* gp.org, an endorsement of impeachment by the Green Party of the US
	* afterdowningstreet.org, , an organization fighting for impeachment
	* tompaine.com, commentary about afterdowningstreet.org
	* impeachbush.pephost.org, a copy of votetoimpeach.org
	* locustfork.net, a blog about ImpeachPAC, an organization raising money for impeachment
	* commondream.org, an article about protesters marching for impeachment

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	Can we agree on a definition that better matches these real-world examples of using the phrase?--] 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:I wrote that definition (although it has since been copyedited, and now appears to be causing problems). Anyway, the evidence of the second definition is not somthing you can google for. Rather it is simply all around -- there are people who informally take a partisan and common stand that GWB should be impeached. You can see evidence of this everywhere, from blog posts to casual conversations at parties. The word "movement" is being used in a different sense than in the first definition. --] 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 07:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
	::The second part of the definition is vetted by polls. ] ] 17:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

	No, it is not. At best, polls indicate that someone holds a certain view, not that they're part of a movement. As I've already mentioned before, you can find the most ridiculous polls online, because they're so easy for people to create and sign. The "stop ashlee simpson from singing" poll has over 300,000 signatures so far. Does that mean there's a movement to stop Ashlee Simpson from Singing? Hardly, I doubt there's anyone who really took it all that seriously, since it's just an internet poll which is effortless to sign.

	impeachbush.org and votetoimpeach.org exist exclusively as websites and their only support is in the form of a worthless internet poll. They have only managed to double the Ashlee Simpson poll in number of votes. Given that this is supposedly a significant movement, one that is serious, I would expect it to have an order of magnitude more votes. disinfo.com, informationclearinghouse.info, irregular times and so forth are unknown websits that just happen to have articles on people working for impeachment--they are not part of the movement. The impeachbushcoalition is just a blog, not an organization and all they do is post articles. impeachcentral.com has an alexa rank of 5 million.

	Please make a list of just websites that directly represent a significant movement (insigificant websites don't count). Make sure each one in the new list represents a significant movement, because I'm not going to go through them all, I'm just going to test one at random and if I find it doesn't qualify, then that only says to me that you can't construct such a list. Remember, they must be working to advance the cause, not simply believe that he should be impeached.

	Definitions from the Compact OED which are relevent here: ''3 a group of people working to advance a shared cause. 4 a series of organized actions to advance a shared cause.'' ~

	Individuals are therefore not a movement. It needs to be a group of people.

	] 11:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

	:Those are just your personal opinions. Your argument is weak. Factually, there are indeed groups of people working on a shared cause. There are indeeed organized actions to advance a share cause. You seem to have some pre-concieved notion of what a movement must be, this article should not be held hostage to your personal vision of what a movement is. --] 17:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

	Yes, there are groups working towards a shared cause for everything imaginable, but it doesn't mean we should have wikipedia articles on every fringe minority movement. You say my argument is weak, but you don't bother actually addressing it. The burden of proof is on you, demonstrate that there is some significant movement. If the best you've got is some internet polls, then you're out of luck. ] 07:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

	:We do have a few wikipedia articles on fringe minority movements, like the ku klux klan, for example. We certainly shouldn't have one for every. I don't think anyone is in disagreement with you on this point, and I don't understand the relevance. If you want to see that there is some significant movement, why don't you read the article? For instance, the article states (thou not in so much detail) that a professional phone-poll with an unbiased sample and a margin of error of +/-3% found that about 1/3 of americans want the president impeached. 1/3 is significant. Even if anything you just said had any merit, Stbalbach would still be correct in that "this article should not be held hostage to your personal vision of what a movement is." - that would be anti-wiki (I state it this way to avoid being uncivil). And the burden of proof is, ofcourse, as always, on the person who wants to make a signifcant change, to infringe, to bite off more than is properly his/hers (such as holding the article hostage), etc. My suggestion to you, in light of all of this, is not to try your luck. Your bias is so apparent it's spilling over the brim; and instead of your arguments being made of premises they are stuffed with your bias - which is so bloated it's coming out every seam. Your argument was said to be weak. In fact, it contains manly factual and logical errors (such as liberal use of ad hominem abusive), i.e. it is unsound and invalid, mostly likely as a result of your mind being so clouded by your bias that you can't address the issue logically and empirically. I think of the words "indecent exposure" to try to express to you how you come off - not because i find your opinions/bias distastefull but because i find it distastefull to reveal them so carelessly, recklessly, w/out discipline, regardless of what they happen to be, in what is supposed to be a critical debate. ] 14:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

	The KKK used to be big and it has a lot of historical relevence, that's why it has an article. As this isn't part of history yet, since he's still in office, you can't argue historically nor that it is big. You didn't read what I said. That 1/3rd of people aren't all part of aren't part of a movement. You shouldn't be editing the article if you can't distinguish between support for an idea and being part of a movement for that idea. I mean, I like strawberry ice cream, does that mean I'm part of a pro-strawberry ice cream movement?

	Your criteria for burden of proof is silly. I'm asking the people who support the article to back up the most basic assumption of it--that there is a significant movement. Otherwise anyone can create an article for any reason and require that the burden of proof be on the people who don't want it to support its most basic premise. I'll just go create a "Movement to support strawberry ice cream" article and require that everyone else prove that there isn't one. I'm not "holding the article hostage," I'm just putting an NPOV tag on it. If you call putting an NPOV tag on an article, "holding it hostage," then I don't know what to say.

	And I have never used ad hominem, that is a nice try though. You, on the other hand, supported someone who removed the fact from the article that there were no impeachment proceedings and supported them to insert a personally speculative statement (forbidden by ]) implying there would be impeachment proceedings. That reeks of bias. ] 17:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

	:I have not seen you make any personal attack on any user of wikipedia. I meant that you were using logical fallacies in your argument, including this one, if subtly and indirectly, and that such lack of objective thinking shows an influence of a position established ''before'' reasoning.
	:I did not and do not support removing that statement, not did not and do not support putting in a speculative statement. Your are attacking a ]. That is ] and as such reeks of bias.
	:Also, you did not comprehend my full argument. My argument is not only that ~1/3 of the american populace supports impeachment, but also that there is a substantive number of groups of people working actively together in a coordinated manner to compel impeachment. This is different than public sentiment, this is a substantial, deliberate, and executive "going towards". That should be clear to you by now. ] 18:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

	Then why did you accuse me of using ad hominem abusive? Ad hominem abusive is, by definition, a personal attack. It seems now you're retracting that statement. You didn't just cite ad hominem as an example, you said "'''liberal use''' of ad hominem abusive." So I'm to believe you were referring to some hypothetical person there? I have not ever used logical fallacies, but feel free to point them out. You explicitly supported by Sterling Newberry which was not only POV, but implied there were would be an impeachment proceeding. You also defended Sterling Newberry as not in any way inserting POV into the article, even though he was the one who removed the statement (at least 2 times) saying that there weren't any impeachment proceedings.

	And your argument is weak, since you haven't bothered supporting it. You say that there are a significant number of people who are part of a movement, but your only evidence is the number of people who simply agree with impeachment. Mind you, the same number Clinton had. Did Clinton have a significant impeachment movement against him? Following your logic, yes he did. I'm sorry, but a lack of evidence doesn't make something clear to me. If you're going to m ake a point that there are also a significant number that are part of a movement, you better support it with something. ] 19:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

	:Jesus, read the frickin article, read the discussions in the other sections of this talk page. And you obviously aren't following my logic, so I don't see how you can pretend to make any statement about it. Clinton had that number supporting impeachment '''after''' impeachment hearings had already begun - a very substantial difference - besides, after the impeachment process has already begun there it is chronologically ''impossible'' to have a movement to begin the process. There's a logical fallacy for you, I guess I'll point them out as you do them, instead of going retrogressively, it's just as well. That one's called a ]. ] 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

	Nothing in the article supports this being a significant movement and your refusal to provide evidence that there is a significant movement is an implicit concession that there wasn't one. Just admit it when you're wrong. And you have your facts wrong. The impeachment hearings were from November 9th-December 12th. There were polls on it in August, September and October. All before the impeachment hearings were even started. It's not actually a logical fallacy to get a fact wrong, but if it were, you'd be doing it right now since you clearly got your facts mixed up and apparently didn't even check when the hearings started. Getting a fact wrong wouldn't be a false analogy by any measure, I'm not sure how you came up with that one. Nice try though. Also, you meant 'retroactively.' ] 13:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

	== ] piece from ] ==

	I suppose this will of some use to somebody editing this article: . ] ] 23:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Name change proposal ==

	This is not a vote or poll, but it seems like the article would be less controversial and more accurate if it was called '''Movements to impeach George W. Bush''' (plural movements) .. since the article makes clear there is more than one movement, and more than one definition of the term movement applies. Thoughts? --] 02:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

	I have no problem with this.--] 07:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

	The common meaning of the word "Movement" in the sense emploted in the title ''is'' multiple people/groups working together towards a single end. Pluralization in that sense would be redundant. ] 22:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

	== Media editorials? ==

	I'm not sure media editorials are encylopedic or notable. Who is THOMAS G. DONLAN from Barrons and why should we care what he has to say, is he really that notable that his personal opinions are to be included in an Encyclopedia? --] 03:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

	Moved the section here for discussion:

	Editorials by business magazines seem more notable as a subsection for opionion than that of entertainers. In an editorial, Donlan speaks for Barrons. Barrons, not Dolan is notable.

	'''Media Editorials'''

	* The business publication, Barron's issued an editorial commentary on ], ] by Thomas G. Donlan entitled "Unwarranted Executive Power: The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws" [http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB113538491760731012-lMyQjAxMDE1MzI1NDMyODQ0Wj.html#EDIT). "Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. ...The most important presidential responsibility...is that he must 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power...Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

	"It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law."

	==Original research (again)==
	There is material in the article that implies it is related to impeachment, but the sources themselves make no mention of impeachment. This is original research. I'll go ahead and remove them, and list them here and the reasons why it was removed:

	:*Rep. ] has introduced a Resolution of Inquiry, H.Res 375, that demands records related to the decision to go to war and to the Downing Street Memo. It has 84 sponsors/cosponsors including one Republican and one independent. This resolution is considered to be a first step in opening an impeachment investigation. The International Relations committee voted 22-21 on ], ] to report the resolution adversely to the full house.

	Considered the first step to impeachment by whom? Isnt it possible this is simply a Resolution of Inquiry without a hidden agenda? It's original research to draw a connection to impeachment with this H.Res

	:*In a related issue, Steve Urbon, Senior Correspondent for the Standard-Times reported that Representative ] (D-MA) together with Rep. Conyers, sent a letter in July to the Congressional Research Service, an arm of the Library of Congress asking for clarification about the impeachability of Karl Rove for the disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. "We believe the rationale for impeachment clearly applies to high-ranking officials who wield presidential authority in many cases with even more impact than some Cabinet officers. And we do not see any constitutional language that would exclude such officials from the impeachment process," they wrote.

	This article is about the impeachment of GWB, not Karl Rove. In any case, this is simply a question and not a statement: is Rove impeachable? We dont know.

	:*Rep. ] founded the ''Out of Iraq Caucus'' in the House of Representatives. It has 66 members (as of ], ]). An ''Out of Iraq'' event hosted by Rep. Waters in ], attracted 1200 supporters who loudly chanted "Impeach Bush" in response to a speaker explaining ].

	So, if Bush supporters chant "Nuke Iran" at a rally, does that mean Bush himself supports the nukeing of Iran? This does not belong under the Congressional activities section. Moved to the "Public demonstrations" section.

	:*On that same date, Representative ] (D-NY) issued a press release asking Attorney General Gonzales to appoint a special counsel to investigate the President’s possible violation of law in asking the National Security Agency to monitor, without warrants, Americans’ international phone calls.

	Tieing this activity with a movement to impeach bush is original research. Unless Nadler has said otherwise.

	:* On ], ], Salon quoted an interview with Chris Pyle, a professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College, an expert on government surveillance of civilians and a former military intelligence officer who blew the whistle on the U.S. Army's domestic spying program during the Vietnam War. The American public has to understand that a crime has been committed, a serious crime....This president has admitted committing the crime. He just claims he's above the law. So the issue is: Is the president above the law?"

	No mention of impeachment.

	:*Journalist ] agrees with John Dean that Bush's crimes are "worse than Watergate."

	No mention of impeachment.

	:*Nation journalist John Nichols wrote on ]'s resolutions to investigate and censure Bush and Cheney on ], ] , "Members of Congress in both parties will need to feel a lot of heat if these improtant measures are going to get much traction in this Congress."

	No mention of impeachment.

	:*Barron's, the conservative business journal published by the Wall Street Journal, editorialized in favor of impeachment on ], ], "Unwarranted Executive Power: The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws" , "Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. ...The most important presidential responsibility...is that he must 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

	No mention of impeachment.

	:*The Capital Times, the progressive Madison Wisconsin newspaper founded in 1917, editorialized on ], ], "The evidence shows that serious wrongdoing has occurred. And those responsible need to be held to account not just by academics, former White House aides and national publications but by the citizens who can persuade members of Congress to become the watchdogs on executive wrongdoing that the founders intended."

	No mention of impeachment.

	--] 17:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC

	===Barron's article was not original research===
	You state, "the sources themselves make no mention of impeachment"

	You are incorrect. Did you read the sources or only the parts cited? If needed, I will remedy it by quoting the part about impeachment, rather than just linking to it.

	:Yeah that's what needs to be done, the word or concept of impeachment needs to be quoted (BTW Barrons is a subscription only service and probably %99 of Misplaced Pages readers dont subscribe, so no, I could not read the article). We report on what other people say about impeachment, not make a case for impeachment ourselves. --] 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
	::The Barron's article was picked up and reprinted by numerous secondary sources easily available on a google search, such as . Should I use that link instead?

	::That still doesn't speak to your same charge about the other editorial (see below}, which was easily available and actually cited the Barron's editorial including the impeachment language. When you take things down wholesale, it takes more time to repost them than if you had just asked for an additional quotations. It discourages me from even editing.--] 00:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::Well, I'm sorry you feel discouraged, but you shouldnt, we all have a right to edit pages, it's a positive process. If you examine the section above, that is what I removed from the article, the quote(s) make no mention of advocating impeachment. If the quotation is advocating impeachment, then it certainly has a right to be in the article. --] 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

	"Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment."

	"It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law."

	I believe I had part of the second paragraph in there the last time you axed this source on other grounds.

	===Captital Times Editoral===

	No mention of impeachment. The title was "Talking about impeachment"

	The lead paragraph was

	"The dwindling circle of right-wing defenders of the Bush-Cheney presidency would have Americans believe that only the most reckless partisans would even consider the prospect of censuring or perhaps even impeaching the president and vice president. But the prospect of officially sanctioning Bush and Cheney, as has now been proposed by U.S. Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is gaining ground in unexpected quarters."

	== Web Polls ==

	I posit that web polls, as easily manipulated as they are being that there's no control over the sample population, are wholly different from any commissioned poll and is not notable enough to report. This is referring to the MSNBC web poll in line 62.

	The whole basis for using polls as a tool for analyzing public opinion is that there's some validity to their methodology. If there's no scientific validity, why quote it? It's on the same footing as a letter to the publisher in a major newspaper. It's been opined elsewhere that editorials should not be cited unless the author is a notable source or the writer is giving the opinion of the paper itself (I believe this was in reference to a Barrons editorial on this very talk page). Just because it's published by a reputable source doesn't mean that the publisher lends its authority to the author. Similarly, just because it was a poll on the MSNBC site doesn't overrule the fact that it has no scientific validity, a fact MSNBC is quite clear about.

	--] 07:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

	:True, I added a note to that effect. We can still report on it. Another option is to move that paragraph from the "Polls" header to the "public demonstrations" header. --] 07:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

	::It's not a matter of can we, but should we? Objectively, do the results of one web poll contribute anything to the article other than a statistical outlier? --] 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::Well, I think this article in part is trying to support that a movement exists, to document it. Forgetting the ratio of the poll, that about 150,000 said "impeach" is notable. --] 08:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::In comparison to a scientifically valid poll that would imply 300M * 32% = 96 million, 150k doesn't say much. I'll move it to public demonstrations.
	--] 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
	The MSNBC poll does not really stand for the proposition that 160,000 voted to support impeachment - online polls are frequently (and easily) gamed, as partisans with access to multiple IP addresses will cast multiple votes. This should be so noted in the article. ] ] 23:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

	== additional impeachment information ==

	There's a lot of information about gwb impeachment movements in from ]. --] 20:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

	== Removed sections as original research ==

	Removed the following sections for the listed reasons:

	:*Fourteen of the nation's top constitutional scholars, from across the political spectrum, sent a legal brief to the 535 members of Congress in which they concluded that "the Bush administration's National Security Agency domestic spying program... appears on its face to violate existing law." The fourteen authors are:
	::], law professor, ], former Counselor on International Law in the State Department Legal Adviser's Office
	::], law professor, Georgetown University Law Center
	::], law professor, Duke Law School, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel and Acting Solicitor General
	::], law professor, ]
	::], law professor, ], Senior Fellow, ]
	::], law professor, ], former Deputy Attorney General
	::], law professor and Dean, ], former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ
	::], law professor, ], former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel, DOJ
	::], former Counsel to the President and Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
	::], former Director of the ] under Presidents ] and ], former Chief United States District Judge
	::], law professor and former Provost, ]
	::], law professor and former Dean, ]
	::], law professor, Harvard Law School
	::], law professor, ], former Justice Department attorney under President ]

	The legal brief makes no mention of a call to impeach GWB.

	:*], law professor and former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and federal prosecutor, has argued in articles such as "Warrantless Wiretapping: Why It Seriously Imperils the Separation of Powers, And Continues the Executive's Sapping of Power From Congress and the Courts", that "Unilateral Executive Power Is Tyranny, Plain and Simple".

	Edward Lazarus makes no mention of impeachment of GWB.

	:*], a law professor at ] and a specialist in surveillance, speaking about Bush's admission that he authorized warrantless wiretaps, was quoted on ], ] by Knight Ridder writer Ron Hutcheson, "The president’s dead wrong. It’s not a close question. Federal law is clear. When the president admits that he violated federal law, that raises serious constitutional questions of high crimes and misdemeanors.” Turley had testified against Clinton, according to an ], ] interview in Salon. "Many of my Republican friends joined in that hearing and insisted that this was a matter of defending the rule of law, and had nothing to do with political antagonism. I'm surprised that many of those same voices are silent. The crime in this case was a knowing and premeditated act. This operation violated not just the federal statute but the United States Constitution. For Republicans to suggest that this is not a legitimate question of federal crimes makes a mockery of their position during the Clinton period. For Republicans, this is the ultimate test of principle."

	Jonathan Turley makes no mention of impeachment. A president can be accused of committing "high crimes" without calling for his impeachment.

	--] 18:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

	Moved these to ]. - ] 02:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	== reasons for recent revert ==

	I've reverted the edits by Ian 2k3k

	1) A narrative account in a paragraph format is preferable to a "list of", in particular in the lead section of an article. There is no reason to turn it into a list when its allready a well-written paragraph.

	:::Yes there is. A bulleted list is easier to read than a sequence of items separated by semicolons. Point is to make things easier for the reader. ] 13:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

	:::Per the MoS, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, not a detailed point by point explanation. There is too much information in the summary section about "reasons", and nothing about other parts of the article. The whole paragraph needs to re-written - the actual section in the article about "reasons" has less detail than the summary lead section! --] 16:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

	2) POV tags have been a very contentious issue on this article. POV tags must have a corosponding talk page reason why it exists so that other editors who disagree can address it, including actionable items for its removal. See previous debates about POV tags on this page.

	--] 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

	==cleanup==
	<div class="messagebox" style="width: 28em; background: LightBlue;">
	]
	<div style="margin-left: 50px">This Article is too '''big''' Please help to make it much <font size=1><b>smaller!</b></font></div></div>--] 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:21, 10 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Efforts to impeach George W. Bush article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 20 January 2009, see discussion.
Keep, 19 October 2006, see discussion.
Keep, 7 May 2006, see discussion.
Keep, 31 July 2005, see discussion.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: District of Columbia / Presidents / Texas / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Bush family (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bush family, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Bush familyWikipedia:WikiProject Bush familyTemplate:WikiProject Bush familyBush family

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

Trump on Impeachment

"Property mogul and diehard Republican Donald Trump told CNN on Wednesday that President George W. Bush misled the US into the Iraq War and should have been impeached when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006." "Bush should have been impeached: Donald Trump". AFP. Oct 15, 2008. "Trump: I wanted Bush impeached". CNN. October 15, 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terjen (talk • contribs)

Obama

This article doesn't mention Barack Obama once. That's kind of a problem. I know WP:DOITYOURSELF or whatever, but I just don't have the time. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would it mention Obama? Soxwon (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Obama never called for the impeachment of Bush, nor even hinted at it or responded favorably to any suggestion of it, that I can find. No connection, no place in the article. bd2412 T 02:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

HUH???!!!! What does Obama have to do with any of this? And why would his not being mentioned be "kind of a problem"??!!!! This person makes no sense at all! (Yakofujimato (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

This is because Obama opposed the WAR IN IRAQ, so thusly he would've opposed Bush. The obama point looks better in his biography, though.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

OR

I feel that this article, by its very nature is OR. Without a reliable source that describes this supposed 'Movement to impeach George W. Bush' as a movement (like you might find for the '60s anti-war movement, for example) we are left to cobble together any and all calls for impeachment, which is exactly what this article does. This is clearly OR, the description of a previously undocumented 'movement'.

I think the best solution is to rename this article Efforts to impeach George W. Bush or something like that and remove anything that is not an impeachment resolution or related to an official action. Bonewah (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ] (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bush has been out of office for nearly eight months now, and yet over the weekend I saw four cars with "Impeach Bush" bumper stickers. I have no objection to renaming the article Efforts to impeach George W. Bush, but impeachment is a political process driven at least in part by the sentiments of citizens, which relates the collective expression such sentiments by citizens to whatever official action follows. bd2412 T 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I cant argue with the fact that impeachment is a political process, but that is ok, because we can easily document politics. Collective sentiment, on the other hand, is not so easy to document without performing OR. Bonewah (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That is simply inaccurate. The article never intended to prove there was a collective movement, the word movement was never being used in a collective sense, the lead section explained very clearly what the article covered. Article titles on Misplaced Pages are place holders and not meant to be taken literal. They nuance of an article title is explained in the lead section. Also, the article documented very well popular sentiment towards impeachment, this is an important part of American history that has been entirely wiped off of Misplaced Pages. Congrats. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This whole thing falls seriously short of meeting the reasonable definition of a movement. It seems as if only fringe far left political figures like Wexler, Conyers and Kuchinich were pushing this. This effort never gathered the support of mainstream liberals or Democrats, and never had a realistic chance of success. To call this ill fated distraction a "movement" is a bit much. Nobody seriously thought that this would work, nor did anyone believe that this had much support, even with skewed, questionable Canadian polls to the contrary. I've seen polls that birthers (similar crackpots to the impeachers) have commissioned that state 55% of Americans believe Obama was born in Kenya. Should we give them a 'Movement to Impeach Obama' page??? This was a bunch of far left nonsense, and was never a widespread "movement".(Yakofujimato (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

Ok I am going to request a page move (this might be controversial, so ill avoid just doing it) on or about October 16 unless anyone objects here. My proposal is to move this page to Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and narrow it's scope to only concrete impeachment actions, like Wexler, Conyers and Kuchinich's impeachment attempts. After this move I intend to remove at least the Treatment of detainees, NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, U.N. Charter and any other section not covered in the afore mentioned impeachment attempts. After that, I propose we expand the description of what was included in the impeachment attempts and describe them in more detail. Bonewah (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Check that, I will add the template today as there is a backlog of at least a few days. Bonewah (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This article was edited and fought over by thousands of people while Bush was in office, it would routinely see dozens of edits per day for years on end. Now two or three editors have basically gutted it of all its former content without much discussion because no one cares anymore that Bush is no longer President. Anyway, the material is all there in the edit history for anyone who wishes to go back and look at what this article used to be like. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What is a good date to read for a complete version? GangofOne (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This version includes more extensive coverage of local community efforts and public opinion polls. bd2412 T 17:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Is there no statute of limitations on impeachment? Like, being in office? (For the record, I think W. belongs in Gitmo, but honestly...) TREKphiler 08:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Link 1 404

Link 1 is no longer working. I will see if there is an alternate, or if not I will have to re-write most of the article.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Bonewah (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Efforts to impeach George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070214092150/http://www.startribune.com:80/587/story/960880.html to http://www.startribune.com/587/story/960880.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like this article should be renamed

This article is exclusively about one attempt to impeach GWB. The title implies there were multiple attempts. Perhaps the name should be changed?

The 'Political views and actions' section covers some other (admittedly minor) attempts at impeachment. Still, what would you propose as a name change? Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It is honestly sad that there is even a page like this, or one for Obama, or one for Trump, or any political figure where a vote never even took place, much less an impeachment itself. Creating a record of something that a few people attempted to do but were unable to achieve, with its own specific page, is an odd course of action and undeniably a by-product of the left-leaning viewpoints of Misplaced Pages that seriously tilted that way during the presidency of George W. Bush.

One could substantiate a case for a single page titled "Efforts to impeach U.S. Presidents" with some effectiveness, but it is really hard to justify the existence of any of these pages as stand alone articles, regardless of how much click-bait style articles the editors are using to source the material. Reading through the talk page on the Obama impeachment article is rather interesting, watching editors trip over themselves trying to find a way to justify both removing the Obama page, while defending the Bush or Cheney pages. I say remove them all.RTShadow (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Irrespective of the outcomes of these efforts, these pages document historical facts well-reported in reliable sources. bd2412 T 16:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Efforts to impeach George W. Bush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to rtsp://video1.c-span.org/15days/e071008_kucinich.rm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218032405/http://feralhouse.com/titles/kulchur/35_articles_of_impeachment_the.php to http://feralhouse.com/titles/kulchur/35_articles_of_impeachment_the.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029115506/http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf to http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories: